DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 20/01467/B Applicant: Delgatie Limited Proposal: Erection of a building to provide exhibition space, retail, apartments and restaurant with associated parking spaces (relating to PA 19/00373/A) Site Address: The Former Marine Biological Station Breakwater Road Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6JA Photo Taken: 25.09.2021 Site Visit: 25.09.2021 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Approve subject to Legal Agreement Date of Recommendation: 21.03.2022 - R 1. The development would fail to comply with parts 2, 4, 6 and significant parts of part 1 of Development Brief 22 of the Area Plan for the East which sets out the criteria for developing the site, thus failing to comply with General Policy 2 (a) of the Strategic Plan, which requires that new development should accord with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief. - R 2. Due to the overall height and form it is considered that the development would result in an obtrusive built development within an area with largely unspoilt character and appearance which is acknowledged in the Landscape Character Appraisal within the Area Plan for the South, as meriting protection. Given the layout and overall density, coupled with the quantum of development on the application site, the role of this part of the Peninsula in providing a vegetated, undeveloped backdrop to Port Erin would be diminished, resulting in detrimental impacts on the character and appearance of the area and the context of this part of Port Erin, which is prominent and contributes significantly to the scenic coastal value of the area, contrary to Landscape Proposal 10 and Development Brief 22 of the Area Plan for the South, and Strategic Policy 4(b), Environment Policy 42, and paragraph 7.4.1 of the Strategic Plan. - R 3. The current design, which is a departure from the original design conception has resulted in an unbalanced proposal and disrupts the general rhythm of the overall group of buildings, this coupled with the overall design changes it is considered that the scheme does not contribute to the environment of this part of the island which is prominent and contributes significantly to the scenic coastal value of the island, failing to relate positively and appropriately to the local character as it does not take into account a proper analysis of site context in terms of siting, layout, and scale. The proposal therefore conflicts with Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2(b & g), Strategic Policy 3(b) and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - R 4. The Public Open Space provisions within the scheme would fail to comply with the policy requirements of Recreation Policy 3 and Appendix 6 of the Strategic Plan in that some of the areas being provided are already available, as such the scheme could be considered to result in the nonprotection of existing assets and inadequate provision within the new development contrary to - paragraph 10.3.3 of the Strategic Plan which sets out the approach to ensuring that areas of open space are retained, and provided to meet local needs. The proposal would, therefore, fail to meet the Public Open Space requirements for the level of development as stipulated by Appendix 6, minding the Strategic Plans has clearly stated that developers will not be expected to make good existing deficiencies in recreational facilities as a requirement of carrying out their developments. - R 5. The proposed development does not make adequate provisions for the safety of future occupants of the proposed development in relation rock fall and the use of the landscape gardens and roof terraces, contrary to the requirements of General Policy 2 (m) of the Strategic Plan. The submitted Rock Face and Slope Stability Inspection Report prepared by Ivy House Environmental to address this concern does not make adequate safeguards for future occupants of the development, even as the report does not discountenance the chances of rock fall occurring at the site. _______________________________________________________________

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:

Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Flood Risk Management Division; DofE (Tourism Division) Department of Home Affairs Fire and Rescue Service Manx Utilities Manx National Heritage

It is recommended that the following organisation 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):

The Isle of Man Natural History & Antiquarian Society as they do not own or occupy property that is 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 and 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.

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):

3, Viking Close, Ballakillowey, Colby; Pegasus Group (Qneens House, Queens Street, Manchester); Tinsleys, Spaldrick, Port Erin; 8 South Snowdon Wharf, Porthmadog, Gwynedd, Wales; Lhie Ny Greiney, Surby Road, Surby, Port Erin; Ballafesson Farmhouse, Qualtrough's Lane, Ballafesson, Rushen; Ballacarnane Mooar Farm, Peel Road, Kirk Michael; 20, Fairway Close, Port Erin; 2963 N, Prospect Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA (Wisconsin Manx Society Inc.); Foraging Vintners, Harbourmaster's Office on Breakwater Road, Port Erin; 12, Bromet Road, Castletown; Aigney Mie, Shore Road, Gansey; Regent House, The Promenade, Port Erin; Papplewick 13, Hill Park, Ballakillowey, Rushen; Ballakinnag House, Shore Road, Ballaugh; Suas Ltd, Westminster House, Parliament Square, Castletown;

Beach House, Beach Road, Gansey, Port St. Mary;

• 1, Bradda View Grove, Ballakillowey, Rushen; 33, Maghergarran, Port Erin; Soalt, Balnahowe Farm Cottages, Balnahow, Santon;

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.

Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL WOULD RESULT IN A DEVELOPMENT OF 8 OR MORE RESIDENTIAL UNITS; AND THE DEPARTMENT HAS RECEIVED SUBSTANTIAL REPRESENTATIONS ON THE APPLICATION.

0.0 INTRODUCTION - 0.1 This application is in detail, seeking permission for the principle and detail of the construction of a building/series of buildings which will accommodate a range of uses including residential, aparthotel, marine tourism-exhibition, food and non-food retail and the consumption of food on the premises together with the associated landscaping and car parking. - 0.2 This application follows one in principle for the same development - 19/00373/A. The scheme was originally submitted in the form of a reserved matters application to address those matters not approved in the earlier application but the site differs slightly in that it incorporates slightly more land in front of the building, to the west of the public highway and as such the application may not be considered as a reserved matters application and has been changed to a full, detailed application. Whilst it cannot rely upon the approval in principle, the most recent approval granted in principle is a material consideration in the determination of the application.

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is the curtilage of the former Marine Biological Station and its surrounding buildings and land which lies at the westernmost part of Port Erin, at the western end of Breakwater Road. The site also includes a footpath which cuts through the southern section of the site which is over the cliffs and within the grassland above, and drops to the lower parts of the site adjacent the existing substation before connecting to Breakwater Road. The site fronts onto the higher level of the road which is restricted to one way from east towards west for vehicular traffic returning via the lower section where there is on-street car parking, together with an area of roughly finished ground to the west which is part of the site but often used for informal parking as a place from which to look at the bay. The site is the same as that of the application in principle other than for the inclusion of a strip approximately 10m wide to the north west of the existing buildings which was previously shown as being within the blue area - that is, land which is not part of the planning unit but is within the ownership or control of the applicant. - 1.2 As was the case when the approval in principle was considered, the buildings on the site are all unused and in varying states of disrepair, through a prolonged period of disuse and there having been a fire within the main former Marine Biological Station in recent years. The buildings were last used in 2006. The oldest building on the site is finished in a natural slate stone with a hipped, slated roof, red brick detailing above the window and door heads and a circular feature window above the front door, also edged in red brick. There is another part stone finished building alongside which is slightly taller but similar in appearance and this sits alongside a much taller, three storey red brick building which has less detailing. On the eastern side of this building is a metal fire escape. - 1.3 To the rear of the buildings is a stone cliff edge which supports land which is up to 21m above site level. A public footpath, part of the Raad ny Foillan, starts at the eastern side of the brick building, climbs the cliff behind it and ascends to skirt the cliff edge and southwards, towards the

• Calf, affording spectacular views over the bay, towards Milner's Tower and further up, southwards towards the Calf of Man.
• 1.4 The site includes all of the buildings on the site, the area between them and the watermark to the west and some land to the east of the brick building. The applicant have stated that they will lease additional land to the north - which is currently an area of informal car park, and the land between the upper and lower parts of Breakwater Road (this land is currently outside the redline boundary, although within the ownership of the Department of Infrastructure). This area is currently grassed and slopes downwards very gently towards the bay.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is the demolition of the buildings on site (for which planning approval is not required) and the construction of multi-use buildings incorporating retail, restaurant and exhibition space (not specifically allocated as such but referred to in the application description), aparthotel rooms and apartment uses with associated landscaping, access, parking and open space. - 2.2 The scheme proposes the erection of four blocks which will accommodate a mixture of uses

• aparthotel units (14) and apartments (52) totally 66 units which would result in the creation of 9416sqm internal residential floor space, and three commercial units (In block C there is a Class 1.1 Shop - 162sqm and a Sui Generis Exhibition facility - 427sqm; In Block D, there is a restaurant/pub in one - 134sqm). The buildings sit higher than the cliff face behind blocks B, C, and D, with Block A set lower than the cliff face. The buildings, however, follow the rise and fall of the cliff to the rear.

