Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Applicant: Mr Mark Pearce Proposal Construction of seven detached houses and associated infrastructure Site Address Fields 612727 & 612728 Baldrine Farm Baldrine Road Baldrine Case Officer : Paul Visigah Photo Taken: 27.06.2023 Site Visit: 27.06.2023 Expected Decision Level Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 17.10.2024

Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the conditions

• 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. Prior to any of the dwellings hereby approved becoming occupied, the proposed pedestrian footpath measures running parallel to Baldrine Road shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details shown on Drawing No. 22/3178/P/03 REV B and 16-01-

• 09-B, and retained as such thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

• C 3. Within three months of the development commencing, the realigned Manx sod bank/improvements to the 90 degrees on Baldrine Road shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details shown on Drawing No. 22/3178/P/03 Rev B and 22/3178/P/04 Rev J, and retained as such thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
• C 4. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling hereby approved, the garage, car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans and remain free from obstruction thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety.

• C 5. Prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved, the road and footway/footpath between the highway and dwellings shall be constructed to at least base course level. The estate roads and footway/footpath shall be completed as detailed on Drawing No. 22/3178/P/04 Rev J within six (6) months from the occupation of the dwellings and retained as such thereafter.

• Reason: To ensure adequate pedestrian and vehicular access to each dwelling in the interest of highway safety.
• C 6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme for the protection of the trees (a Tree Protection Plan) which shall be prepared in accordance with the recommendations of British Standard BS5837:2012 (Trees in relation to Design, Demolition and Construction) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Such a scheme shall include details of:

• o All trees and other planting which are to be retained;
• o A planting specification to include numbers, species and positions of all new trees and shrubs; and
• o A programme of implementation.

Within the Construction Exclusion Zones identified on this drawing, 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.

Any retained tree which within five years of the approved development being occupied or completed (whichever is the later) dies, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced by a similar species, of a size to be first approved in writing by the Department, during the next planting season or in accordance with a programme of replacement to be agreed in writing with the Department.

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

• C 7. The landscaping of the site, including the boundary hedging, new areas of sod bank, and the feature planting must be undertaken in accordance with the approved plan (Drawing No. 22-3178-P-04 Rev J - Updated Proposed Site Plan), and retained as such thereafter.

All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of any unit, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which die or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: In the interests of protecting and enhancing the biodiversity of the environment.

• C 8. External lighting along the northern boundaries of Plots 1 - 3 and the eastern boundaries of plots 3 -7, must be undertaken as per the lighting note contained on the site plan (Drawing No. 22/3178/P/04 Rev J), which says:

• i. Installed lighting shall be LED downlights utilised generally and angled downwards to limit the spill of light towards the tree lines and hedges.
• ii. Any security lights on the rear of the houses facing towards the trees and hedges will be directed downwards rather than towards hedgerows and trees.
• iii. Low level lighting to the site generally.

Reason: In the interests of protecting protect bats from the impacts of artificial light in the woodland and along the rail tracks.

• C 9. Prior to the works commencing on the individual plots, a Bat and Bird Box Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department.

This plan shall contain details about the specifications and locations of nest bricks suitable for swifts on northern elevations of each dwelling, and bat bricks suitable for crevice roosting species on each dwelling.

The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved plan, and retained thereafter.

Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the ecological species existing on the site/locality.

• C 10. Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, a method statements for the installation of any wastewater sewer through Plot 7 adjacent to existing trees, shown on Drawing No. 22/3178/P/04 Rev J, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The works shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter. Reason: to ensure there is no impact on the wastewater sewers in the area.
• C 11. No development in connection with the development hereby approved shall be occupied/brought into use unless the proposed foul sewage and surface water drainage system[s] have been provided in accordance with the approved plans Drawing No. 22-3178-P15 Rev A (Drainage Details) and Drawing No. 22/3178/P/04 Rev J (Proposed Site Plan), and Details of Wastewater Sewer through Plot 7 which is referenced in Condition 11.

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

Reason: In order to ensure that adequate drainage facilities are provided, and retained, in the interests of the amenity of the area.

• C 12. Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, details of measures for the protection of the Archaeological sites shown on Drawing No. 22/3178/P/04 Rev J, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with these details.

The protective measures are to be implemented on site prior to works commencing and retained throughout the construction phase of the development.

Reason: To ensure that the archaeological features around the site are adequately protected.

• C 13. Prior to the installation of external finishes and materials, details of all external finishes, including the manufacturer's details, specification and colour of all the materials/roof/wall/windows/doors/garage doors/rainwater goods to be used in the external finish for the approved development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department.

The development shall not be occupied or brought into use unless the external finish has been applied in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out to the highest standards of materials, in the interests of the appearance of the development and the visual amenities of the area.

• C 14. Within three (3) months of this approval becoming final, details of a Management Plan of the surface water drainage system proposed as part of the approved development, and which would not be adopted by Manx Utilities Drainage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department.

The plan shall include details of ownership and long-term maintenance of the surface water infrastructure (including any land drainage) identified on Drawing No. 22/3178/P/04 Rev J.

The plan shall provide details on the frequency and method of emptying of catchpit labelled B, and situated at the northeast corner of Plot 3 on the site Plan.

The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved management Plan, and shall be maintained as such thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the unadopted surface water scheme for the development is maintained to avoid impacts on the occupants of the new dwellings and neighbouring properties.

• C 15. Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, a Method Statement detailing how the drainage pipes which cut through the trees on the southern-eastern boundary of Plot 7 shall be installed without affecting the trees shown on Drawing No. 22/3178/P/04 Rev J, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The works shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter. Reason: To safeguard the existing trees and planting to be retained within the site.

Reason for approval: Overall, it is considered the proposal would be developing a site which is designated for residential development, and one which has gained previous planning approvals for similar levels of development on this site; albeit on a slightly varied layout. The proposal would provide an additional supply of housing within an existing settlement and would meet the overarching aims of the IOM Strategic Plan.

It is also considered that no concerns have been raised in terms of highway safety, and there are no adverse impacts to protect species at the site or immediate locality. Furthermore, the development in terms of foul sewerage would connect to the existing mains services for foul water in compliance with planning policy without having any significant adverse impacts upon the environment. Likewise, no significant impacts upon neighbouring residential amenities would result such that would warrant a refusal.

Overall, the proposal would comply with; Strategic Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 10, Spatial Policy 2 & 5, General Policy 2, Environment Policies 4 & 42, Housing Policies 1, & 2, 3, 4 & 6, and Transport Policy 1, 3, 4, 6 & 7 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016, the Area Plan for the East, and the Residential Design Guide 2021.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status The revised IPS as presented at Committee: 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

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 Belmore, The Crescent, Baldrine;

• o Maybank, The Crescent, Baldrine;
• o Honey Hey, Highfield Drive, Baldrine;
• o Brackenbank, Highfield Drive, Baldrine;

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

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):

• o The Nook, The Crescent, Baldrine;
• o Llanberis, The Crescent, Baldrine;
• o Ballaruud, Highfield Drive, Baldrine;
• o Emscote, Highfield Drive, Baldrine.
• o Cruachan, Highfield Drive, Baldrine;

as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or

• occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.

