Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Applicant: Mr Mark Pearce Proposal Construction of 18 houses and associated infrastructure Site Address Crosby Meadows Estate Part Fields 320653, 324323, 324324, 324321 , 324318, 320649 & 324320 Ballaglonney Main Road Crosby IM4 2EE Case Officer : Paul Visigah Photo Taken: 11.11.2022 Site Visit: 11.11.2022 Expected Decision Level Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Approve subject to Legal Agreement Date of Recommendation 18.10.2024 Recommended Conditions and Notes (if any) - C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. - C 2. No development in connection with the development hereby approved shall be occupied/brought into use unless the Temporary Bio Disc Sewage Treatment Plant has been provided in accordance with the approved plans (Drawing No. 22/01/PL02A received 7 March - 2023). The foul and surface water drainage system[s] shall be retained thereafter in accordance with the approved scheme until such time as the Cosby Sewage Treatment works in completed and commissioned. Reason: In order to ensure that adequate drainage facilities are provided, and retained, in the interests of the amenity of the area. - C 3. Within three (3) months of completion of the Crosby Sewage Treatment works which is currently under construction, the use of the temporary Bio Disc approved for the site shall be discontinued and the 18 dwellings hereby approved shall be connected to the public sewerage network served by the Crosby Sewage Treatment Works. The connections to the public sewerage network shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: In order to ensure that adequate drainage facilities are provided, and retained, in the interests of the amenity of the area. - C 4. Notwithstanding the details that have been submitted the following highway elements shall be implemented for the development hereby approved: - a) Site access and layout to accord to Drawing No. 22 01 PL02 Rev E - Proposed Site layout - b) Boundary frontages onto the proposed adopted highway for all dwellings must be no more than 1m in height. - c) Gradients: No residential driveways shall exceed gradients of 15% for the first 5.0m. No pedestrian or cycle paths shall exceed gradients of 7% throughout the site. - d) Provision of surfacing for parking and movement areas: Prior to the first occupation of the development, private drives, driveways and associated parking areas, local centre circulation and associated parking areas shown on the approved site plan must be properly consolidated and hard surfaced and drained and maintained in good working order. - e) Completion of streets: Before any dwelling is first occupied the roads and footways shall be constructed to an appropriate level from the dwelling to the adjoining streets to ensure streets are completed prior to occupation and satisfactory development of the site. - f) Car parking for plots 33-39 as per approved site plan to be retained for the lifetime of the development. - g) Cycle sheds or secure covered parking for non-garaged dwelling units to accommodate one space per bedroom with details required for approval and provided before first occupation. - h) The proposed footpath links to the Heritage Trail and Eyremont Terrace on the approved site plan shall be completed before first occupation of the dwellings and retained thereafter. These highway elements of the proposal shall be provided in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained as such. Reason: In the interests of amenity and highway safety. - C 5. Notwithstanding the details that have been submitted, the development hereby approved shall not commence until an updated landscaping plan which includes the retention of the hedgebank and trees situated southwest of Plots 40 to 46 on the updated site plan dated 07 March 2023. The trees and hedgebank shall be retained and protected from damage or destruction during and after construction. The detailed landscape strategy shall include details of new planting including species composition (the species should be native, or other well established species), plant sizes and proposed numbers/ densities and a programme for the implementation, completion and subsequent management of the proposed landscaping. No Wildlife Act 1990 Schedule 8 nonnative invasive plant species are to be planted on site. The hard surfacing details shall include details of hard surfacing materials, site levels, and samples showing the texture and colour of the materials to be used and information about their sourcing/manufacturer. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and shall be retained as such thereafter unless changes to the landscaping have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Any additional removal must be compensated for by replacement planting in accordance with details which have first been approved in writing by the Department. Reason: To ensure that the development achieves a high standard of design, layout and amenity and makes provision for hard and soft landscaping which contributes to the creation of a high quality, accessible, safe and attractive environment. - C 6. Prior to the installation of external lighting within the site, a Lighting Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The lighting plan shall be designed in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the BCT and ILP Guidance Note 8 Bats and Artificial Lighting (12th September 2018). The lighting of the site will be designed utilising inward directed led lighting columns to provide required site illumination without creating undue light pollution. The lighting details shall include detailed drawings of the proposed lighting columns and fittings, information about the levels of luminance and daily duration and any measures for mitigating the effects of light pollution. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved plan, and shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the ecological species existing in the locality. - C 7. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a Tree Protection Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. This plan shall clearly mark out the tree protection zones on the site. Within the Construction Exclusion Zones identified on this Plan, nothing shall be stored, placed or disposed of above or below ground, the ground level shall not be altered, no excavations shall be made, no mixing of cement or use of other contaminating materials or substances shall take place, nor shall any fires be lit, without prior written consent of the Department. Reason: to ensure that all trees to be retained are adequately protected from damage to health and stability throughout the construction period, to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality. - C 8. No construction work may be undertaken on the site other than between 0800 and 1900hrs Monday to Saturday inclusive. Reason: to ensure that the living conditions of those living near the site are not adversely affected. - C 9. Prior to the installation of external finishes and materials, a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. - C 10. No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied/brought into use until the Amenity/Open Space provisions and associated landscaping, shown on the Updated Site Plan (Drawing No. 22 01 PL02 Rev E - Proposed Site layout) are completed and available for use and thereafter retained. Reason: To ensure that the Amenity and Open Space is provided in a timely manner and contributes to the creation of a high quality, accessible, safe and attractive public realm. - C 11. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved details of bin storage for the terrace of dwellings (Plots 33 to 39) approved as part of the application shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. These details shall include details of enclosure for bin storage area, capacity and type of bin storage provision. The development shall not be occupied until the bin storage area has been provided in accordance with the approved plans and shall be permanently retained thereafter and solely for the purpose of refuse storage. Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and of the amenities of the area. N 1. FOR YOUR INFORMATION Please be aware that a ban on the installation of fossil fuel heating systems in any new building(s) and or extension(s), will come into force on 1st January 2025. You therefore are encouraged to ensure that your proposed development includes alternatives to fossil fuel heating systems if you believe that such works will not be completed by that date. To this end, if you propose an alternative, such as air source or ground source heat pump(s), or any other heating system that would require planning approval, the details of this should be addressed now. This may require you to resubmit your planning application to accommodate the alternative permitted heating system proposed. Reason for approval: Overall, it is considered that the proposals align with the requirements of General Policy 2; Strategic Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10; Environment Policies 3, 4, 5 and 42; Housing Policies 1, 4, and 6; and Transport Policies 1, 4, 6 and 7; the Area Plan for the East 2020, and the Residential Design Guide 2021, as the principle of the development is in accordance with the land use designation and the wider policy framework, and the proposed buildings are of a good design and layout. Furthermore, the proposals would not have significant adverse impacts upon public or private amenities, or parking and highway safety, and therefore would comply with the relevant planning policies listed.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

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

o Manx Utilities Drainage
o Manx National Heritage
o The Roads Policing Unit of the Isle of Man Constabulary
o DOI FRM (added 21.10.24)

It is recommended that the following Government Department should not be given Interested Person Status on the basis that the submission is considered to be material;

o The Tynwald Commissioner for Administration

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter

of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2): Ballaglonney Cottage, Main Road, Crosby; Hall Caine Pavilion, Old Church Road, Crosby for Marown Memorial Playing Fields Limited; and 1 Eyremont Terrace, Crosby;

As they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status.

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2): 51 King Orry Road, Glen Vine; and Rhynefield, West Baldwin

As they are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy.

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject

matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2): 15 Cherry Tree Drive, Crosby, as they have not submitted what would be considered to be a representation as set out in the IPS Guidance. ________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS A SECTION 13 LEGAL AGREEMENT IS REQUIRED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND AS THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS MADE WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS OBJECTING TO THE APPLICATION AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PRIVATE OBJECTIONS CONTRARY TO THE RECOMMENDATION

00 UPDATE FROM PLANNING COMMITTEE ON 22ND JULY 2024
01 REVISED REPORT (UPDATED 18th OCTOBER, 2024)

01.1 OFFICER SUMMARY ON CHANGES TO SCHEME SINCE INITIALLY PRESENTED ON 8TH JULY 2024. - 01.2 The amended plans (all dated 5th September 2024 online - within "Additional Documents" and "Amendments" files) include the following;

i. Drawing No. 16-2576-600 Rev A - Proposed Part Site Plan and Sections;
ii. Drawing No. 22 01 PL02 Rev E - Proposed Site layout;
iii. Drawing No. 22 01 PL07 Rev B - Proposed Elevations;
iv. Cover Letter which details changes to the scheme, as it relates to the terrace od dwellings proposed within the scheme, and approaches take to minimize impacts on existing terrace at Plots 1 to 7, which sits east of the proposed terrace, as well as approaches to minimize impacts on the boundary of the settlement as a result of the new terrace sitting on the settlement boundary.

01.3 The applicants have also indicated that they are willing to accept the payment of the sum of £20,000.00 in lieu of the 0.5 Affordable Housing recommended by DOI Housing. This was contained in Correspondence received 16 October 2024. - 01.4 THE PROPOSAL (CHANGES)

01.4.1 The changes to the proposal include:
01.4.2 Re-aligning the terrace of dwellings (Plots 33 to 39) to align with the settlement boundary, such that the terrace of dwelling will sit within the defined settlement boundary. This would mean that the new dwellings will be closer to the existing dwellings on Plots 1 to 7.
01.4.3 Following the amendments;

i. The dwelling on Plot 39 will be 17.47m from Plot 3, and about 16.6m from Plot 2. Due to the proximity of Plot 39 from Plots 2 and 3 which is below 18m, no windows will be installed on the first floor rear elevation of Plot 39.
ii. Plot 38 will be positioned will be 19.7m from Plot 4.
iii. Plot 37 will be 20.1m from Plot 5.
iv. Plot 36 will be 20.9m from Plot 6.
v. The separating distance from Plots 33 to 35 from the adjacent terrace will be more than 21m.

