Loading document...
The application site comprises of a strip of land that runs from the Crosby Hotel in Marown along the Peel Road and then across the adjacent field down to the River Dhoo.
The proposed development comprises of the provision of temporary drainage infrastructure along the application site in association with the residential development of the land to the rear of the Crosby Hotel.
During the process of the planning application the applicant has had discussions with officers from DAFF, DoT and DLGE regarding the technical specification of the proposal. These discussions led to an amendment to the scheme and the submission of two amended drawings (drawing no.s 205 rev. D and 206 rev. D superseded respective drawing no.s 205 rev. B and 206 rev. A). These amended drawings were properly re-advertised and were available for inspection
I consider there to be three previous planning applications that could be viewed as relevant or related to the assessment of this current planning applications:
Planning application 03/00166/B sought approval for residential development on the land to the rear of the Crosby Hotel for forty one dwellings with associated infrastructure. This planning application was initially considered and approved by the Planning Committee on the 26th September 2003, with the initial approval decision notice issued on the 16th October 2003. The Planning Committee resolved to reverse their initial decision at review on the 5th February 2004, with the review refusal decision notice issued on the 16th February 2004. On the 30th September 2004 the Minister accepted the recommendation of the appointed Planning Inspector and approved the planning application at appeal.
Planning application 04/02634/B sought approval for amendments to the previously approved residential development (03/00166/B) on land to the rear of the Crosby Hotel. This planning application was initially considered and approved by the Planning Committee on the 30th March 2005, with the initial approval decision notice issued on the 1st April 2005.
Planning application 05/00811/B sought approval for residential development on the land to the rear of the Crosby Hotel for thirty nine dwellings with associated infrastructure. This planning application was initially considered and approved by the Planning Committee on the 7th October 2005, with the initial approval decision notice issued on the 18th October 2005. The Planning Committee resolved to confirm their initial decision at review on the 16th December 2005, with the review approval decision notice issued on the 22nd December 2005. The decision to approve the planning application has been subsequently taken to appeal by a third party. At the time of writing this report the appeal hearing had been heard but the Minister's decision had not been issued.
Marown Parish Commissioners state that whilst they consider the scheme an improvement over the previous one they have concerns regarding the positioning, operation and security of the temporary treatment plant within the residential development of the land to the rear of the Crosby Hotel (i.e. planning applications 04/02634/B and 05/00811/B).
The Department of Transport Drainage Division state that they have no objection to the proposed development. Following the receipt of the submitted amended scheme they reiterated this position.
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Inland Fisheries Development Manager initially advised that they had no objection to the proposed route of the drainage system but did have some concerns regarding the outfall to the River Dhoo. They indicated that they had undertaken discussions with the applicant regarding amendments to the scheme and requested that any decision was deferred pending the submission of amended scheme. I understand that the amended scheme was prepared in conclusion with the Inland Fisheries Development Manager. Whilst no further formal comment has been received from the Inland Fisheries Development Manager in relation to the submitted amended scheme I understand that they are satisfied with the amended scheme.
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Wildlife and Conservation Officer initially made comments on the proposed scheme and how it could be improved to limit ecological impact. They indicated that they had undertaken discussions with the applicant regarding amendments to the scheme. I understand that the amended scheme was prepared in conclusion with the Wildlife and Conservation Officer. Whilst no further formal comment has been received from the Wildlife and Conservation Officer in relation to the submitted amended scheme I understand that they are satisfied with the amended scheme.
The Manx Electricity Authority initially make no comment on the merit of the proposed development but request that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice. Following the receipt of the submitted amended scheme they reiterated this position.
The owner and/or occupant of 22 Eyreton Park, which is located approximately 100 metres at its closest point from the application site, objects to the planning application. Based on my interpretation of their representation the grounds for their objection relate to the use of a temporary treatment plant within the residential development of the land to the rear of the Crosby Hotel (i.e. planning applications 04/02634/B and 05/00811/B). Following the receipt of the submitted amended scheme they reiterated their concerns.
The owner and/or occupant of Seacliffe, which is located in Port Soderick, comments on the planning application.
I do not consider there to be any specific planning policies that are relevant to the assessment of the planning application.
The planning application seeks approval for the provision of temporary drainage infrastructure to serve the residential development of the residential development of land to the rear of the Crosby Hotel. As stated earlier in this report the proposal has been amended following the applicant having discussions with DAFF, DoT and DLGE. An amended scheme was submitted and the relevant drawings were properly re-advertised and made available for inspection.
Firstly, with reference to a number of the representations I feel that I must highlight that this application relates to the provision of temporary drainage infrastructure. It is not the role of this planning application to examine the appropriateness of the use of a temporary treatment plant within the residential development of the land to the rear of the Crosby Hotel. That particular issue has already been examined through to appeal on a number of occasions. The operation of the temporary treatment plant is controlled by a licence to discharge under the Water Pollution Act 1993. I understand that the development proposed by this current planning application is partially a response to meeting the requirements of such license.
As the scheme is underground I would suggest that its impacts and therefore the material considerations are limited. To my mind the only issues to examine are the environmental/ecological impact and the appropriateness of the scheme. In order to do this I have to be primarily guided by the professional advice of the relevant sections of DAFF and DoT. Given that the scheme has been amended in accordance with the requirements of DAFF and that DoT have no objections I have to conclude that the scheme is acceptable.
The use of the scheme is related to the residential development of the land to the rear of the Crosby Hotel and specifically the use of a temporary treatment plant within the development. At some stage that treatment plant will cease to be used and will be removed from the site. In addition to appropriate technical conditions suggested by other parties I consider it reasonable to require the removal of the scheme works and the restoration of the land following the cessation of its use.
I recommend that the planning application be approved.
I consider that the following parties that made representations to the planning application meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
I consider that the following parties that made representations to the planning application do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
The owner and/or occupant of 22 Eyreton Park; and The owner and/or occupant of Seacliffe.
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 07.06.2006
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This approval relates to drawing no. 207 rev. A date stamped the 12th January 2006 and drawing no.s 205 rev. D and 206 rev. D date stamped the 22nd March 2006.
C 3. Within three months of the cessation of its use the drainage infrastructure that has been installed in accordance with this approval must be removed from the application site in its entirety and the site be made good.
N 1. The applicant/developer is advised that this approval does not confer approval of any required licence to discharge under the Water Pollution Act (1993).
N 2. The applicant/developer is advised to contact the Department of Transport Drainage Division prior to the commencement of development to discuss the implementation of the development. Such discussions are recommended to cover aspects such as the submission of full technical construction drawings and watercourse calculations, the method of crossing of the old railway line with the effluent pipe and installation details.
N 3. The applicant/developer is advised that the Department of Transport has stated that the treated effluent pipe from the development to the River Dhoo will remain private and will not become part of an adopted public drainage system once installed. The responsibility for future maintenance will fall to the applicant/developer/owner.
N 4. The applicant/developer is advised to contact the Manx Electricity Authority’s Operations and Maintenance Department prior to the commencement of development to discuss working practices around electricity lines and cables that are within the proximity of the application site.
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 8/6/01
Signed: M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