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):

• o Struie, Highfield Drive, Baldrine;
• o Thie-Bane, Highfield Drive, Baldrine;
• o The Old Boathouse, Beach Road, Baldrine;
• o Glencairn, Tent Road, Laxey;
• o 2 Glen View, South Cape;
• o Thornhill, Highfield Drive, Baldrine
• o Glengawne Cottage, Main Road

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 was decided that the following Organisation should not be given Interested Person Status on the basis that although they have made written submissions these do not relate to planning considerations:

Manx Wildlife Trust, as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A

• of the Policy. ________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

0.0 PREAMBLE - 0.1 This application was considered by the Committee on the 11 November 2024 and deferred for a site visit which was carried out on Monday 18 November 2024. THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THERE ARE MORE THAN

- 4 OBJECTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, AND AS THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS MADE

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS OBJECTING TO THE APPLICATION, BUT THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site comprises Fields 612727 & 612728 which sits north and west of the properties on Highfield Drive, Baldrine. The site abuts the Manx Electric Railway line to the east while field 612727 to the west adjoins Baldrine Road with runs along its entire southern boundary and sections of its western boundary. The applicant also owns the adjacent land to the north and west and land across the road (to the south). The site comprises approximately

5.29 Acres (2.14 hectares of land), including the parts of Field 612727.

1.2 The site topography is set out such that the site slopes downward somewhat more gently over field 612727 than 612728 where the Manx Electric Railway line sits lower. Whilst there are views from around 350m from the north from Ballagawne Road, the area where housing is proposed sits alongside and slightly lower than the existing housing to the south (Highfield Drive), although the proposed site area would sit higher than the site level for many of the properties situated west of residential estate of The Crescent, Baldrine, which sits east and is separated by the Electric Railway line. - 1.3 The site is generally screened from public view from immediately alongside and above due to the hedging along most of the site boundary and trees strung along sections of the boundary.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for Construction of seven detached houses and associated infrastructure. The proposal includes a total of three house types (Types 1B - two dwellings, 1C - two dwellings, and 4A - three dwellings); all of which would be detached two storey dwellings with varying designs and layout. The proposals are all four bedroom detached dwellings. All have at least two off road parking spaces and an integral single garage. - 2.2 Access to and from the site will be via a new access road (5.5m wide) which would be at a more centralised position through Field 612727 and through the existing field access adjoining Baldrine Road. The detailed access arrangement would further include a roundabout to serve the estate. A new pedestrian walk way (footpath) network 2m wide is also proposed as part of the scheme. The footway will connect with the existing footway provision within Highfield Drive. - 2.3 The trees and landscape features on the edges of the site and bounding down to the Manx Electric Railway Tramline will be retained. No trees would be removed as part of the proposal. - 2.4 Foul drainage from the proposed dwellings would be discharged via a connection to the main sewerage network, while surface water drainage would be managed on site via a private system of soakaways and linear drains. - 2.5 There would be changes to site levels although as the existing site is to be remodelled as shown on the section drawings. No material will be taken off site. - 2.6 The application is supported by the following supporting documents:

• 1. Design and Access statement.
• 2. Transport Assessment prepared by Northern Transportation Planning Limited and dated 13 February 2017.
• 3. Accessibility Audit prepared by Ellis Brown Architects.
• 4. Baldrine New Tree Planting Maintenance and Aftercare schedule (Rev A).
• 5. Bat Survey Prepared by Manx Bat Group and dated 1st June 2023.
• 6. Percolation Test Results dated 24 April 2021.

• 7. Road Safety Audit Stage 1 Report prepared by HMTC (Highway Mann Transport Consultants and dated April 2023.
• 8. Road Safety Audit - Designers response document prepared by HMTC (Highway Mann Transport Consultants and dated May 2023.
• 9. Baldrine Existing Tree Survey Records dated June 2023 (Parts 1 and 2), prepared by Ellis Brown Architects.

2.7 Following review of consultation comments from Isle of Man Railways and Manx Utilities Drainage, the applicants have made revisions to the site Drainage shown on Drawing No. 22/3178/P/04 Rev J, which replaces Drawing No. 22/3178/P/04 Rev F. The new drawing shows:

• a. The proposed Surface water drainage at the front of the properties. This also collects the SW from the Road gullies.
• b. The proposal is to collect the SW and discharge this to a soakaway at the rear of Plot 1. Directly to the north of this soakaway is the wooded area which falls to the watercourse below.
• c. A land drain is proposed to the rear of the properties - Plots 3 to 7, to collect garden run off only. This runs to a chamber in the NE corner of the site in Plot 3, and then links to the SW drainage that runs along the side of the MER track.
• d. This will protect the bank and MER's trackside drainage.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 Site Specific:

• 3.1.1 The application site of the proposed housing development is zoned as 'Predominantly Residential Use' on the Area Plan for the East (Map 9 - Baldrine), while the access to the dwellings which is largely situated in Field 612727 is within an Area zoned as a Strategic Reserve. The site is not within a Conservation Area or prone to flood risks, although the entire northern boundary of Field 612728 abuts a Registered Tree Area, while a Registered tree sits along the southeast boundary of the site. Additionally, high voltage overhead power lines cuts through parts of Field 612727 and runs parallel to the proposed access, which requires a minimum 9 metre wide clear safety corridor. There are two sites of Archaeological Interest within the broader site area (blue line boundary) but outside the application site (red line boundary).

3.2 Area: Area Plan for the East

• 3.2.1 The following parts of the Area Plan for the East are of material relevance to the proposed development:

• a. Landscape Proposal 1 - Requires applications to demonstrate that consideration has been given to the broad landscape strategies and key views described throughout Section 4.7 of the Plan.
• b. Urban Environment Proposal 3 - Requires development proposals to make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.
• c. Transport Proposal 1 - Requires development proposals to take into account the Active Travel Strategy and any specific actions set out in the Active Travel Action Plan.
• d. Transport Proposal 2 - Seeks to help deliver integrated transport networks. A series of requirements are listed to coordinate the development of all transport modes to provide a comprehensive transport system centred on Douglas and the East.
• e. Utilities Proposal 1 - Requires all development to be connected to the appropriate service and utility, which must be capable of receiving a new connection and sustaining it.
• f. Utilities Proposal 2 - Seeks manage the sequence of development in growth areas so ensure services are available from early in the life of new communities.
• g. Utilities Proposal 3 - Sets out the approach to the provision of electricity, telecommunications and gas supply for new developments.
• h. Utilities Proposal 4 - Seeks to ensure that water, gas, electricity and telecommunications are provided in shared trenching and routes to minimise construction costs and land allocation for underground services.