2.3 Block A, the westernmost building on the site will be four storeys accommodating 6 apartments. It will be finished mainly in Sto or similar approved through coloured silicon resin render system, with the ground floor and second floor external walls finished in Cut local natural stone, random coursed plinth/wall panels. The penthouse would be clad in Modular engineering cut Stone Vaneer Rainscreen cladding panel system, suitable for marine environments, while the roof would be made of Metal Standing Seam Roof system also suitable for marine environments. Windows would be IQ or equivalent slim frame aluminium window, with sliding door and curtain walling system made of clear solar control glass, opaque spandrel panels and low maintenance coating to all glass. The top of the roof of this building would be set about 11.2m lower than the top of the stone wall on the nearest part of the cliff to the rear. - 2.4 Block B would be an 8 storey building finished in the same materials as Block A. It would contain 28 apartments. The height of the building would be 27.6m above ground level to the top of the penthouse (29.5m to the top of the liftshaft/fire escape on the roof). The top of the roof of this building would be set about 1.5m higher than the top of the stone wall on the nearest part of the cliff to the rear (3.4m from the top of the lift shaft/fire escape on the roof). This building would have car parking at the lower ground floor (24 spaces inside the footprint of the building including 3 disabled persons' spaces and 4 electric charging spaces with 4 bicycle parking spaces). - 2.5 Block C would have eight floors with finishes as per the other blocks. The ground floor will accommodate two commercial units (84sqm and 210sqm) with refuse store. Above this there would be 18 apartments over five floors. The lower ground floor will accommodate 39 parking spaces (5 electric and 2 disabled), cycle store and lifts. The Ground floor will have 23 car parking spaces (2 disabled persons' spaces, 3 electric charging spaces). The roof of the penthouse would be 440mm higher than the stone wall on the top of the cliff at the rear (about 2.3m higher from the top of the liftshaft/fire escape). - 2.6 Block D would have a pub/restaurant on the ground floor with five floors of accommodation above - a total of 14 aparthotel units, 12 having a multi-use space and separate bathroom and two each having a separate bedroom and bathroom. This block will be finished to match the other three blocks. The height of this building will be set slightly lower than the stone wall on the cliff top to the rear.

2.7 The apartments are spread across blocks A, B, C with Block A housing 5 two bedroom units, and 1 Three bedroom unit; Block B housing 2 Single bed units, 12 two bedroom units and 14 three bedroom units; while Block C houses 8 two bedroom units, and 10 three bedroom units. Overall, 2 of the apartments would be single bed units, 25 to be two bedroom units, while 25 would be three bedroom units. - 2.8 The application clarifies that in respect of commercial space, there will be exhibition space provided in Block C, hot food and drink retail in Block C and the ground floor to Block D with "associated supplementary accommodation" such as a nail bar, hairdresser's in Block C ground and mezzanine floors in a multi-function space. They refer to Cycle 360 and The Bike Shed in Shoreditch, London. In the western most commercial unit there will be a separate coffee shop. - 2.9 The Exhibition space would accommodate various displays and information based upon the time of the year. For example, during major motor racing events on the Island the focus would be on motorbikes. When maritime events occur the focus would switch. At other times of the year, for example when basking sharks are likely to appear in the Bay the Manx Wildlife Trust or others would be encouraged to display relevant material. Local heritage or exhibitions by local artists or craft displays could be more regular themes that would be encouraged to take space. The applicants note that the exhibition space can be used in part in relation to marine based activities.

• 2. 10 Other works proposed for the site includes alterations to the existing Substation on the eastern side of the site, by Block D. The changes to building would include:

• o Replacing the facing brickwork with through coloured render applied to existing brickwork behind to match in colour and texture to new adjoining buildings.
• o Removing the existing timber door and frame, and replacing them with new colour coated aluminium doors.
• o Altering the existing mono-pitch roof to create a new flat roof behind raised parapet with single ply membrane roof finish. The new flat roof system would be 3m high from the ground level to the top of the parapet. (The existing building is 2.3m high in front and 4.4m high on the rear elevation).