- 01.5 ADDITIONAL THIRD PARTY COMMENTS/REPRESENTATIONS

01.5.1 The following private representations have been received since the publication of the amendments to the application. Full details of the comments can be viewed on the Planning Departments website:

1. Hall Caine Pavilion, Old Church Road, Crosby for Marown Memorial Playing Fields Limited (24 September, 2024):

o They state that they have reviewed the amended plans relating to the above which have recently been submitted and note that there is still the intention to install a Bio Disc, whilst stating that their concerns borders on the likelihood of this increasing the amount of bad odours wafting onto their premises which have been outlined in their letters dated 31 May 2022, 14 March 2023 & 13 February 2024.
o They state that their objection still stands and they would hope that any further development on this site will be postponed until the connection to the mains sewerage system has been completed.
o They ask that consideration should be given to the payment of a commuted sum to be paid to their charity, whilst stating that they are in the process of spending circa £50,000, which has been raised entirely through grants and donations on the children's play area which will
obviously benefit the residents of the Crosby Meadows Estate as no leisure facilities have been included in the development.

01.6 ADDITIONAL CONSULTATION COMMENTS

01.6.1 The following consultees have also made further comments since the publication of the amendments to the application:

1. DOI Highways (10 September 2024): o They state that the alterations to the redline boundary and proposed grasscrete pedestrian hardstanding route to front of the properties 33-39 is acceptable in principle providing there is a hardstanding access to properties 33-39 to the rear of the properties for mobility impaired access - this should be shown on a revised plan or conditioned on permission.
2. DOI Flood Risk Management (26 September 2024):

o They state that they are concerned that the additional/amended information does not address the course of the ditch that was shown on Drawing 520A (23/12/2022) which was agreed to as an open ditch.
o They note that the new drawings do not show how the ditch passes under the access road nor how it passes alongside properties 8, 9, 10/29 & 12/32.

3. DOI Flood Risk Management (16 October 2024):

o They request conditions as per proposed layout Drawing 22/01/PPL02 Rev E, in respect
of the ditch and culverts under the access roads.

4. Marown Parish Commissioners (3 October 2024):

o They note that in the original application it was stated that the houses would not be
occupied until they are connected to the new wastewater treatment works. o They state that all other points raised in their earlier letters remain valid.

01.7 OFFICER SUMMARY OF ISSUES SINCE 22ND JULY 2024 - 01.8 At the Planning Committee Meeting on 22 July 2024, the Planning Officer revised the recommendation to approve the application, and recommended refusal on the following grounds:

i. The changes to the proposed site boundaries which was raised by the owner/occupier from 1 Eyremont Terrace, Crosby had occurred subsequent to the adoption of the Area Plan. As such, the proposal would be contrary to the Area Plan for the East which required that development in Crosby should maintain the existing settlement character, as the Area Plan will

define the development boundaries of this settlement so as to maintain their existing character (See paragraph 2.3.3). Reference was also made to the Area Plan Inspector's report with particular regard to the section regarding site boundaries (Paragraphs 19 to 22, and 394 to 404).
ii. The shortfall of 0.5 units of affordable housing provision would be contrary to Housing Policy 5.

01.9 The Members of the Planning Committee also requested that the area of the proposal site currently designated as agricultural land be checked against the Agricultural Land Use Capacity Map in order to determine its value as agricultural land. - 01.10 UPDATE ON THE ISSUES

01.10.1 Conflicts with Settlement boundary

01.10.1.1 The Department raised some concern with this proposal in terms of conflicts with the approved settlement boundary as shown on the Area Plan for the East, which would mean that the development would conflict with the provisions of Spatial Policy 4 which requires that developments in the village of Crosby should maintain the existing settlement character, given that the Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such settlements so as to maintain their existing character.
01.10.1.2 Whilst there were initial disagreements over what constitutes the defined settlement boundary, the applicants have now provided revised plans which re-aligned the development, such that the key area of contention Plots 33 to 39 would now sit within the defined settlement boundary. This would ensure that there would be no conflict with Spatial Policy 4, thus the development is now considered to not be in conflict with the existing settlement character.
01.10.1.3 It is noted that part of the footpath in front of the proposed terrace will sit outwit the settlement boundary, however, the proportion of the footpath which would sit just outside the settlement boundary is not such that would warrant refusal of the proposal. Besides, the applicants have indicated that the new footpath in front (northwest) of the terrace would be made of grasscrete, which would serve to soften its impacts and enable a softer transition between the built development and the adjoining field, and this is considered to not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape and townscape (GP 2 c).

01.10.2 Potential Impacts on Neighbours

01.10.2.1 The re-alignment of the terrace of properties has sought to overcome concerns with the development sitting outside the defined settlement boundary. However, these changes bring the development closer to the terrace of dwellings at Plots 1 to 7, with there being an increased potential for overlooking to result for Plots 2 and 3 that would sit about 16.6m and 17.47m respectively from Plot 39. However, it is not considered that this impact would be so adverse as to result in refusal of the development given that although the distances would be less than 20m (which is considered to be the acceptable distance where privacy concerns are considered to be diminished), Plot 39 be located just under the general 20 metres threshold considered acceptable within the Residential Design Guide 2021 between directly facing windows. Besides, no windows are proposed for the first floor of this dwelling, such that there would be elevated views towards Plots 2 and 3. Moreover, a fence would be erected on the boundary with the footpath at a height of 1.8m which would screen every view from the ground floor windows on this property and its neighbours. As well, tree planting is proposed to the eastern side of the footpath which would serve to soften the boundary with the properties on plots 1 to 7, whilst serving to further screen these properties from the first floor windows proposed for the rear of Plots 34 to 38, although it is considered that the separating distance between these properties (33 to 37) would ensure that overlooking does not result.

01.10.3 Agricultural Land Value

01.10.3.1 On this matter, the Agricultural land use capability of the adjoining field which is shown in The Agricultural Soils of the Isle of Man 2001 document was reviewed, and this shows the site to fall within Class 3 Soils Classification, which would mean that the soils within the adjoining field are of Class 3 land characteristics which can be summarised as land with moderate limitations which restrict the choice of crops and/or demand careful management. Given that the affected land area is not Class 1 or 2, it is considered that the proposal would not impact on high quality agricultural soils.

01.10.3.2 Further to the above, only a miniscule portion of the field (less than 10sqm) of the adjoining field would be covered by the new grasscrete footpath. As such, it is considered that the proposal will not result in the loss of versatile agricultural soil, and the section of the Class 3 soil impacted is also not of a scale to be considered significant.

01.10.4 Shortfall in Affordable Housing

01.10.4.1 The decision by the applicants to provide the sum of £20,000.00 which was recommended by DOI Housing in lieu of the shortfall of 0.5 units of affordable housing addresses the shortfall in affordable housing provision. Accordingly, it is considered that the scheme as now proposed accords with Housing Policy 5.

01.10.4.2 For information, 5 units of affordable housing provision would be provided on site, while the sum provided would substitute for the shortfall of 0.5 affordable housing units.

01.10.4.3 Given the above, a Section 13 Legal Agreement will need to be agreed with regard to affordable housing provision, should the scheme be approved as proposed by the applicants.

01.10.5 Other Matters Flooding

01.10.5.1 Post consideration of the application by the Planning Committee on 22 July 2024, DOI Flood Risk Management had raised concerns regarding which was to be proposed on site, and which they considered was not adequately represented on the submitted plans. Following discussions with the applicants, and review of the amended plans submitted on 5 September 2024, the have requested that the development be carried out in accordance with the proposed layout Drawing 22/01/PPL02 Rev E, in respect of the ditch and culverts under the access roads. Therefore, it is considered that any concerns with site flooding/flooding of the area has been addressed within the scheme. A condition would, however, be imposed to ensure that the construction of the drainage ditch is integral to the development of the site. Suggested Condition: "No development in connection with the development hereby approved shall be occupied/brought into use unless the proposed surface water drainage system[s], including the course of the drainage ditch which was agreed to as an open ditch, have been provided in accordance with the approved plans Drawing No. 22/01/PPL02 Rev E (Proposed Site Plan).

The surface water drainage system[s] shall be permanently retained thereafter in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To ensure that there would be adequate infrastructure in place for the disposal of surface water arising from the development in an area." Further Highway Matters

01.10.5.2 With regard to the highlighted footpath issues which DOI Highways referred to when commenting on the proposed grasscrete pedestrian hardstanding route to front of the properties 33-39, where they stated that the principle of providing the grasscrete footpath would be acceptable providing there is a hardstanding access to properties 33-39 to the rear of the properties for mobility impaired access, it would be vital to note that the scheme includes a separate path via the rear of the terrace, which would not have grasscrete over, and would be

available as a mobility impaired access to the dwellings. This is shown on drawing No. 22/01/PL02 Rev E, and as such, no further plans would be required to address this concern.

Commuted sums for Neighbouring Site

01.10.5.3 The comments made by occupants of Hall Caine Pavilion, Old Church Road, Crosby for Marown Memorial Playing Fields regarding the payment of a commuted sum to be paid to their charity with regard to their playing fields which would be available to occupants of the proposed dwelling is noted. However, there is no requirement for offsite open space provisions within the scheme due to the scheme providing amenity and open space areas within the site. As such, it is not considered that there are any basis for such requirement within the application.