• i. Utilities Proposal 5 - Sets out the requirements for development proposals with regard to the provision of water supply, sewerage and drainage services and how impacts on flood risk and drainage should be considered in the design of development proposals.
• j. Utilities Proposal 6 - Sets out approaches to reducing the impact of flooding, stormwater and overland flow on catchments and neighbouring properties.
• k. Telecommunications Proposal 1 - Requires the provision of fibre optic cables for new development.
• l. Residential Proposal 2 - Requires applications to consider a number of criteria relating to the scale of development; existing green, grey and social infrastructure; biodiversity; phasing, road layout and traffic generation; public open space; access to public transport; need for a Transport Assessment; drainage; landscaping; need for infrastructure service corridors; and archaeological evaluation and mitigation.
• m. Strategic Reserve Release Mechanism Proposal 1 (SRRM Proposal 1) - Guides the release of Strategic Reserve sites.
• n. Paragraph 6.8.3 - requires new development to not seek to mimic existing development but be of its own time.
• o. Paragraph 1.7.2 - use of land within Strategic Reserve: "In the meantime, in addition to land allocated for immediate development, the Area Plan contains some 'Strategic Reserve Sites', which identify land for future residential development, should this be required. Until these sites are released for development, they will be subject to General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan."
• p. Section 7.8.9 (Network Capacity Issues - Roads and Utilities) - provides guidance on how to connect new development to existing networks. Paragraph 7.8.10 requires that the servicing authority will accept such new connections.

• 3.2.2 Development Brief : Land north of Baldrine Road, Baldrine (GH013s) "1. The site shall be used for predominantly residential uses.

• 2. There are no other specific development brief requirements associated with this site as adequate guidance is set out by the Isle of Man Strategic Plan Policies and the Proposals set out in this Plan."
• 3.2.3 Paragraph 12.22.2 (Site Number GH013s): Inquiry Report Comment (paragraph 369) "Spatial Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan indicates that development in this village should be of an appropriate scale to meet the local need for housing. I have seen no evidence that there is a local housing need in Baldrine, sufficient to justify the allocation of further sites for immediate residential development; or to justify the extension of the built-up area into the surrounding countryside. However, in view of the fact that approval has been granted for the construction of a new access road across Site GH013, it seems to me to be appropriate that this site should be reserved for future residential development, if and when a local need for this can be demonstrated."

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;

• 3.3.2 Strategic Policy

• 1 - Efficient use of land and resources
• 2 - Development focussed in existing towns and villages
• 3 - Development to safeguard character of existing towns and villages and to avoid coalescence
• 4 - Development to protect or enhance setting of Registered Buildings, landscape quality and biodiversity, and not result in unacceptable environmental pollution
• 5 - Design and visual impact

• 10 - Sustainable transport
• 11 - Housing needs

• 3.3.3 Spatial Policy

• 2 Identified Baldrine as a Village

5 Building in defined settlements or GP3 3.3.4 General Policy

• 2 - General Development Considerations

3.3.5 Environment Policy

• 3 - Development to safeguard woodland of high amenity value
• 4 - Protection of species and habitats
• 5 - Mitigation against damage to or loss of habitats 22 - Protection of environment and/or residential amenity from pollution

• 40 - Protects important archaeological sites, Ancient Monuments or the setting thereof.
• 41 - Requirement of archaeological assessment
• 42 - Designed to respect the character and identity of the locality

3.3.6 Housing Policy

• 1 - Housing needs
• 2 - Adequate supply of housing through Area Plans
• 3 - Provision of 2,440 homes in East area during 2011-2026 plan period
• 4 - New Housing to defined existing towns

6 - Residential development to be undertaken in accordance with development brief or Paragraph 6.2 of Plan.

• 3.3.7 Recreational Policy 3 - Requirement for landscaped amenity areas 4 - Requirement for public open space
• 3.3.8 Transport Policy

• 1 - Proximity to existing public transportation services
• 2 - Layouts to link to existing systems
• 3 - Seek to protect the historic rail routes around the Island.
• 4 - Highway Safety
• 5 - Improvements to highway network
• 6 - Equal weight for vehicles and pedestrians
• 7 - Parking Provisions

• 3.3.9 Infrastructure Policy

• 1 - Development to take place in areas which will be connected to the IRIS drainage system

5 - Water conservation and management 3.3.10 Energy Policy

• 2 - Guides development on land within 9m either side of an overhead High Tension power cable.

• 5 - Requirement for Energy Impact Assessment

• 7 - Designing out criminal and anti-social behaviour

• 3.3.11 Community Policy

• 10 - Proper access for firefighting appliances
• 11 - Prevention for the outbreak and spread of fire

- 4.0 OTHER MATTERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Regard will be given to the recently released Residential Design Guidance 2021 in development of new dwellings.

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.
• 5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 The application site has been the subject of the following planning applications which are considered relevant for consideration:

5.1 Planning approval was granted for the creation of an access into the southern part of field 612727 under 14/00384/B. The Officer in recommending approval considered that there was sufficient justification for the entrance, which will allow cattle to move between fields much easier without having to keep them on the road for any length of time. It was judged that the main purpose of the field entrance was to assist the operations of Baldrine Farm, which operated on the field.

5.2 An application for Approval in principle for the development of seven dwellings, with means of access to be approved under PA 16/01139/A was approved by the Planning Committee on 04.09.2017. This application was also the subject of an appeal which was approved on 20.12.2017.

• 5.2.1 In recommending approval, the Inspector made the following conclusion: "Sewerage, surface water drainage and flooding

• 72. The LLAP refers to the fact that the sewage from the area is discharged directly into the sea. It indicates that, pending a completely new system being put in place, any further developments should include on-site treatment and this applied to the appeal site. All parties agree that this is what is stipulated in the LLAP. Initially the appellants proposed a private onsite system. However, following concerns from MU and DEFA Fisheries about potential run-off from a Bio-Disc system into the stream, MU concluded that the most appropriate solution was for this small development of 7 dwellings to be connected to the main sewerage system.
• 73. Whist this is clearly at odds with the wording in the LLAP there are, in my view, other justified material considerations which outweigh the LLAP requirements. These include the points referred to above. Also, in 2005, DEFA issued MU (the drainage authority) a discharge licence for the Baldrine catchment area. The licence stipulated a maximum population equivalent that could that would be acceptable for discharge into Garwick Bay. The connection of foul flows from the proposed 7 dwellings into the existing sewerage network would mean that the current licence would still remain well within its limits.
• 74. Since 2005 MU have also carried out extensive rehabilitation works in the Baldrine area to remove infiltration from the combined sewers. Thus, although the effluent is still discharged into the sea, the system has been significantly improved in terms of collection and flow to the eventual outfall. As the drainage authority, MU is of the view that this proposal can be acceptably connected to the main sewerage system and I see no reason to disagree with their decision which is supported by the PA. Whilst understanding the importance that the appellant places on the wording of the LLAP, the overall material considerations in my view indicate that the proposed connection is, in the overall circumstances, the correct action to take.
• 75. Although there is currently no definite plan for a new treatment works to the Baldrine area, MU is tasked with providing such facilities to all remaining areas where sea outfalls are present. New works have recently been commissioned in Ramsey and other areas are at the design stage. Currently MU are undertaking flow monitoring of the foul drainage network in Baldrine, with coastal dispersion modelling of Laxey and Baldrine bays soon to commence. But a design for Baldrine is not expected until 2018/19.
• 76. In conclusion, despite the fact that there will be an additional discharge into the sea from the 7 dwellings proposed, I consider that the proposal to connect to the existing system is feasible, practicable and appropriate.
• 77. Turning to the question of surface water drainage it is evident that there have been some flooding issues in the area around Baldrine Road, Highfield Grove, The Crescent and Packhorse Lane due to the topography, hydrology and drainage infrastructure in the locality. However,