2.11 It has also been proposed to add a small footpath section to the eastern end of the PROW through a proposed public open space that would be landscaped. The amended site plan was which includes this element in the application was received on 5 October 2021. - 2.12 Transport, Access and Parking

• 2.12.1 The application indicates that the Scheme has been designed to encourage pedestrian and cyclist movement throughout the site, with particularly car movements separated as far as possible, including the basement parking for all the commercial and residential units, so that vehicles do not dominate the street scene.
• 2.12.2 The scheme would provide for 159 parking spaces (including 12 electric vehicle charging spaces, and 11 spaces suitable for use by disabled persons). 121 of the car parking spaces will be solely for the occupants of the apartments (including 9 disabled parking and 9 electric car parking spaces), 14 for the 14 aparthotel units (including 1 disabled parking and 1 electric car parking space), and 24 including 1 disabled parking and 2 charging point spaces for the restaurant/bar/retail uses and are to be provided.
• 2.12.3 The apartment's parking spaces are mostly only accessible by those with access to the apartments, other than those in the basement of blocks B and C where the spaces will be clearly marked out so that they are not used by other visitors to this area.
• 2.12.4 82 cycle parking spaces will be provided for the entire scheme - 52 for the apartments, 14 for the aparthotel, and 16 for the commercial units. The applicants estimate the retail units will generate a demand of up to 7 spaces at its peak with the bar/restaurant up to 8 spaces and

• estimate a turnover of 20 minutes for each customer and have calculated that the spaces provided will accommodate this level of movement.
• 2.12.5 The additional off site works which are indicated on the proposed access measures plan (100217_03_0100_01.1) on the land directly opposite the site area (but outside the site boundary) will include the following:

• o Installation of signage at various locations along the road network opposite the site
• o Narrowing of the existing road to enforce one way nature of route
• o Adding footway to western route
• o Installation of pedestrian crossings with drop kerbs and tactile paving. This would include minor kerb re-alignment to the northern side, and alterations to existing parking pavement markings to suit.
• o Creation of a layby for short pickup and drop off use in front of Block C.

• 2.12.6 The Scheme has been supported by number of reports and addendums, as well as plans to address highway concerns which include:

• a. Dice Consultancy Discharge of Condition 5 - Offsite Highway Works Transport Report
• b. Dice Consultancy Discharge of Condition 6 - Parking Transport Report 100217/MC
• c. Vehicle Tracking plans
• d. Vehicle Tracking swept path analysis, and
• e. Visibility Splay Drawings
• f. Proposed Access Measures plan for off-site highway works

2.13 Open Space

• 2.13.1 There would be on and off-site provision of Public Open Space (POS) and that outside the site boundary would form the majority of the provision. The POS outside of the site is shown in front of the site and would include a new public art sculpture which would be erected in the larger lease area which measures 2193.3sqm. In total, the leased POS areas would total 3339.6sqm.
• 2.13.2 To the west of the buildings will be another area of Public Open Space with a footpath link with 1.1m high fencing on the northern side alongside the coastal rocks from the access road into the site which will have standing stones, rock and gravels punctuated by semi natural grass species tolerant of the maritime environment (This is within the site area). A further area to the north east of block D will be laid out as lawn with low growing shrubs with a gap between it and Block D maintaining the footpath up the cliffs onto the coastal path to the south. This area is to be maintained in a fashion to retain its continuity with the Wildlife Site. The footpath is to be maintained as is.
• 2.13.3 The scheme proposes about 2,806sqm of private amenity space in the various areas of green roofing and private landscaped areas, balconies and terraces.
• 2.13.4 With regard to the provision of children's play space, the applicants have stated that discussions have been held with the Port Erin Commissioners who agree with and welcome the contribution of a commuted sum offered by the developers to improving a local play area to the value of c. £20,000, in lieu of on-site children play area provisions. This would be secured through a Section 13 agreement.