- 01.11 INTERESTED PARTY STATUS

01.11.1 The key change to the IPS recommendations detailed in the Officer Report which was presented to the Planning Committee on 5 July 2024 is as follows: It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations: o DOI Flood Risk Management
01.11.2 Therefore the Interested Person Status (IPS) recommendations would be as follows: It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:

o Manx Utilities Drainage
o Manx National Heritage
o The Roads Policing Unit of the Isle of Man Constabulary
o DOI Flood Risk Management

It is recommended that the following Government Department should not be given Interested Person Status on the basis that the submission is considered to be material;

o The Tynwald Commissioner for Administration

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter

of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
o Ballaglonney Cottage, Main Road, Crosby;
o Hall Caine Pavilion, Old Church Road, Crosby for Marown Memorial Playing Fields Limited; and
o 1 Eyremont Terrace, Crosby; As they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status.

o 51 King Orry Road, Glen Vine; and
o Rhynefield, West Baldwin As they are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy.

15 Cherry Tree Drive, Crosby, as they have not submitted what would be considered to be a representation as set out in the IPS Guidance.

- 01.12 RECOMMENDATION

01.12.1 The recommendation is for approval in that overall, the application is considered to be acceptable as the benefits offered by the proposed development are considered to outweigh the drawbacks. The application is recommended for approval subject to the prior signing of a Section 13 Agreement to secure: o The provision of 5 units of the Terrace of Dwellings (Plots 34 to 38) as on-site Affordable Housing provision, and the provision of a commuted sum of £20,000 in lieu of the shortfall of 0.5 Units of Affordable Housing Provision.
01.12.2 Reason for Approval: Overall, it is considered that the proposals align with the requirements of General Policy 2; Strategic Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10; Environment Policies 3, 4, 5 and 42; Housing Policies 1,

4, and 6; and Transport Policies 1, 4, 6 and 7; the Area Plan for the East 2020, and the Residential Design Guide 2021, as the principle of the development is in accordance with the land use designation and the wider policy framework, and the proposed buildings are of a good design and layout. Furthermore, the proposals would not have significant adverse impacts upon public or private amenities, or parking and highway safety, and therefore would comply with the relevant planning policies listed.

0.13 The remainder of this report is unchanged. Any further representations received or any other information will be confirmed via verbal update to the committee.

0.0 PREAMBLE - 0.1 This application was considered by the Committee on the 8 July 2024 and deferred for a site visit. The site visit is scheduled for 18 July 2024. - 0.2 The following additional Planning Policy (Not Referenced in Main Report) have been considered to be relevant:

0.2.1 Inspectors Report for the Area Plan for the East

0.2.1.1 Paragraphs 19 to 22: "19 The Strategic Plan lists Crosby, Glen Vine, Strang, Baldrine and Newtown as villages which

rely on other centres for various services, and where development should be of an appropriate scale to meet just local needs. Paragraph 3.4.5 of the draft Area Plan sets out a vision for these villages. The Schedule of Proposed Changes (PIP5) suggests that '… In the smaller settlements … there will be some strategic reserve sites to ensure the long-term development of communities with the right services …'. I consider such speculation about events beyond the period covered by the present development plan to be unwarranted, and see no immediate need for the extension of these villages beyond their present physical limits."

20. I recommend that paragraph 3.4.5 of the Area Plan be modified to read as follows: 9 The majority of these new homes will be located in Douglas and Onchan (making the best use of existing urban areas and previously developed land) and in sustainable extensions to those settlements. The focus will be on high-quality and well-designed housing, supported by the right infrastructure (including educational and health care provision, open space and recreational opportunities, and adequate transport and utility services). The existing character of the smaller settlements around Douglas and Onchan will largely be retained.

Development Boundaries of Settlements
21. The Spatial Policies in the Strategic Plan provide that Area Plans will define the 'development boundaries' of the specified service centres and villages. Although the draft Area Plan Proposals Maps show Existing Settlement Boundaries for Douglas, Onchan, Laxey, Union Mills, Strang, Crosby, Glen Vine, Baldrine and Newtown, these boundaries exclude areas that are proposed for development in sustainable urban extensions. In my view, the required development boundaries should include these areas (which are recognised as being suitable for immediate development). However, they should exclude Strategic Reserve Sites, until the mechanism for the release of such sites is engaged. Pending their release, the Strategic Reserve Sites are to be subject to General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan, which would preclude their development (except in certain specified and limited circumstances).
22. I recommend that the Area Plan Proposals Maps show the development boundaries of the relevant settlements identified in Chapter 4 of the Strategic Plan, drawn to include sustainable urban extensions, but excluding Strategic Reserve Sites."

0.2.1.2 Site MM001 - Land at Ballaglonney Farm, Crosby "394 Site MM001 consists of about 22ha of agricultural land. It lies to the south-west of Peel Road (A1) adjacent to, but outside, the Existing Settlement Boundary of Crosby. The built-up area of Crosby extends to the north-east of the site, on the opposite side of the A1. To the southeast, the site is bounded by land which is currently being developed with 28 dwellings and two retail units (Site MH021); and by the Marown Memorial Playing Fields. The site's southern boundary is marked by the Heritage Trail, a long distance footpath and cycleway that runs between Douglas and Peel. Beyond this there is open countryside, which includes an area of wetlands adjacent to the River Dhoo. Open countryside also extends to the north-west of Site MM001. The draft Area Plan proposes Site MM001 as a Strategic Reserve Site. Objections

395. Ellis Brown promoted the eventual use of Site MM001 for mixed development, to include facilities for sports and outdoor recreation, as well as residential development. They argued that parts of this site should be allocated for immediate development, as Phase 1 of a comprehensive scheme for the whole area. Phase 1 would include the erection of 20 houses immediately to the south of the existing construction site (Site MH021); and a new football pitch on land between those houses and the Heritage Trail. It would also include the provision of new sheltered housing and a care home, facing Peel Road, to the north-west of Site MH021. The remainder of Site MM001 would be retained as a strategic reserve, eventually to be developed with a further 80 dwellings, together with a sports pitch and amenity areas.
396. The Marown Parish Commissioners were opposed to the development of Site MM001, including its retention as a strategic reserve. They referred to the prospect of increased traffic congestion; inadequacies in the local sewage treatment system; problems of access to Marown Primary School; visual intrusion; and impact on the ecology of the adjoining wetlands. Marown Memorial Playing Fields Ltd also objected to the development of this land. Inspector's Conclusions
397. I do not consider there to be a strong case for the extension of the built-up area of Cosby in the foreseeable future. This village is listed in Spatial Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan as being on the lowest level of the hierarchy of settlements in the East. That policy states that development here '… should maintain the existing settlement character, and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing …'. It seems to me that, taken together with proposals for other strategic reserve sites at the edge of Crosby, the development of Site MM001 would result in a dramatic change in the character of this small settlement, effectively doubling the size of its built-up area. The development would be at the expense of an area of existing countryside and would be likely to have a substantial impact on the local scene.

398. I have seen no quantitative assessment of the need for additional housing in Crosby. I note that, during the plan period, approval has been granted for the erection of 28 additional dwellings at Ballaglonney Farm, which are now under construction. That development will increase Crosby's housing stock by around 10%. I consider that any greater provision of housing would be likely to be disproportionate in relation to local need.
399. I recognise that there is likely to be a need to make additional provision of specialised accommodation for elderly people in the East, in the form of sheltered housing, care homes and nursing homes. However, it seems to me that such provision could be made in general housing areas, and that sufficient land to meet the general need for housing land could be made available elsewhere, particularly in or near to Douglas. Paragraph 5.9 of the Strategic Plan states that the focus for development in the East will continue to be in and around Douglas.
400. I understand that it would not be possible to connect Site MM001 to the public sewerage system before 2022. That must also tell against the immediate development of this land.
401. The DESC has drawn my attention to the access and traffic congestion problems at the Marown Primary School in Glen Vine. Children living in the proposed housing on Site MM001 could cycle or walk to that school, using the Heritage Trail. However, in view of the distance to be covered, and the age of the children in question, I doubt that many of them would do so. It seems to me that the provision of additional family housing in Crosby would add to the existing access problems at the school.
402. I acknowledge that there is a deficiency in the provision of recreational open land (including sports pitches) in Marown. However, the proposed sports pitches on Site MM001 would not be provided without a substantial amount of enabling residential development, which in my view, would be inappropriate.
403. I have seen no technical evidence to indicate that the development of site MM001 would adversely affect any designated site of importance for nature conservation. However, on balance, I do not consider this site to be suitable for allocation, either for immediate development or as a strategic reserve.
404. I recommend against the allocation of Site MM001 in the Area Plan, either for immediate development or as a strategic reserve."