• although the details would have to be submitted at the reserved matters stage, MU is again satisfied that the principle of surface water run-off being dealt with by soakaways would be acceptable for this site and for this number of dwellings.
• 78. Reference has been made to the two new dwellings on Baldrine Road resulting in an increase in surface water discharge and the subsequent flooding of houses in the road itself as well as Packhorse Lane. This may well be the case and it is also clear that the surface on The Crescent, which is unadopted, has also been partly eroded by water runoff. However, as indicated on behalf of the applicant, rainwater from the buildings and paved surfaces will be collected on the site and will be discharged within the site via soakaways. There will be no direct run off into the Glen and both MU and the PA are satisfied that the existing levels of surface water run-off into the stream will not be detrimentally affected. The water should, therefore, percolate through the ground as it does at present.
• 79. MU has confirmed to the PA that the 1 in 100 surface water map for Baldrine does not show the lower field to be a concern in respect of surface water flooding. It is acknowledged by MU that the map is not exhaustive but in any case MU is satisfied, subject to detail, with a soakaway proposal for this site. The development of the lower field is unlikely to detrimentally affect the current situation in Baldrine Road. Nor do I consider that the scheme would cause flooding of the MER line. Based on all of the representations relating to flooding, I consider that the proposal is acceptable with regard to the surface water drainage proposals." Effect on MER and sites of Archaeological interest

• 90. I do not consider that the proposal will adversely affect the MER in any way. It will not affect the track or any of its buildings. The sharing of any drainage facility has been agreed and there would be no physical link between the site and the MER track. With regard to views from the line, it seems to me that the respective levels will restrict views of the houses from the railway. Whilst acknowledging that there are noticeable views of Snaefell from this part of the line, there are also views of dwellings in this part of Baldrine and much better views of the mountain further up the line. During my site visit I was able to both inspect the field itself, as well as standing on the side of the line. Any loss of view would only be for seconds and I am satisfied that the proposal would not put the integrity, character or the setting of the MER at risk.
• 91. The archaeological sites are not noticeably visible. One is already more or less adjacent to one of the properties at the end of Highfield Grove and the reserved matters layout can ensure that the site is not compromised. The second is in the upper field between existing properties and the proposed access road. Any physical works in relation to the proposal would be well away from the site. MNH has no objection in principle to the development being located close to the site, subject to details being provided at a later stage. In conclusion, therefore, I am satisfied that the integrity of the archaeological sites as well as their settings would be preserved by the proposal in principle for 7 dwellings on the appeal site. Overall Conclusion
• 92. The site is zoned for residential development in the LLAP and, in my view, the proposal and is acceptable in principle. Although not specifically according with the LLAP written statement regarding drainage, the material considerations indicate that what is proposed is acceptable. This is confirmed by the MU, the drainage authority, and by the PA. At reserved matters stage it would still be subject to the detailed criteria set out policy GP2 of the IOMSP but at this stage I consider that the principles of the policy would be met. It also accords with the relevant transport policies of the IOMSP as well as with policies in the LLAP and IOMSP which seek to protect the MER and the archaeological sites as set out above. I consider, therefore that the appeal should be dismissed and that the approval of the Planning Committee be upheld."

5.3 A Reserved matters application for erection of a dwelling on plot one addressing siting, internal layout, design, means of access, external appearance and landscaping (in association with 16/01139/A) under PA 18/01166/REM was approved on 1.03.2019.

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

6.1 Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division do not oppose the application subject to conditions. A Section 4 highway agreement for the new adopted highway will be required (01.08.23/18.09.23/18.09.23).

• 6.1.1 Further to the comment above, DOI Highways note that they have reviewed the updated information for the above application dated 6 Mar 2024 online and continue to not oppose (DNOC) the application subject to conditions related to;

• o Site access and vegetation works and SUD banks as per approved plan 22/3178/P/03B completed before first occupation of any of the dwellings.
• o Internal access road, pedestrian footpaths, vehicular turning areas and driveways as per approved plan 22/3178/P/04F completed before first occupation of any of the dwellings. They advise that the DOI Drainage team and MUA should be consulted on the drainage proposals of the newly submitted application (7 March 2024).

6.2 The DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team are content with the details submitted with the proposals. They request that conditions are secured on approval for the following: landscaping, tree protection, sodbank removal, external lighting, Bat and Bird Box Plan, and soft felling of Tree No.40 (according to Manx Bat Group's Ecological Appraisal (23 August 2023).

• 6.2.1 DEFA Ecosystem and Fisheries Team have provided further comments on the application indicating that they object to the proposed development on the basis of greater likelihood of increased raw sewage discharge into a statutorily protected marine nature reserve, and in possible contravention of the Manx Marine Nature Reserves Byelaws 2018. They however, note that timely (i.e. before occupancy) and effective mechanisms to remove the risk of raw sewage discharges into Laxey Bay, may remove this objection (02 August 2024).

• 6.2.2 Whilst not directly related to the site, Manx Utilities have made comments on a similar application under PA 24/00763/B at Ashwood, Ballamenagh Road, Baldrine, which seeks to address the issue with the raw sewage outfall in Garwick Bay. Their comments dated 19 August States thus: "With regard to wastewater discharges into Garwick Bay, Manx Utilities has assessed this planning application against the current "Licence to discharge" as issued by DEFA in accordance with Section 5 of the Water Pollution Act 1993 for the Baldrine drainage catchment. The existing discharge licence does has sufficient headroom to accommodate the foul flows from the proposed three dwellings.

There is currently a defect on the sea outfall pipe that discharges flows into Garwick Bay, the location is shown on the photograph issued by Manx Wildlife Trust. This defect is known to Manx Utilities who has engaged a contractor to facilitate the necessary repairs. Unfortunately access to the defect on the outfall is difficult and only accessible during certain low tides, the works are therefore programmed this week but are also subject to weather conditions."

6.3 DEFA Forestry made the following initial comments on the application (29 June 2023):

• o They raised concerns regarding the proposed removal of the large sycamore tree by the site entrance which needs to be removed to facilitate the scheme, as Forestry would not want to see this tree removed.
• o They noted that the applicant agreed to provide tree protection details, increase the number and diversity of trees being planted, and to avoid excavation of the sod bank around the trees.

• 6.3.1 No further comments have been received following submission of additional/amended information.

6.4 Manx Utilities Drainage have indicated that the proposed drainage infrastructure for this development as indicated on drawing 22/3178/P/04 B, does not meet with the requirements of Manx Utilities for public adoption and as such both the foul and surface water system serving this development will remain private. They further note that in order to connect to the public foul sewers via MH SC42817404 third party permission may be required to enter on lands outside the ownership of the applicant, and that such discussions are between the applicant and the land owner, and not Manx Utilities. Conditions have been recommended should the application be approved (08 September 2023).

6.4.1 Further to reviewing additional/amended documents provided by the applicants, they have provided the following comments (4 September 2024):

• 1) The proposed wastewater drainage infrastructure for the development now meets with the requirements of Manx Sewers for adoption. Consideration will be given for public adoption subject to a section 8 adoption agreement being entered into between the applicant and Manx Utilities.
• 2) The proposed surface water infrastructure does not conform to the requirement of Manx Sewers for adoption and therefore will not be considered for public adoption. The responsibility for future ownership and maintenance will remain with the developer/ residents.
• 3) The location of the proposed soakaways currently shown located in plot 7 to serve the development roadway must be discussed with Manx Utilities, this is to ensure there is no impact on the wastewater sewers in the area.
• 4) Any entry onto third party lands to undertake any connection to the public wastewater sewers must be sought.
• 5) Drainage communication fees are applicable for the proposed dwellings
• 6) No surface water discharges are permitted to be connected into any wastewater systems.
• 7) The proposed land drain through the rear gardens of plots 3-7 will not form part of any public drainage system.
• 8) Prior to development work commencing, method statements must be provided for the installation of any wastewater sewer through Plot 7 adjacent to existing trees.

• 6.4.2 Following review of the revised drainage proposal on Drawing No. 22/3178/P/04 Rev J ,Manx Utilities Drainage have made the following comments on the application (16 October 2024):

• o If the applicant wishes for the foul sewers to be publicly adopted, a section 8 adoption agreement must be entered into with Manx Utilities. The design and construction of these sewers must be in accordance with Manx Sewers for Adoption.
• o As previously advised, the storm water drainage will not be considered for public adoption, and it is therefore recommended that the ownership and long-term maintenance of the surface water infrastructure (including any land drainage) be identified. Consideration must also be given to the frequency and method of emptying of catchpit labelled B (as access here with any tanker would be extremely difficult).
• o As the surface water drainage is to remain private, Manx Utilities has not technically assessed these proposals.
• o No surface water (directly or indirectly) will be permitted to discharge into the foul sewers.
• o Drainage communication fees will be applicable for the proposed dwellings.

6.5 Manx Wildlife Trust have made the following comments on the application (18 July 2024):

• o They note that the planning application includes provision for foul drainage to connect to the mains sewer for Baldrine. As the mains sewer for Baldrine currently flows, unfiltered and untreated into the Laxey Bay Marine Nature Reserve, one of our UNESCO Biosphere 'Core Areas' which is protected under Sections 32 and 33 of the Wildlife Act 1990, we therefore recommend that no approval be given for this proposal until either the Garff sewage issue has

• been fully resolved via the provision of treatment facilities, or unless sufficient other forms of foul waste disposal and/or treatment are incorporated within this proposal.
• o They state that approval of the existing plans would be contrary to Environment Policy

• 4, Environment Policy 7, Environment Policy 22 of the Strategic Plan, off of which relate to the protection of habitats and water.

• o They note that the Isle of Man is a voluntary signatory to the Ramsar Convention of the protection of wetlands, and therefore has an international legal obligation to protect our wetlands, which includes coastal waters under the terms of this binding international treaty.
• o They provide image of the raw sewage outfall in Garwick Bay (within the Laxey Bay Marine Nature Reserve) taken by Manx Wildlife Trust on 29th June 2024 demonstrating the seriousness of this problem.
• o They also note that this field contains a variety of archaeological sites, including the Cronk ny Fannag tumulus, and state that Protection of archaeological sites is contained within the charitable instruments of Manx Wildlife Trust, and therefore request that the Planning Committee ensure that thorough archaeological investigations and mitigations are included for this proposal to ensure compliance with Environment Policies 40 & 41.

6.6 Isle of Man Railways have made the following comments on the application:

• 6.6.1 Comments received 20 September 2024:

• o They note that they are concerned that the proposed main surface water system will discharge into soakaways at the bottom of the site and subsequently onto the boundary with the Manx Electric Railway.
• o They note that they are concerned that the proposed main surface water system will discharge into soakaways at the bottom of the site and subsequently onto the boundary with the Manx Electric Railway.
• o They state that they would be pleased to discuss this matter further in order to determine a more effective solution, but at this time cannot support your planning application until these concerns have been addressed.

• 6.6.2 Comments received 16 October 2024: They state that they have reviewed the revised surface water drainage system (drawing attached) and would add the condition that the Isle of Man Railways is to inspect and approve the installed drainage connecting to the rail drainage system, and that this is to accord with the submitted design.

6.7 Garff Commissioners object to the application on grounds of insufficient information about size, scope and style of buildings; matters regarding failure of proposed houses to meet housing need; and the need for highway revisions (12.05.23/26.10.23).

• 6.7.1 Following the review of the amendments made on the application, the Garff Commissioners continue to object to the application on the following grounds (8 March 2024):

• o After considering the Area Plan for the East, Members do not believe that there is a need for housing of the size and scope being proposed in the application. In this circumstance, Members cannot see that an approval decision can be justified.
• o The Commissioners would be more positive about an application for 'affordable housing'
• on this site as such dwellings would be more useful in addressing the housing needs of local young people and first-time buyers; it is the belief of Members that we are now in times in which housing provision should be driven by proven social/community need rather than uninhibited commercial considerations and market forces.

• Increase in traffic volumes in the vicinity; members are particularly concerned about the stress that the additional vehicle movements will put on Baldrine Road and particularly the Baldrine Road/A2 Junction.

6.8 Comments from Local residents:

• 6.8.1 The following properties have made comments on the application:

• 1. Belmore, The Crescent, Baldrine (13.04.23/14.04.23/01.09.23/05.09.23/13.04.24).
• 2. Maybank, The Crescent, Baldrine (26.04.23).
• 3. The Nook, The Crescent, Baldrine (26.04.23).
• 4. Llanberis, The Crescent, Baldrine (08.08.23).
• 5. Struie, Highfield Drive, Baldrine (16.04.23).
• 6. Honey Hey, Highfield Drive, Baldrine (26.04.23).
• 7. Brackenbank, Highfield Drive, Baldrine (03.04.23).
• 8. Ballaruud, Highfield Drive, Baldrine (27.04.23).
• 9. Emscote, Highfield Drive, Baldrine (28 April 2023).
• 10. Thornhill, Highfield Drive, Baldrine (28 April 2023).
• 11. Thie-Bane, Highfield Drive, Baldrine (01.05.23/21.08.23/28.03.24).
• 12. The Old Boathouse, Beach Road, Baldrine (15.10.23).
• 13. Glencairn, Tent Road, Laxey (27.04.23).
• 14. 2 Glen View, South Cape (25.10.23/7.03.24).
• 15. Cruachan, Highfield Drive, Baldrine (15.03.24)

• 6.8.2 Some object to the application for the following reasons:

• 1. Impacts on privacy (overlooking);
• 2. Loss of light;
• 3. Overbearing impacts;
• 4. Impact on property value;
• 5. Effects on village from increase in traffic;
• 6. Question need for additional dwellings;
• 7. Pressure on existing amenities;
• 8. Potential impacts on bats;
• 9. Issues with drainage and final discharge via the existing network;
• 10. Impact of construction activities;
• 11. Inaccuracies with document submitted (highway matters and loss of trees);
• 12. Flooding concerns;
• 13. Loss of grazing field;
• 14. Potential adverse impact on archaeological site (s);
• 15. Impact on character of area;
• 16. Reference to the site as a Strategic Reserve;
• 17. Use of Strategic Reserve for access;
• 18. Impact on views from the MER;
• 19. Traffic safety concerns;
• 20. Potential pollution of river.