0.3 At the 8 July 2024 meeting, the owners/occupiers of 1 Eyremont Terrace raised issues regarding the development extending beyond the village boundaries as agreed by Tynwald. This has been reviewed through the creation of an overlay map which clearly shows that large sections of the site area includes land over and beyond that which was considered to sit within the approved settlement boundary and area zoned for residential development on the Area Plan for the East (map 10). The overlay map shows large parts of the terrace of dwellings, as well as one of the dwellings approved under PA 20/01511/B to be situated outside the settlement boundary and area zoned for development. There was also evidence that part of the southwest boundary which extends beyond the position of the dwellings proposed would sit is also outside the approved boundaries. Hence, these are considered to weigh against the development. - 0.4 It is also apparent on the Area Plan for the East (Map 10 Crosby and Glen Vine) that the land south of the approved residential area and for which open space provisions are proposed is not zoned for development and sits outside the settlement boundary. However, the nature of works proposed here which is mainly for the management of drainage and landscaping to provide amenity areas is not judged to be such that would warrant refusal of the scheme, particularly as previous appeal decisions for the broader site area had considered such works to be acceptable in the area (See Paragraphs 47 & 48 of the Inspectors Report for PA 17/00852/B). For context 3055sqm of the proposed 3607sqm of Open space provision sits in the open countryside, and on land not zoned for development (84.6% of the total provision).

0.5 Other comments raised by the occupants/owners of 1 Eyremont Terrace, Crosby refer to the Area Plan for the East Inspectors Report, with particular emphasis placed on the inspectors comments that additional housing was not required at Crosby. However, it would be vital to state that the TAPE Inspectors Report noted that the residential development at the current Crosby Meadow Estate was already under construction with the potential to increase housing in Crosby. Moreover, the final document which includes the Crosby settlement Map include the land housing the 28 dwellings that were under construction as well as most of the land under which the current scheme seeks to erect the 18 dwellings. Hence, it is not considered that the development of the application site is at variance with the Final Area Plan documents. - 0.6 Reference was also made to 'wind fall' development at the site. However, it should be noted that the current site is not a windfall site nor reserve site where it is expected that future development should be reliant upon increased housing demand, but a site actually zoned for residential development on the Area Plan. As such, these references bear no relevance to the current application site. In fact, the reference to windfall was only made in the Inspectors Report when making reference to the land at Site MH023 - Ballagarey Nurseries, Glen Vine, which does not include the application site. It is also worth noting that sites MM001 and MH001 which the Inspectors report refers mainly to when referencing future development in Crosby do not include the areas for proposed for the new housing under the current scheme. - 0.7 With reference to the comments made by the applicants that the houses were much the same as those already approved, and that the affordable housing units being a mirror to those existing, it would be vital to further reiterate that the scheme as proposed would amount to a shortfall of 0.5 housing units which should be provided as a commuted sum in lieu of the affordable units. This is hinged on the fact that the 18 housing units proposed under the current scheme (PA 22/00475/B), and the four housing units approved under PA 20/01511/B, where condition 4 applied at appeal required that "No development shall take place on the remainder of Field 320653 (which forms part of the application site) until a scheme for the provision of affordable housing has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department", should provide 5.5 units of affordable housing which is 25% of the total of 22 units. Hence, the shortfall of 0.5 housing units weighs against the application. - 0.8 It was noted that DOI Flood Risk Management were omitted in the assessment of Interested Person Status. However, they should be included to have IPS on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations. - 0.9 Overall, it is considered that the inclusion of areas of surrounding countryside not zoned for development in the proposed development area, the fact that about 84% of the open space provision sit within the open countryside, and the fact that there would be a shortfall of 0.5 units of affordable housing together weigh against the application.

THE REMAINDER OF THIS REPORT IS UNALTERED FROM PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING ON THE 8TH JULY 2024.

ORIGINAL REPORT

- 1.0 THE SITE

1.1 The application comprises Part Fields 320653, 324323, 324324, 324321, 324318, 320649 & 324320, which exists as part of the part Crosby Meadows Estate, Ballaglonney, Main Road, Crosby, which lies on the south western corner of the crossroads in the heart of Crosby village and rises from the stream which abuts the children's play area, Marown Parish Commissioners' offices and Hall Caine Pavilion, bowling green, BMX track and sports pitches.

1.2 To the south west of the site is the Heritage Trail which follows the route of a former railway line and cuts through the southern sections of the site. To the west of the entire site area are agricultural fields which sit outside the settlement boundary and forms part of the surrounding countryside. The site northern boundary of the site extends to the south of the A1 (Peel Road). A watercourse which feeds into the River Dhoo runs along large sections of the southern boundary of the site, which the existing dwellings at the Crosby Meadow Estate forming the boundary with the remaining eastern sections of the site to the north. - 2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Planning approval is sought for Construction of 18 houses and associated infrastructure. The scheme would comprise of a mix of dwelling types which includes a terrace of dwellings, private detached housing that are a mixture of 3 bedroom and 4 bed houses, and 3 bed dormer bungalows.

2.2 The proposal includes a total of five dwelling layouts:

a. Types 5 A & B - three bedroom dormer bungalow (Plots 40, 47 - 50);
b. Type IC - Two storey four bedroom detached dwelling with integral garage (Plots 41-43, and 46);
c. Type 4B - Two storey four bedroom detached dwelling with integral garage (Plot 45);
d. Type 4C - Two storey four bedroom detached dwelling with integral garage (Plot 44);
e. 2 and 3 Bed Terrace houses (Plots 33 - 39).

2.3 Plots 34 to 38 (five 2 bedroomed mid-terrace dwellings) which exist as part of the terrace of dwellings would serve as housing for first-time buyers, with the other dwelling units indicated as plots 33, 39 and 40 to 50 offering 13 additional dwellings on site.

2.4 All the new dwellings will have at least two off road parking spaces, and additional storage for bikes will be provided by sheds to the garden spaces of plots 33 to 40 and 47 to 50. The bin store to plots 33 to 39 is located in the car park area for these houses and 15 car spaces 2.6m x 5m have also been provided (which is an excess of 1 parking space). Access to and from the site will be via a new access which would be connected to the existing access road which links to the A1 (Peel Road). - 2.5 Foul drainage and surface water from the dwellings on site would be discharged via a temporary Bio Disc sewage treatment plant sited on Plot 50 pending completion of the DOI Sewage Treatment Works at Crosby, then connected to the Crosby Works when it is completed and commissioned. - 2.6 Amenity space of 552sqm has been indicated around plots 33 to 39 and also connects to the footpath at Peel Road giving an alternative route through the development. There is also an area of amenity space to the south of the development of 3055sqm, which also encompasses the balancing pond and has been shown with a mixture of trees which will form part of a landscaped area. This calculation does not include the area of land occupied by the dry pond. - 2.7 The applicants note in their Cover Letter that the calculated amenity space requirement is 1152sqm, but the amenity space allocation has been deliberately oversized to allow for further development on the site and that this would utilise this area as part of any future development. They also note that amenity space to the south is well connected to the Heritage trail and integrates with the existing footpath link to Peel Road, as well as the retail area within the estate, and the Cricket Pitch/Football pitch to the Memorial Playing Fields. They further state that the rear of Numbers 40 to 46 is a minimum of 20m distance away at the nearest point to any of the houses on Cherry Tree Drive and many are at least 27m away, and as such the proposals comply with space separation guidelines. - 2.8 The Plans show a balancing pond which is the subject of another application under PA

21/00724/B and as such is not assessed as part of the current application.

- 3.0 PLANNING POLICY

3.1 Site Specific:

3.1.1 The site of the proposed housing development is zoned as 'Predominantly Residential Use' on the Area Plan for the East Map 10 (Crosby and Glen Vine), and the site is not within a Conservation Area. There are no registered trees on site, and the site is largely not within a Registered tree area, although a small tip of the southern section of the site sits within a Registered Tree Area. The site is largely not prone to flood risks, with only the southern tip where no development is proposed siting within a high flood risk zone.

3.2 Area: Area Plan for the East

3.2.1 Section 12.2: Strategic Plan Implementation "12.2.1 The overall focus of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan is to encourage the development of sustainable communities. This approach strives to create places where people want to live and work and where new development has been integrated well with more established communities. These places should have the right infrastructure and facilities and fit well in the landscape. They should be served by public transport and other local services and offer a range and mix of housing types and tenures. Where new development does take place, it should be designed and laid out to reduce and mitigate the impacts of introducing additional built development within or on the edge of established Island communities.

12.2.2 The Island Spatial Strategy (ISS) promotes a 'Sustainable Vision' for the Island, part of which forms a framework describing where new development should be located. In terms of the East, this means that development should be concentrated, at an appropriate scale, in Douglas (Main Centre), Onchan (Service Centre), Union Mills and Laxey (Service Villages) and the five Villages of Crosby, Glen Vine, Baldrine, Strang and Newtown."

3.2.2 Paragraph 12.9.2 On Grey Infrastructure: "iv. The planned investment in sewerage in relation to Laxey, Baldrine, Crosby and Glen Vine could be sized to accommodate additional housing growth. There is some headroom capacity

available at the Meary Veg Waste Water Treatment Facility. Expansion of Meary Veg is possible (including the network connecting areas to it), and so funding and timescale issues could be explored to enable growth in areas in and around Douglas and Onchan."