- 7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The fundamental issues to be considered with this application are:

• 1. The principle of development (STP1, STP2, SPP4, HP4, & HP6);
• 2. Potential Impacts on the character and appearance of the site and area (STP3, STP5, GP2, EP42, RDG'21);
• 3. Impacts on Ecology (EP 4, EP 5, EP 22 & GP2);
• 4. Potential Impact on Trees (GP 2 & EP 3);
• 5. Highway issues/Impacts on MER (STP10, GP2 h & i, TP 3, 4, 6 & 7);
• 6. Drainage (GP2, STP 1c, & IP 1);
• 7. Potential impacts upon Neighbouring Residential Amenity (GP2(g), EP 22 & RDG'21); and
• 8. Archaeological Concerns (EP 40 & 41).

- 7.2 PRINCIPLE OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

• 7.2.1 As indicated within the 'Planning Policy' section of this report, the site is designated for residential development on the Area Plan as well as being situated within the settlement

boundary of Baldrine. The site is also adjoining areas of residential use such that the use of the site for residential purposes would be compatible with adjoining uses and conform to the general use of the area.

• 7.2.2 Another factor that weighs in favour of the proposed residential development here is the fact that since the 2018 approval, there has not been material planning changes which have arisen in terms of policy which should necessitate a reversal of the favourable policy disposition towards developing the site area, particularly as the Area Plan for the East has strengthened the residential use of the site.

• 7.2.3 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 an adopted road with established links to a public transport corridor along the A2. 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.

• 7.2.4 Furthermore, 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.
• 7.2.5 It has also been established via historic planning applications for the site (PA's 16/01139/A and 18/01166/REM) that the principle of the residential development of seven (7) dwellings at the site would be acceptable, and there is generally no disagreement from review of the application documents that the application site could not accommodate the number of dwellings currently proposed for the site.
• 7.2.6 Whilst attention has been drawn to the fact that part of the development would be situated within a Strategic Reserve, this would only be for the creation of the access to the site, and this was considered acceptable by the Appeal Inspector when making recommendations for approval of PA 16/01139/A. Additionally, the Area Plan inspector reviewed this and also considered the access to the site to be acceptable; a factor that necessitated (Site GH013s) to be designated as a Strategic Reserve within the Area Plan. As such, the creation of this access via the Strategic Reserve is an acceptable development.
• 7.2.7 The comments that refer to whether there is further need for the proposed dwellings in Baldrine is also noted. However, like the access via Field 612727 (Site GH013s), the principle has already been considered acceptable via historic planning decisions for the site, and through the provisions of the Area Plan for the East for the site and area. As such, it is not considered that further justification of the need for the 7 dwellings proposed is required.
• 7.2.8 Accordingly, and as previously considered, the proposal would comply with the zoning relevant planning policies and therefore it is judged that the principle of the proposed development would be acceptable. This is, however, not an automatic reason to allow development as further material planning matters as indicated previously need to be considered, to determine if the current scheme would be appropriate for the site.

- 7.3 POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON THE CHARACTER/APPEARANCE OF THE STREET SCENE

• 7.3.1 In terms of the visual impacts of the new dwellings, it is considered that the site is generally screened from public view, with the main public views being that achieved from about 350m to the north, from Ballagawne Road. Likewise, there would be views of the dwellings

• from the Manx Electric Railway (MER) line which runs parallel to the eastern boundary of the site. The area for the proposed housing is also located immediately to the north and slightly lower than the existing housing in Highfield Drive, with the site level only slightly higher than the site levels for the dwellings at The Crescent which have site boundaries that are set considerably taller than the site levels with vegetation which provides considerable screening for the dwellings here, offering only views to the vegetation on the boundary of the application site.
• 7.3.2 Notwithstanding the varied range of views that would be achievable of the proposed development, it is considered that the proposal would be read in the context of the surrounding developments which are largely residential, and aligned with the new residential development proposed for the site. Moreover, the scheme would integrate considerably levels of landscaping which would serve to soften the impact of the development, with the retained sodbanks on the boundaries also serving to create a progressive transition from the natural boundaries to the new built development on the site.
• 7.3.3 It is perhaps also worth considering that the design of dwellings in terms of their form is modern, albeit with steeply pitched roof finishes and gable ends, and would be finished in traditional construction materials, including painted render, stone wall cladding, and slates roof finish, with would be largely in keeping with the design and finishing of the properties situated within Highfield Drive and The Crescent. It is also considered that the proposed dwellings will be of similar scale to the dwellings situated within Highfield Drive and The Crescent, which has a good number of two storey or split level dwellings, with the varied design types also fitting with the extent character of the area, considering the houses within Highfield Drive and The Crescent have varied individual designs, with no overriding design type/style. Accordingly, the overall design, siting, layout, size, landscaping and finishes of the dwelling would all be acceptable and would create a pleasant housing development, without having a significant adverse visual impact to the amenities of the street scene, site or area.
• 7.3.4 Besides, Paragraph 6.8.3 of the Area Plan Written Statement requires new development to not seek to mimic existing development but be of its own time, with the current proposal considered to be a true reflection of its time, being a representation of a modern housing development in terms of design, whilst retaining the dominant form, scale, and finish of housing in the area.
• 7.3.5 Overall, in terms of the impacts on the street scene, the design, layout, finishes and scale of the development would be appropriate. Accordingly, whilst there will be an impact to the visual amenities of the area over the current situation which is use as an agricultural field, the impact to public views would not be significant and it is considered the proposals would be acceptable and comply with the requirements of General Policy 2 and the principles advocated by Environment Policy 42 of the IOMSP.

- 7.4 IMPACTS ON BIODIVERSITY

• 7.4.1 In terms of impacts on biodiversity, it is considered that the site, if left in its natural state could offer a wealth of bio-diversity and ecology benefits to the area. However, the site is currently being cultivated for fodder, which would greatly diminish its potential to serve as habitat for biota. Therefore, it is not considered that the use of the site as proposed would cause or lead to unacceptable environmental disturbance, with significant detrimental impacts on biodiversity.
• 7.4.2 Further to the above, the scheme would result in minimal removal of trees or boundary vegetation, with the impacts in this case only involving the removal of a large tree by the site entrance and other small trees to enable the access to the dwellings. As such, it's further not considered that the development as proposed would result in significant adverse impacts on site ecology, as the key concern with these ecological features is the potential dislodging of habitats which could house protected species in the area.