3.3 National: STRATEGIC PLAN

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

a. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations
b. General Policy 4 - Section 13 Legal Agreements
c. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources
d. Strategic Policy 2 - Development focussed in existing towns and villages
e. Strategic Policy 3 - Development to safeguard character of existing towns and villages and to avoid coalescence.
f. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact
g. Strategic Policy 10 - Sustainable transport
h. Strategic Policy 11 - Housing needs.
i. Spatial Policy 4 - Need to new development to maintain the existing settlement character, be of appropriate scale (local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities).
j. Environment Policy 4 - Protection of species and habitats.
k. Environment Policy 5 - Mitigation against damage to or loss of habitats.
l. Environment Policy 10 and 13 - Development and flood risk
m. Environment Policy 42 - Designed to respect the character and identity of the locality.
n. Housing Policy 1 - Housing needs
o. Housing Policy 2 - Adequate supply of housing through Area Plans
p. Housing Policy 3 - Provision of 2,440 homes in East area during 2011-2026 plan period.

q. Housing Policy 4 - New Housing to defined existing towns.
r. Housing Policy 5 - 25% Affordable homes requirement.
s. Housing Policy 6 - Residential development to be undertaken in accordance with development brief or Paragraph 6.2 of Plan.
t. Recreational Policy 3 - Requirement for landscaped amenity areas.
u. Recreational Policy 4 - Requirement for public open space.
v. Transport Policy 1 - Proximity to existing public transportation services.
w. Transport Policy 2 - Layouts to link to existing systems
x. Transport Policy 3 - Seek to protect the historic rail routes around the Island.
y. Transport Policy 4 - Highway Safety
z. Transport Policy 6 - Equal weight for vehicles and pedestrians
aa. Transport Policy 7 - Parking Provisions
bb. Infrastructure Policy 1 - Development to take place in areas which will be connected to the IRIS drainage system
cc. Infrastructure Policy 5 - Water conservation and management
dd. Energy Policy 2 - Guides development on land within 9m either side of an overhead High Tension power cable.
ee. Energy Policy 5 - Requirement for Energy Impact Assessment
ff. Community Policy 7 - Designing out criminal and anti-social behaviour
gg. Community Policy 10 - Proper access for firefighting appliances
hh. Community Policy 11 - Prevention for the outbreak and spread of fire.

- 4.0 OTHER MATTERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Residential Design Guidance 2021 4.1.1 This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction. Section 2.0 on Sustainable Construction, Section 5 on Architectural Details, and 7.0 on Impact on Neighbouring Properties, are considered relevant to the current application. - 4.2 IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025 seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary. Section 21 deals with Habitat loss actions through promoting a policy of 'no net loss' for semi-natural Manx habitats and species and to ensure that unavoidable loss is replaced or effectively compensated for. - 4.3 Section 68 of the Flood Risk Management Act (2013) indicates that any published Flood Risk Management Plan and the extent to which the proposed development creates an additional flood risk are material considerations.

5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The broader site has been the subject of the following previous planning applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of the current application:

5.2 PA 17/00852/B for Erection of 28 residential units and retail unit with associated parking and landscaping - Approved. The application was the subject of an appeal where it was approved. - 5.3 PA 18/00329/REM for Reserved Matters application for the construction of retail unit with associated parking (relating to PA 15/00775/A). This was initially refused by the Planning Committee, but approved at Appeal. This proposal relates mainly to the 28 dwellings and retail area which are now completed.

5.4 PA 18/00339/REM for Reserved Matters application for the construction of retail unit with associated parking (relating to PA 15/00775/A). This was initially refused by the Planning Committee, but approved at Appeal.

5.5 PA 20/01511/B for Erection of four detached dwellings. This was initially refused by the Planning Committee, but approved at Appeal.

5.5.1 The Appeal Inspector in recommending approval for the application made the following comments: "Affordable housing

31 Housing Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan states that in granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development, the Department will normally require that 25% of the provision should be made up of affordable housing. However, this policy applies only to developments of eight dwellings or more dwellings.
32 The appellants' present proposal makes no provision for affordable housing. However, since it is for only four new dwellings, it would not breach the terms of Housing Policy 5. Consequently, I do not consider that the lack of provision for affordable housing constitutes grounds for the refusal of planning approval in the present case.
33 Nevertheless, the remaining undeveloped part of Field 320653, which is now zoned for residential development, clearly has the potential to provide many more than eight dwellings. In my view, it would be wrong to permit the development of this land to proceed in a series of small schemes, so as to evade the requirement to provide affordable housing that would otherwise apply. In the circumstances, I consider that, if the present appeal is allowed, it would be appropriate to impose a condition to the effect that any dwellings now approved would count together with the number provided on the remaining undeveloped part of Field 320653, in assessing the requirement for affordable housing. Thus, if 16 further dwellings were to be approved in Field 320653, the aggregate (including four on the present appeal site) would be 20 dwellings, giving a requirement for 5 affordable units (25% of the total). I note that the remainder of Field 320653 is now under the control of the applicant, and that Section 10(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 makes specific provision for planning conditions to regulate the development of any land under the control of the applicant. Open space
34 Similar considerations arise in relation to the provision of open space. Recreation Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan states that 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 of that Plan. However, since the present scheme is for fewer than ten dwellings, that requirement does not apply. Accordingly, I do not consider that the lack of public open space provision constitutes grounds for refusing planning approval in the present case.
35 Nevertheless, the undeveloped part of Field 320653, which is now zoned for residential development, clearly has the potential to provide many more than ten dwellings. In my view, it would be wrong to permit the development of this land to proceed in a series of small schemes, so as to evade the requirement to provide recreational and amenity open space, which would otherwise apply. In the circumstances, I consider that, if the present appeal is allowed, it would be appropriate to impose a condition to the effect that any dwellings now approved would count together with the number provided on the remaining undeveloped part of Field 320653, in assessing the requirement for recreational and 8 amenity space. I do not consider that open space previously provided to serve the Crosby Meadows estate should reduce the additional need that would be generated by the development of the newly allocated land in the remainder of Field 320653, which would be entirely separate from Crosby Meadows."

5.5.2 The following conditions which were imposed are considered relevant in the determination of the current application:

Condition 4: "No development shall take place on the remainder of Field 320653 until a scheme for the provision of affordable housing has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The four dwellings hereby approved shall be counted in the calculation of the affordable housing requirement arising from the development of the remainder of Field 320653, in accordance with Housing Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. The development of the remainder of Field 320653 shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To ensure that additional residential development within the remainder of Field 320653 includes affordable housing In accordance with Strategic Plan policy."
Condition 5: "No development shall take place on the remainder of Field 320653 until a scheme for the provision of public open space has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The four dwellings hereby approved shall be counted in the calculation of the public open space requirement arising from the development of the remainder of Field 320653, in accordance with Recreation Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. The development of the remainder of Field 320653 shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To ensure that additional residential development within the remainder of Field 320653 includes public open space in accordance with Strategic Plan policy."

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

6.1 DOI Housing have stated that the 5 affordable units (5 x 2B) numbered plots 34-38 are acceptable and therefore there will be no Commuted Sum in this instance. They note that the Applicant's letter of 12th August 2022 confirms this provision and the specific plot numbers (3 June 2024).

6.1.1 DOI Housing has made the following additional comments on the application (1 July

2024):

o We submitted a Memorandum on behalf of the Department on 6th May 2022 noting that as the application was for eighteen homes then the Department would request that 4.5 units (25% of the total in the application) be affordable, as we have need for affordable housing. The 4.5 units would be four dwellings and one half of a Commuted Sum in lieu of an affordable dwelling. Our understanding is that for any application with residential units in excess of seven then 25% are requested to be affordable as long as there is demonstrable need for such. This is the approach we take with all applications.
o Subsequent to that memorandum, we submitted a note on 3rd June 2024 after you had informed us that the number of affordable homes being offered by the applicant was in fact five units, number 34-38 on the application site plan and schematic layout. We confirmed that if this was being offered by the applicant then we would of course accept five units if that is what the applicant wished to include.
o We understand that the applicant has now confirmed that the number of affordable units is actually 4.5 and that the original application drawing is incorrect. As previously stated 4.5 is acceptable as this number equates to 25% of the total contained in the application.
o You have noted that in a previous appeal decision in respect of Application 20/01511/B the Inspector requested that any future application in respect of this site should take account of the four dwellings approved in that Appeal decision, and this would increase the number of affordable units to 5.5 so that the AHU allowance for this application would be in respect of 22 dwellings. However, this action has not been taken through this application, and accordingly we have based our suggested number solely upon the number of dwellings in this application

22/00475/B, which would ordinarily be correct. o The original application for the first phase of Ballaglonney six years ago was for 28 units, of which seven were specified as affordable units and sold to first time buyers in the normal way. No doubt the decision on the way forward in this case will be taken by the Committee, but this subject application for eighteen units has been assessed by the Department as being a site yielding 25% affordable dwellings, viz. 4.5 units.

6.2 DOI Highways Division have indicated that they do not oppose (DNOC) the application subject to conditions that address eight (8) Highway matters (28 June 2024).

6.3 DOI Highways Drainage have requested for additional information to demonstrate how surface water runoff from the proposed estate roads will be prevented from draining onto the existing bonded estate roads of Phase 1 of the development. They also state that the Phase 1 estate roads are unlikely to be adopted (19 December 2023).

6.4 The Roads Policing Unit of the Isle of Man Constabulary have raised concerns which border on the following (20 may 2022):

a. Narrow road, which encourages people to park on pavements;
b. Lack of parking in the area;
c. No current road markings;
d. Lack of safe pedestrian access to Heritage Trail.