• 7.4.3 In addition, the scheme has been accompanied by supporting ecological information, such as the Revised New Tree Planting Maintenance and Aftercare schedule, and Bat Survey prepared by the Manx Bat Group, which have been reviewed by the DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team and considered to be acceptable, subject to recommended conditions which are to be secured on approval. Therefore, it is considered that these elements of the proposal would meet the requirements of Environment Policies 4 and 5.
• 7.4.4 With regard to the foul discharge scheme for the site, the Ecosystem Policy Team and Manx Wildlife Trust have considered the application and both raise no objection to the works on the application site. However, concerns have been raised regarding the foul water from this development and Garff which is collected by the main sewer network and goes directly to an outfall out at sea; without being treated, which is the situation today for properties in this catchment (including Laxey and Baldrine). In assessing this concern for the development, it would be vital to note that the policies within the IOMSP seek any development to be connected to main sewer/services etc. which is what the current development is proposing to undertake by connecting to the main sewer in the highway. This complies with General Policy 2 paragraph (j); "can be provided with all necessary services;". Furthermore, this site as well as other sites within Garff have only recently been designated for development, including residential development under the Area Plan for the East 2021. Accordingly, it is pertinent to state that it is at the Area Plan stage that such issues are considered and addressed when developing the area plans, and not at the development control level.
• 7.4.5 While it is public knowledge that Manx Utilities are considering a sewer treatment plant in Garff, no plans have been submitted to date (other than a scheme at the centre of Laxey which was refused a few years ago). Taking the suggested approach of the Ecosystem Policy Team and Manx Wildlife Trust on this issue into consideration, it would be important to note that the approach holds the potential to stifle all development in Garff, especially for any new development and/or extensions to properties which include toilet provisions for example (whether for dwellings, offices, commercial premises etc.), as any of these developments hold the potential to increase sewerage outflow.
• 7.4.6 It is also noted that no objection has been received from Manx Utilities in terms of the connection to the mains sewer.
• 7.4.7 Based on the foregoing, should any third party have concerns of any pollution taking places, they should contact the relevant Government Department to take the appropriate action under their legislation. Furthermore, while no calculations or evidence is available in terms of the amount of foul water seven additional dwellings would result in, it is not unreasonable to consider that the level of additional foul waste created by this current development is likely to be so inconsequential when taking account of the overall catchment of Garff. As such, it is not considered that the proposed development would unacceptably harm the environment" as per EP22, to an extent to refuse the application on this ground.
• 7.4.8 Should the Committee Members disagree with this approach and agree that no foul water should be connected to the main sewer, then a condition could be attached which seeks an alternative drainage plan be submitted to deal with foul water from the development. It is likely either a bio disc or septic tank could be possible options, until such times that the properties can be connected to the main sewer once a treated systems has been provided; albeit this would seem a backwards step given the site can be provided by the mains service and would go against adopted planning policy and also seem excessively costly and an unsustainable form of development (that is, to install a costly systems to then decommission them at a later date).

- 7.4 POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON TREES (GP 2 & EP 3)

• 7.4.1 Arguably the main concerns with the current scheme in terms of tree impacts is the fact that a large Sycamore (Cat. C Tree) situated by the site entrance would be removed to create better visibility for the access to the site. Whilst this would be unfortunate, the applicants have agreed to provide tree protection details for the retained trees on site, whilst increasing the number and diversity of trees being planted, in addition to avoiding excavation of the sod bank around the trees, and this is considered to result in improved arboricultural benefits for the site, as the scheme holds the potential to increase the tree amenity for the site via improved diversity and overall tree cover in the future.
• 7.4.2 There were concerns that the proposed works, particularly the laying of drainage pipes through Plot 7 could impact on the trees situated south of Plot 7, given that the drainage pipes would cut through the root protection area (RPA's) for these trees which were proposed to be retained on site. This issue was discussed with the DEFA Senior Arboricultural Officer via a phone conversation on 28 October 2024, who advised that the concerns could be addressed by a condition requesting that a method statement detailing how the scheme would install the drainage pipes through Plot 7, without affecting the trees. As such, a condition would be imposed to ensure that the development does not result in adverse impacts on the affected trees.
• 7.4.3 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the tree removal proposed within the scheme would be acceptable in arboricultural terms, although appropriate conditions are imposed to ensure that the required tree protection and improvement are integral to the development of the site.

- 7.5 HIGHWAY ISSUES/IMPACTS ON MER

• 7.5.1 In assessing the highway impacts of the current scheme, it is considered that the scheme also provides details of the access to the site at the junction with Baldrine Road, which has been designed to comply with visibility splay requirements, as well as other off site works to improve highway safety which has been considered acceptable by highway services.
• 7.5.2 In terms of off road parking, each dwelling would have at least 2 spaces provided within the site, in addition to parking spaces provided within the garages which would be more than sufficient when compared with the requirements of Transport Policy 7 and stipulated within Appendix 7 of the IOMSP.
• 7.5.3 In addition, the development makes provision for pedestrian access areas along the main road, as well as the provision of 2m wide footpaths to roads within site with tactile crossing points which would ensure proper segregation between pedestrians and vehicle users in line with Transport Policy 6. As well, the site is within a close proximity to a public transport corridor for bus transportation, and the MER which increases the public transport options available to future occupants, and these would serve to ensure that the proposal aligns with the requirements of Transport Policy 1, 2, 4 and 6.
• 7.5.4 Further to the above, Highway Services have assessed the new access, the internal road layout, as well as the relationship with existing road networks and confirmed that they do not oppose the application subject to conditions, subject to conditions, which indicates a general acceptance of the highway elements of the scheme.
• 7.5.5 In terms of potential impacts on the MER, it is not considered that the proposal will adversely affect the MER in any way. This is based on the fact that the proposal will not affect the track or any of its buildings. Likewise, the layout of the drainage network for the site would also not create any adverse impacts on the MER track, a situation that is evidenced in the consultation comments from Isle of Man Railways dated 15 October 2024. Notwithstanding, a condition would be imposed to ensure that drainage connection which links to the railway networks accords with the submitted Plan (drawing No. 22/3178/P/04 Rev J).

• 7.5.6 With regard to impacts on views from the line, it is considered that the varying levels for the site and surrounding area restricts views of the surrounding area beyond the railway, such that the dwellings will not impede views attainable from the line, as better views of the surrounding topography are achievable further up the line where there are limited restrictions to view. This is hinged on the fact that the main causes of any loss of view here are the mature landscaping that lines the boundaries of the properties along this part of the line, which is to be retained to preserve the privacy of a number of these dwellings, and in some cases sit taller than the coaches. Therefore, it is also considered that the proposal would not compromise the integrity, character or the setting of the MER.