6.5 Manx Utilities Drainage have made the following comments on the application (10 May 2024):

o They state that the construction of 18 houses on this development will require a separate method of wastewater treatment due to Manx Utilities existing Crosby Wastewater treatment works being under construction.
o They note that the applicant has provided details of a standalone treatment works proposed to be utilised until such time as foul flows can be accepted into the public sewerage network, whilst stating that the expected completion/commissioning date of Manx Utilities Sewage Treatment Works will be April 2025.
o They state that MU will not consider adoption of the proposed standalone treatment work serving this development with the applicant operating and maintaining the works, and note that the applicant will be required to apply for a discharge licence from the Environmental Protection Unit at DEFA.
o They have advised the applicant to discuss the frequency and procedure to de-sludge the standalone treatment works with Manx Utilities in order that future odours are minimised, whilst noting that suitable access would need to be provided for MU tankers to undertake such desludging operations.
o They state that the proposed section of foul sewer/connection from the FMH08 on the development site through the public foul sewer on Old Church Road will not be permitted to become live until such times as Manx Utilities have fully commissioned the new Crosby Sewage Treatment Works.
o They state that once foul flows have been accepted into the public sewerage network, the standalone treatment works can be decommissioned.
o They state that if the applicant wishes for the foul and surface water sewers to be publically adopted a section 8 adoption agreement must be entered into prior to any development commencing on site.
o They state that if the applicant wishes for the proposed surface water attenuation basin to be publically adopted, full construction details along with land conveyance details must be provided to Manx Utilities with any subsequent adoption request.
o They provide an advisory regarding drainage connection fees.

6.6 DOI Flood Risk Management have made the following comments on the application:

6.6.1 They state that they do not oppose the application (20 June 2022).

6.6.2 They refer to issues bordering on redirected watercourse around the site and ask that the application be deferred in order to allow you the time to address these matters (25 July 2022).
6.6.3 They state that they have requested information with regard to the drainage ditch from the main road to the attenuation pond whilst noting that they will be unable to comment further until this information has been received and reviewed (23 January 2023)

6.6.4 They state that they have reviewed the information provided by the applicant and are satisfied that the applicant has addressed the concerns of the flood risk (9 February 2023).
6.6.5 Following review of additional information provided by the applicants they asked for additional information regarding culverting of the watercourse that runs along the eastern boundary of the site, and issues bordering on management of the watercourse once development is complete. The also asked for additional information regarding the attenuation pond for the site, but which is not the subject of the current application (24 February 2023).
6.6.6 Since the DOI FRM's latest comments were received, the applicants have provided information from DOI FRM dated 15 April 2024 which indicates that the issues on the water course have been addressed (28 June 2024).
6.7 DEFA EPU has made the following comments regarding the application:

6.7.1 Comments made on 15 February 2024:

a. They note that the Manx Utilities Crosby sewage treatment works upgrade has commenced, and that it is expected for the foul water from this proposal and the existing properties at Crosby Meadows to be connected to the Manx Utilities infrastructure once completed and the existing sewage treatment works decommissioned.
b. They note that information on a temporary sewage treatment works has been included in this application, whilst stating that if the discharge is expected to enter the River Dhoo, the applicants will need to apply for a discharge license under the Water Pollution Act 1993.

6.7.2 Comments made on 25 April 2024:

a. They state that the applicant needs to provide the following information with regard to the stand alone sewage treatment works.

i. Method of disposal for the treated sewage effluent;
ii. Apply for a discharge license under Section 5 of the Water Pollution Act 1993 through the Environmental Protection Unit.

b. They note that a discharge licence application is subject to the Departments Discharge Licence Policy and that if a connection to the mains is possible, this has to be done over progressing a discharge licence application.
c. They state that all applications are subject to modelling to determine if the river can accept the effluent without lowering the classification of the watercourse.
d. They state that the applicants would need to connect the unit to a full soak away which is greater than 10m from a watercourse, and that percolation tests will need to be carried out, and the test results reviewed by DEFA Building Control.

6.8 DEFA Inland Fisheries have no objections to this development from a fisheries perspective, provided that there is no adverse effect on the adjacent watercourse. They note that as the proposed works are in close proximity to the watercourse, precautions will be needed to reduce the possibility of harmful materials such as concrete or washings entering the river (29 April 2024). - 6.9 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team have made the following comments on the application (6 December 2023):

o They note that they are still note are still not happy with the Site Plans in relation to an area of trees situated southwest of Plots 40 to 46, as the updated site plan dated 07 March 2023 states that the trees in this area are to be retained. However, there is currently a hedgebank in this location and so this should be retained also, not just the trees. They request that a condition should be secured for the hedgebank and trees indicated above to be retained and protected from damage or destruction during and after construction.
o In regards to the other landscaping concept details on the updated site plan, they note that they are contents with the proposed locations of the new trees around the basin area, but still need to see details about the species composition. They, therefore, request that a condition

be secured for no works to commence unless a detailed landscaping plan has been provided to Planning and approved in writing.
o They note that due to the location of this planting, the species should be native, or
other well established species. o They refer to responses submitted to the Environmental Protection Unit regarding foul water treatment, sewage treatment works and surface water attenuation and are satisfied with the responses, and request that the construction of any new pipes into the River Dhoo should be undertaken in line with protection measures contained in a CEMP.

6.10 Manx National Heritage note that the application does not make it clear how many trees, if any, would be removed, and advise that in order to assess this application, they would like to see further tree related information. They state that it is also unclear how the pond will be constructed and maintained, if the water is to be diverted from the nearby river we would like to see this clarified (11 May 2022). - 6.11 Marown Parish Commissioners have made the following comments on the application (22/ December 2023/22 February 2024):

o They state that they oppose the application on the following grounds:
o The houses in Ballaglonney essentially filled the need for housing in the settlement.
o They refer to issues they perceive existed with the Area Plan for the East and zoning of land prior to TAPE becoming a policy document.
o They refer to extent of red line boundary which extends beyond the current field boundary.
o They refer to potential concerns at the access junction with the A1, due to increased vehicular usage.
o They refer to potential overlooking concerns with existing dwellings on the northern and western boundaries of the site.
o They refer to capacity concerns with the Marown Primary school.
o They refer to potential flood risk concerns.
o They state that nothing in the revised plans serves to alter the Commissioners view that the application should be refused.
o They state that should the application be approved, there should be requirement that works to the Crosby Sewage Treatment Works should have been completed and that the existing houses should be connected to the mains sewer.

6.12 The Tynwald Commissioner for Administration has made the following comments on the application (26 June 2022):

o No comment is made on the merits of the application.
o The Commissioner is investigating a complaint from a resident of Crosby Meadows, who have not been able to register their opposition with the Planning Committee because, as part of the terms of their respective purchases, each is bound by a covenant preventing them opposing any application for planning consent made by the developer.
o The Commissioner refers to comments made regarding the Area Plan for the East and note that unless and until any error referred to is rectified statutorily, the Plan approved by Tynwald must be taken correctly to identify that land in the East which is classified as developmental land.

6.13 The owners/occupiers of the following properties have made comments on the application:

a. 51 King Orry Road, Glen Vine (2 May 2022);
b. Ballaglonney Cottage, Main Road, Crosby (13.05.22/17.05.22/16.05.22/19.01.23);
c. Hall Caine Pavilion, Old Church Road, Crosby for Marown Memorial Playing Fields Limited (31 May 2022/13 march 2023/13 February 2024);
d. 1 Eyremont Terrace, Crosby; and

6.13.1 They object to the application on the following grounds:

o Concerns with sewage management due to potential pressure on sewage system on site.
o Potential safety concerns for school due to increased traffic going through the village.
o They refer to error on Area Plan.
o They refer to the scheme using a Greenfield site.
o Potential impact of the new dwellings on rates within the community.
o They refer to placement of yellow notices within the Crosby Meadow Estate and not
outside the estate.
o The state that the existing dwellings within the Crosby Meadow estate are poorly managed.
o They refer to the Proposed Location Plan which shows an 'Emergency access track to Heritage Trail in tarmac'.
o They refer to frogs residing in the stream that divides the playing field from the Ballagloney development.
o They refer to the applicant not providing an updated traffic management survey to account for the increased numbers of houses on the site.
o They state that the proposal seeks to remove a number of trees as part of the development.

6.14 The owners of Rhynefield, West Baldwin support the application for the following reasons (11 May 2022):

o The scheme includes provision for first time buyers.
o The bungalows are suitable for older residents, with the proximity to bus service and
other facilities a plus.

6.15 The owners/occupiers of 15 Cherry Tree Drive have asked that they be updated on progress with the application as the proposal concerns land adjoining their property (23 April 2024). As such, they would be informed on the progress of the application.

- 7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The fundamental Issues to consider in the assessment of the application includes:

a. The principle of development (STP1, STP2, SPP4, HP4, & HP6);
b. Impacts on the character and appearance of the site and area (STP3, STP5, GP2, EP42, RDG'21);
c. Amenity for new occupants (STP 1B, GP2 H, & RP 3);
d. Impact on Neighbouring Amenity (GP2(g), EP 22 & RDG'21);
e. Highway Safety (STP10, GP2 h&i, TP4&7);
f. Potential Flood Concerns/Drainage Issues (GP2, EP 10 & 13, STP 1c, & IP 1);
g. Open Space Provisions (RP 3 & 4, STP 1b, & APPENDIX 6);
h. Affordable Housing (HP 5);
i. Energy Conservation (GP2n & ENP5);
j. Biodiversity Impacts (EP 4, EP 5 & GP2); and
k. Other Matters.

- 7.2 THE PRINCIPLE

7.2.1 With regard to the principle of the proposed development, it is considered that the site is zoned for residential use which implies that the use of the site for residential purposes would be compatible with adjoining uses and conform to the general use of the area. The site is also within the settlement boundary and adjacent to and surrounded by existing residential dwellings; conditions which would ensure that residential development here aligns with Strategic Policy 1 and Housing Policy 4.

7.2.2 Likewise, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 seeks to locate new housing and employment close to existing public transport facilities and routes, or where public transport facilities are, or can be improved, thereby reducing the need to use private cars and encouraging alternative means of transport, and it is considered that the site would meet this

goal given that it sits along a main public transport corridor. While this does not signify a presumption in favour for all forms of housing development, it points to the fact the proposal would generally accord with the Strategic Plan goals for new housing on the Island. Therefore, in terms of the acceptability of the use of the site for residential development it is concluded that the proposal basically accords with the goals of Strategic Policy 1 and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

7.2.3 Further to the above, the site sits adjacent an existing residential development to which it would form and extension to, with the scheme benefiting from the existing facilities and services that serve the existing estate and surrounding area.

7.2.4 Therefore, as the application aligns with the zoning of the area within the Area Plan for the East Map 10, and the development of the site for residential purposes would be acceptable in principle. It is, however, worth noting that the factors highlighted above do not in any way denote automatic approval for the scheme as proposed, given that the development of the site would have to be appropriate for the existing site character, character of locality and not result in adverse impacts on other attributes of the site, such as biodiversity, access and highway issues, drainage, flood potential and/or neighbouring amenity. Therefore, it still remains necessary to assess the proposed development against other relevant planning policies and the physical constraints of the application site.

- 7.3 CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE

7.3.1 In terms of the visual impacts of the new dwellings, the main public views would be towards the dwellings on the western section of the proposal when viewed from Peel Road, and it is not considered that any views achieved from vantage point from Peel Road would be at variance with the general character of this part of Peel Road. It is perhaps worth noting that the proposed dwellings are designed to be similar to the existing dwellings at Crosby Meadow Estate to which they would form an extension to in term of form, roof design and finish, construction materials, including painted render, stone wall cladding, such that they would easily blend into the existing context of the immediate vicinity.

7.3.2 With regard to the potential impacts on the character of the surrounding countryside, it is considered that the proposed boundary finishes, which includes retaining the existing boundary features and integrating new plantings on the boundary, would serve to soften the visual impact of the scheme. Besides, there is already a hard boundary with the existing dwellings at Crosby Meadows, and it is not considered that the current scheme would considerably alter this relationship.
7.3.3 In terms of potential impacts on the immediate street scene along Peel Road, it is judged that the area is characterised by a mixture of dwellings types, sizes, styles and designs of properties lining the major highways, with the existing dwellings at Crosby Meadows offering a contemporary feel to this part of Peel Road, hotel and apartment buildings which offer dominant views when viewed from distant perspectives, dominating the street scene, such that the new dwellings (which would largely be set behind the existing dwellings within the estate considered to be acceptable forms of development, given the extant context of the area.
7.3.4 Overall, in terms of the visual impacts pf the proposal, it is considered that the design, proposed landscaping, layout, finishes and scale of the development would be appropriate, and be in keeping with the general character of the site, street scene, and area. Accordingly, whilst there will be an impact to the visual amenities of the area over the current situation (as this part of the estate is currently undeveloped), the impact to public views would not be significant and it is considered the proposals would be acceptable, as it would create a pleasant housing development, without having a significant adverse visual impact, and comply with the requirements of General Policy 2, Strategic Policy 3 (b), Strategic Policy 4, and Environment Policy 42 of the IOMSP, as well as the principles advocated by the Residential Design Guide 2021.

- 7.4 LEVELS OF AMENITY

7.4.1 With regard to the amenity provisions for the new dwellings, it is clear that the buildings as proposed would mostly have available principal views towards their front gardens, the new landscaped amenity area to be created at the southern end of the site, with views also achieved towards the surrounding fields which sit in the countryside, and these are considered to be acceptable. Additionally, each dwelling would have some private outdoor amenity area to support their personal needs.
7.4.2 The scheme also proposes some outdoor communal areas, and there is ease of level access to the available public open spaces within the immediate vicinity that would provide a degree of respite from the activity in the area, offered by the Heritage Trail and other leisure areas around the site such as the children's play area, bowling green, BMX track and sports pitches, as well as the footpaths that flank the site. Additionally, the bin storage provision has been integrated within the development, with the terrace of dwellings also provided with bin storage and cycle storage provisions that would be accessible for use by all of the terraced dwellings.
7.4.3 It is, therefore, considered that the proposal would comply with Strategic Policy 1(b), General Policy 2 (h), and Recreation Policy 3 in terms of the adequacy of amenity space provisions.
7.4.4 The adequacy of car parking will be assessed in section 7.6 of this report.
7.5 IMPACTS UPON NEIGHBOURING RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES

7.5.1 In terms of impacts on neighbouring amenity it is not considered that the proposed scheme would not result in significant adverse impacts on the neighbouring amenity of the nearby dwellings. This is hinged on the fact that new dwellings would be positioned at least 20m from the rear elevation of the existing neighbouring dwellings such that there would be no impacts in terms of overlooking, overbearing impacts and loss of light (overshadowing). Granting, the new terrace of dwellings would be set on a slightly higher elevation than the existing terrace of dwellings at Plots 1 to 7, which are situated north of the existing dwellings at the estate, it is considered that the separating distance here, which is about 20m at the closest would serve to diminish any overlooking concerns.
7.5.2 Further to the above, the current scheme seeks to integrate some tree planting along the boundaries with the existing neighbours which would serve to diminish potential concerns with the existing neighbours. It is also worth noting that the existing or proposed dwellings do not integrate full height glazed windows on upper floors which should increase the potential overlooking concerns. Whilst the proposal would introduce new windows set at first floor level which would offer elevated views towards the rear garden of the existing properties, it is not uncommon to have some levels of overlooking of rear gardens for the properties here, due to the predominance of two storey dwellings.
7.5.3 The comments made by one of the objectors regarding the potential impact of the proposed temporary Bio Disc which is to be positioned south of Plot 16 is noted. It is, however, important to note that the proposed Bio Disc would need to meets the guidance set by the statutory authorities to avoid causing odour issues, and have been considered by MUA as acceptable as an interim solution pending the completion of the Crosby Sewage Treatment Works. As such, it is considered that this element of the proposal meets the requirements of Environment Policy 22.
7.5.4 The comments related to potential impacts of the developments on the local primary school in terms of increased demand is also noted. Albeit, the scale of the proposed development is not such that would significantly increase demand beyond acceptable thresholds. Moreover, the application site is not a reserve site, but an area zoned for

development which would mean that potential uptake and development would be factored into school projections for the area. As such, it is not considered that any demand for school going children triggered by the development would be sufficient to warrant refusal of the scheme.

- 7.6 HIGHWAY ISSUES

7.6.1 In assessing the highway impacts of the current scheme, it is considered that the site entrance has been positioned such that it would easily feed into the current arrangement within the estate, which would ensure that vehicular access and exit from the new dwellings is not impeded.
7.6.2 In terms of off road parking, each dwelling would have 2 spaces provided within the site, which would be sufficient when compared with the requirements of Transport Policy 7 and stipulated within Appendix 7 of the IOMSP, although it is noted that additional parking will be provided within the integral garages provided as part of the two storey dwellings.
7.6.3 Further to the above, the scheme provides footpaths to roads within site which are about 2m wide, and these would ensure proper segregation between pedestrians and vehicle users within the site in line with Transport Policy 6. As well, the site is within a public transport corridor which increases the public transport options available to future occupants, without the need for use of private vehicles; conditions that align with the requirements of Transport Policies 1, 2, 4 and 6.
7.6.4 In addition, Highway Services have reviewed the proposal and raise no objection to the application, subject to conditions for the proposal to meet certain conditions which would be included to ensure that no adverse highway impacts result from the proposal. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would align with STP10, TP4, 6 & 7, and GP 2 (h&I) of the Strategic Plan, which relate to highway safety and parking requirements.

- 7.7 DRAINAGE/FLOODING

7.7.1 In respect of drainage, it is noted that the scheme is supported by detailed drainage information, which includes a surface water and foul water management for the entire site, which will later feed into the existing systems that would be managed at the Crosby Sewage Treatment Works. These have been assessed by the relevant drainage authority (Manx Utilities Drainage) who have confirmed that the submitted information is acceptable, whilst also indicating that once foul flows have been accepted into the public sewerage network, the standalone treatment works can be decommissioned. As such, a condition would be imposed to ensure that the use of the Bio Disc must be discontinued once the Crosby facility has been completed and commissioned, with the dwellings connected to the mains network.
7.7.2 In terms of flood risks for the site, it is considered that the site is largely not within High Flood Risk zone but there were initial comments from the Flood Management Division (DOI) in relation to possible flood concerns, which necessitated the requirement for additional information to be provided for the site. This document was reviewed by the Flood Risk Management team who noted that they are satisfied that the applicant has addressed the concerns of the flood risk.
7.7.3 Further to the above, The DOI Flood Risk Management noted further concerns regarding culverting and management of the nearby water course, for which additional information was sought, with the applicant providing correspondence which details the FRM acceptance of the information provided to address these concerns (See Correspondence between applicant and DOI FRM uploaded 28 June 2024). Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the scheme raises no flood risk to the new dwellings proposed on site or existing properties in the area. The proposal is, therefore, considered to comply with Environment Policies 10 and 13, and General Policy 2 (l).

- 7.8 OPEN SPACE PROVISION

7.8.1 In terms of open space provisions for the new dwellings, Recreation Policy 3 indicates that where appropriate, new development which exceeds 10 dwellings should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design, whilst Recreation Policy

4 stipulates that open space must be provided on site or conveniently close to the development which it is intended to serve. As such, the new residential development which proposes 18 new dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan.

7.8.2 In the case of this application, the development proposes open space and outdoor amenity within the site area totalling about 3607sqm (552sqm situated around plots 33 to 39 which connects to the footpath at Peel Road, and amenity space to the south of the development measuring 3055sqm, which encompasses the balancing pond), and it is considered that this exceeds the requirement in terms of quantities required by the Strategic Plan.