- 7.6 DRAINAGE

• 7.6.1 With regard to drainage for the site, it is considered that the drainage elements of the proposed scheme has been assessed by MUA Drainage who are satisfied with the scheme, whilst noting the elements that would be adopted and those that would be private, and it is judged that the connection of the dwellings with the with the main sewer/services for foul drainage discharge aligns with the provisions of General Policy 2 (j), as well as the provisions of the Area Plan for the East which requires that there must be sufficient information provided to permit the servicing authorities such as Manx Utilities to assess network impacts and requirements properly, and that in the cases of Laxey and Baldrine, where some constraints for sewer and water services are known, demonstration of a new connection being accepted by the servicing authority will be vital (See Paragraphs 7.8.10 & 7.8.11 of TAPE). As Manx Utilities have indicated that the proposed drainage infrastructure for the development would be acceptable, this proposal is considered acceptable from the planning policy standpoint.
• 7.6.2 It is, however, worth noting that the surface water drainage system would not be adopted by Manx Utilities, but would remain private. As such, it would be important that there is a clear management structure for the surface water network once the development is operational, particularly as a number of the subsystems within this network would sit within private curtilages. As such, a condition is imposed to ensure that details a management system is provided, and is forms part of the operations of the development.
• 7.6.3 It has also been considered that proposal would require private access into lands outside the delineated application site boundary. However, these are matters which fall outside the remit of the planning application or planning control. As such, it is not considered that these hold any weight in decisions regarding drainage for the site.
• 7.6.4 Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed scheme would comply with GP 2 (j), and the Area Plan for the East.

- 7.7 POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON NEIGHBOURING RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES

• 7.7.1 In terms of impacts on neighbouring amenity (overbearing impacts upon outlooks, loss of light, and or loss or privacy), it is not considered that the proposed scheme would result in detrimental impacts on the neighbouring amenity of the nearby dwellings. This is hinged on the fact that the closest of the new dwellings (Plot 7) would be positioned about 26.5m from the nearest neighbouring property at Birkdale, Highfield Drive, Baldrine. Further to the above, raised land level for the existing dwelling at Birkdale relative to Plot 7, and existing boundary treatment which comprises a raised sodbank with mature vegetation, as well as the proposed planting on the southern section of the site boundary would serve to ameliorate any concerns as it would serve to provide an additional buffer between Highfield Drive and the proposed development. It is also worth noting that the only first floor window on the south elevation of Plot 7 (which serves a non-habitable room - toilet) sits about 20m from the boundary of the neighbours at Birkdale, and further away from Honey Hey and Follaton which sit south.
• 7.7.2 With regard to the properties situated within The Crescent which sits on a slightly lower elevation than the proposed dwellings, it is considered that any impacts on amenity concerns would be diminished by the separating distance between the proposed dwellings and these

• neighbouring properties. Plot 3 would sit about 40m from Maybank, Plot 4 will sit about 39m from Gatwick Lodge, Plot 5 would be about 40m from Llanberis, Plot 6 will be about 38m from Belmore, while Plot 7 will be about 41.6m from Quarmby; distances which would serve to ensure that overbearing impacts upon outlooks, loss of light, and or loss or privacy does not result. Further to the above, there exists raised bunds with mature boundary hedge on the eastern boundary of the site which abuts the MER that runs between the application and the properties on The Crescent. As well, most of the properties on the western side of The Crescent have mature landscaping and fences on their boundaries with the MER to provide some level of privacy and these serve to future diminish any privacy concerns, even though the separating distances make such concerns untenable. The distance from the first floor rear windows of the new dwellings sit over 20m from the edge of these rear gardens; conditions that would serve to further diminish any amenity concerns for these properties.
• 7.7.3 Overall, whilst the proposed development will introduce new development where none currently exists, it is judged that the proposal would not result in significant impacts on the existing neighbouring properties in the area compared to the existing situation, and for the reasons articulated above. Therefore, the proposed development would comply with General Policy 2 of the IOMSP and the Residential Design Guide 2021.

- 7.8 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONCERNS

• 7.8.1 With regard to potential impacts on existing archaeological sites in the area, it has been already established in Paragraph 3.1.1 of this report, that there is evidence of some buried archaeological remains within the blue line boundary, but outside of the application site, and as such it is not considered that the proposal would result in adverse impacts on these sites, as any physical works in relation to the proposal would be well away from these sites.
• 7.8.2 Notwithstanding the factors highlighted above, it would be important that these sites are protected from any form of encroachment during the works to erect the dwellings or carry out associated ground works. As such, suitable conditions which would ensure that appropriate mitigation is integral to works commencing on site.
• 7.8.3 Given the safeguards identified above, it is judged that the integrity of the archaeological sites as well as their settings would be preserved by the proposal, without resulting in adverse impacts on these sites.

- 7.9 OTHER MATTERS

• 7.9.1 Affordable Housing

• 7.9.1.1 The comments made regarding the provision of affordable housing for the site is noted. However, the current application is for 7 houses which is below the required threshold for affordable housing provision, as stipulated within Housing Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan. Therefore, it is considered that there are no policy basis to request for provision of affordable housing in the current case.

• 7.9.1.2 Furthermore, seven dwellings was the number considered acceptable for the site given the potential associated impacts, with this number of dwellings considered acceptable within the appeal decision for the site under PA 16/01139/A for the following reasons:

• 67. The LLAP also indicated that the site could be suitable for high density housing with an allocation of affordable homes. This would have been the choice of the Garff Commissioners and the PA also considered that this could have been a possibility. However, the applicant decided to apply for just 7 houses which is below the required threshold for affordable housing provision. This was stated to be because a lower density would accord with the semi-rural location of the site as well as being more sympathetic to existing nearby residents.
• 68. The extent to which the site is developed is a matter for the applicant and the application for 7 dwellings in principle must be assessed on its merits. If the approval is upheld, this low figure would limit the number of new dwellings which would need to be connected to the existing sewerage system, as well as limiting the number of additional users to the road

network. I also agree with the PA that a higher density scheme might well have led to even more vociferous objections to the substantial number already made. Thus, although the question of density is a material consideration, it is not a major issue between the parties.

• 7.9.2 Other Issues

• 7.9.2.1 The matters related to construction traffic, property values, and other matters controlled by other legislation outside planning, bear no weight as material planning considerations and as such cannot be considered in the assessment of this planning application. These issues would be better addressed via the appropriate legislation outside the remit of planning.
• 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 Overall, it is considered that the proposals align with the requirements of General Policy 2; Strategic Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10; Spatial Policy 2 & 5, Environment Policies 3, 4, and 42; Housing Policies 1, & 2, 3, 4 & 6; and Transport Policies 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7; the Area Plan for the East, 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 o 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:…25.11.2024 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 25.11.2024 Application No. : 23/00388/B Applicant : Mr Mark Pearce Proposal : Construction of seven detached houses and associated infrastructure Site Address : Fields 612727 & 612728 Baldrine Farm Baldrine Road Baldrine Planning Officer : Paul Visigah Presenting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The application was initially presented to the Committee at its public meeting on 11th November 2024 where the members deferred consideration in order that a site visit may be conducted. The site visit was held 18th November 2024.

The Committee further considered the matter at its public meeting 25 November 2024 where it unanimously rejected the recommendation of the Case Officer and the application was refused.

The Committee also accepted the revised recommendation of the Officer as to the IPS recommendations.