7.8.3 In accordance with the IoM Strategic Plan Appendix 6, the calculation for open space provisions for the 18 units, which includes five (5) two bedroom units, seven (7) three bedroom units, and six (6) four bedroom units, would require open space provisions measuring about 1568sqm in total (5 x 2 bed units at 64sqm equals 320sqm; 7 x 3 bed at 76sqm equals 672sqm); and 6 x 4 bed units at 96sqm equals 576sqm. A breakdown would comprise 882sqm of Formal open space, 294sqm of Children's play area, and 392sqm of Amenity Space provision, which would mean that there is an excess of about 2039sqm of open space provision.

7.8.4 When the previous scheme under PA 20/01511/B which required that open space provision for the four dwellings under that scheme be factored into further development of the site as required by condition 5 of that approval at Appeal (given that Field 320653 which was also the subject of the application under PA 20/01511/B is included as part of the current application site), it is considered that the following additional open space requirements would be needed:

4 x 4 bed units at 96sqm equals 384sqm. A breakdown would comprise 216sqm of Formal open space, 72sqm of Children's play area, and 96sqm of Amenity Space provision.

The summation of all open space requirements would be 1568sqm for the 18 dwellings within the current scheme, and 384sqm for the Open space requirements for 4 dwellings under PA 20/01511/B as required by Condition 5 of that approval, totalling 1952sqm of open space provisions.

7.8.5 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that a total of 1952sqm of open space provisions is required, with the scheme providing 3607sqm, resulting in an excess of 1655sqm, which would mean that the scheme would comply with the requirements of Recreation Policy 3 and 4 of the Strategic plan.

- 7.9 AFFORDABLE HOUSING

7.9.1 As indicated by Housing Policy 5, the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing when developments are of 8 dwellings or more. On this basis a total of 5.5 affordable units would generally be required given that 18 dwellings are currently proposed, and for the four (4) dwellings approved at Appeal under PA 20/01511/B. It must be noted that condition 4 of PA 20/01511/B required that further development on the remainder of Field 320653 which the current scheme includes would need to provide affordable housing that accounts for the four dwellings approved under that scheme, such that the calculations for affordable housing is to be for 22 dwellings.

7.9.3 In this case, the applicants have provided 5units of affordable housing which would fail to meet the required 25 percent affordable housing requirement, as it would amount to a shortfall of 0.5 housing units, given that 5.5units would be required for this application (25

percent of 22 dwellings). As such, it is considered that the scheme as proposed would fail to provide the required affordable housing provision and this weighs against the proposal.

7.9.4 A Section 13 Legal Agreement will need to be agreed with regard to affordable housing provision, should the scheme be approved as proposed by the applicants.

- 7.10 ENERGY USE/CONSERVATION

7.10.1 Energy Policy 5 requires that schemes of this scale demonstrate the measures that have been taken in the design to reduce energy consumption and increase energy efficiency. This is further reinforced by GP2 (n) which stipulates that new developments be designed having due regard to best practices in reducing energy consumption.
7.10.2 In assessing the energy conservation approaches within the scheme, it is considered that the scheme is supported by an Energy Statement which details measures that would be taken to reduce energy demand, approaches for improved building envelope to diminish heat loss, incorporate high efficiency Air Source Heat Pumps combined with electric boilers for heating and generation of domestic hot water, as well as how the scheme caters for renewable energy provision and use.
7.10.3 If the proposed measures are implemented as detailed in the supporting information, the energy conservation for the buildings would meet the requirements of ENP5 and GP2 (n).

As such, conditions should be attached to ensure that the details submitted are undertaken.

7.10.3 It is, therefore, considered that the proposed energy use and conservation within the scheme meets the requirements of Environment Policy 5 and General Policy 2 (n) of the Strategic Plan.

7.11 POTENTIAL IMPACT ON BIODIVERSITY

7.11.1 In terms of the ecological impacts of the proposed development, it is considered that the application is supported by ecological information which have been assessed by the DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team, with the key concern bordering on matters that relate to the proposed landscaping schemes for the site, whilst also suggesting conditions which could be imposed to ensure that the resulting ecological impacts are mitigated. As the ecological concerns could be addressed via conditions, it is felt that the concerns in terms of biodiversity impacts are not sufficient to warrant refusal of the proposal, should approval be grated for the proposal.

7.11.2 Based on the foregoing, it is felt that the application has satisfied the principles of Environment Policies 4 and 5, and General Policy 2 (d) of the Strategic Plan. Conditions would, however, be imposed to ensure that the required mitigation measures are implemented on site.

- 7.9 OTHER MATTERS

7.9.1 Designing out Crime (CP 7 & GP2m)

7.9.1.1 In terms of designing out crime and antisocial behaviour, it is considered that the site has been laid out such that there are overlooking views from the dwellings over the new outdoor spaces provided, which would serve to promote community surveillance. Also, no new confined spaces with easy access to those outside the site would be created, which would serve as easy hideouts for criminal activity or antisocial behaviour. Therefore, it is considered that the scheme meets the requirements of General Policy 2 (m) and Community Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan.
7.9.2 Fire Safety (CP10 & 11)

7.9.2.1 In terms of fire safety, it is considered that the site layout is such that would enable easy access into the site for fire-fighting vehicles should they be required. Likewise, the scheme provides sufficient offsets from the boundaries which would ensure that access to all parts of the building is not impeded in case of fire, and these would be sufficient to prevent easy spread

of fire. As such, it is considered that these elements of the scheme aligns with the requirements of Community Policies 10 and 11.

7.9.3 Matters Regarding errors on the Area Plan for the East

7.9.3.1 The matters which border on perceived errors within the Area Plan for the East fall outside the remit of this planning application as it relates to a statutory policy document which has been through a statutory process, which includes evidence base and the public consultation process, and is adopted by Tynwald.

7.9.4 Highway Legislation Matters:

7.9.4.1 The comments made by the Road Policing Unit regarding narrow road widths which encourages people to park on pavements and lack of road markings, are noted. However, these are issues that would be better addressed via the Highways legislation. As such, they are not assessed as part of the proposal.

7.9.4.2 With regard to the comments bordering on the lack of safe pedestrian access to Heritage Trail, it would be vital to note that the revised site plan dated 7 March 2023 shows pedestrian tracks which would be connected to the existing tracks that link to the Retail building and the Heritage trail. As such, there is no concern with this element of the proposal.
7.9.4.3 The matters related to parking provision has been addressed within Section 7.6 of this report. As such, no further comments would be made in this regard.

7.9.5 No other concerns have been noted. 8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 Overall, it is considered that although the shortfall in affordable housing provision weighs against the proposal (as it would fail to fully comply with the requirements of Housing Policy 5), it is concluded that the proposals align with the requirements of General Policy 2; Strategic Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10; Environment Policies 3, 4, 5 and 42; Housing Policies 1,

4, and 6; and Transport Policies 1, 4, 6 and 7; the Area Plan for the East 2020, and the Residential Design Guide 2021, as the principle of the development is in accordance with the land use designation and the wider policy framework, and the proposed buildings are of a good design and layout. Furthermore, the proposals would not have significant adverse impacts upon public or private amenities, or parking and highway safety, and therefore would comply with the relevant planning policies listed. Accordingly, the application is, recommended for approval.

- 9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

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

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

9.2 The decision maker must determine:

o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department
of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and

whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status

9.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

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

Decision Made : …Refused……….... Committee Meeting Date:…28.10.2024 Signed :………P VISIGAH…………….. Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report). Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 28.10.2024

Application No 22/00475/B Applicant Mr Mark Pearce Proposal Construction of 18 houses and associated infrastructure Site Address Crosby Meadows Estate

Part Fields 320653, 324323, 324324, 324321 , 324318, 320649 & 324320 Ballaglonney Main Road Crosby IM4 2EE Planning Officer Paul Visigah Presenting Officer As above - Addendum to the Officer Report

Meeting held on 28th October 2024:

At its meeting held on 28th October 2024, the Committee overturned the recommendation of the case officer and refused the application. Reasons for refusal:

R 1. The inclusion of the proposed new dwellings on plots 37, 38 & 39 given their proximity to the existing residential properties to the southeast would represent an overdevelopment of the site given their proximity and intervening distances would result in significant adverse impact upon the residential amenity of the proposed and existing houses contrary to General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide 2021.
R 2. The proposed private sewers to the northwest of plots 33 to 39 would represent development outside of land designated for development on the Area Plan for the East Map 10 and would be contrary to the identified settlement boundaries and contrary to Spatial Policy 4 and Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 3. It is considered the external amenity space provided for plots 33 to 39 would fall below the provision for the requirements of "External Space" standards and "Gardens" as laid out in the Design Guide - Affordable Housing Standards (DOI - Housing Division 2016). Meeting held on 22nd July 2024:

Further to its site visit the Committee considered the application at its meeting on 22 July 2024 and agreed to further defer determination of the application to allow for the resolution of the issues bordering on:

1. Conflicts with the boundary of Crosby within the Area Plan for the East Map (10);
2. Shortfall of 0.5 Housing units of affordable housing provision within the scheme; and

3. Assessment of the Agricultural land potential of the adjoining field aginst the Agricultural Land Use Capacity Map for the Isle of Man.

Meeting held on 8th July 2024: This application was considered by the Committee on 8th July 2024 and deferred for a site visit. The site visit was to be held 18th July 2024.

Officer Report

Source & Provenance