2.14 Landscaping

• 2.14.1 The paving to the raised terraces in front of Block B is to be granite. There are to be roof gardens between blocks B and C and to the rear of block A which has paving and raised beds. To the rear of the buildings between the buildings and the cliff will be areas of roof garden with paving to mimic the tiers of the cliff and small spaces between the cliff and the building will be developed

• as rock features to transition between the building to the cliff with stone gravel and local plant species which will create habitats which are viewed from above.

• 2.14.2 The planting drawing describes the species to be introduced: in the eastern area of POS there will be heather, Erica carnea, western gorse, blackthorn and wild rose. The area between the cliff and the rooftop gardens will be cultivated as coastal acid grassland to encourage orchids which are found locally.
• 2.14.3 The rooftop gardens to the rear of blocks B and C will comprise potentilla, Erica and campanula and that to the rear of blocks A and B will comprise species found on the race of the rock closest to this part of the roof - sea Campion, seat beat, Yorkshire fog, Red fescue and sea mayweed. Landscaping works at ground level here will include the planting of green walls with honeysuckle and clematis which will provide a food source for birds, bats and interpenetrates.
• 2.14.4 The western area of POS will feature vertical rocks and upright grass species including festuca rubra, Holcus Ianata and Sileneuniflora. The area to the north of the access drive will be lined with stone and planting of specimen ornamental grass species and architectural planting suitable for maritime conditions. Linear planting along the frontage will comprise Carex and Stipa grass species with sculptured features.
• 2.14.5 A Landscape Management Report prepared by TPM Landscape Ltd, and dated August 2021 has been provided by the applicant and will provide guidance for the establishment, maintenance and future management of external landscaped areas and planting around the development.

2.15 Approach to Affordable Housing

• 2.15.1 The proposal does not include any provision for affordable housing. The applicants have referred to the previous decision (Approval in Principle) where this was accepted and also argued that since the above consideration, the scheme has evolved to fit in with more stringent detailed design and revised Residential Design Guide requirements in relation to climate change. The number of residential units now proposed is about 30% less than the maximum allowed for by the approval in principle (albeit this was based on the traffic assessment), while it is claimed that costs per unit have increased, with the total costs being shared over a smaller quantum of development.

2.16 Ecology

• 2.16.1 A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (October 2020) is provided which identifies:

• o the cliff as key terrestrial habitat and specifically an area of acid grassland containing orchids (protected under the Wildlife Act) which is immediately adjacent to the east of the site;
• o the Meayll Coast Wildlife Site which lies to the rear of the buildings and the site and which includes a section which projects around the south western end of the site; and
• o the existing buildings as providing opportunities for nesting birds and roosting bats.

• 2.16.2 The PEA identifies the key ecological threats as the loss of nesting sites for herring gull, fulmar and red billed chough on the cliff face and loss of ability to fly to the cliff space due to inadequate spaces between the cliff face and the new buildings, the loss of nesting opportunities for chough, house sparrow and herring gull, and an impact on the cyclical patterns due to light pollution. Concerns in relation to shading and also predation from domestic cats and dogs noted. They recommend various actions as summarised below (a full list of recommendations is contained

at Section 5 of the PEA):

• - the measures for avoidance of impact during construction works (including timings of work and method statements to inter alia reduce vibration impact); provision of nest sites, nest box, nesting bricks, artificial ledges within the site; provision of a flat green roof on Building B, provision of artificial ledges; retention of cliff faces intact; and avoidance of light pollution; and
• - Enhancement in the form of additional nest/bat boxes, native planting and renovation for nesting of small derelict building on the cliff top.

• 2.16.3 The proposal has so many of these recommendations (some relate to methods of working and so could potentially be conditioned). The derelict stone building referred to in the Design Statement is not in the ownership of the applicant, but could be referenced in a S.13 agreement.

• 2.16.4 A Breeding Bird Survey (October, 2020 by Manx Wildlife Trust) is provided which identifies Herring Gulls (Red List high conservation concern for severe breeding population decline over the last 25 years), red billed choughs (green list species of low conservation concern but is protected during the breeding season under the Wildlife Act 1990), fulmars, house sparrows (which are Red List species of high conservation concern and protected under the Wildlife Act), robin, wren, rock pipits, jackdaws and linnet. No lizards were observed during the walkover survey although there are records of basking adults within 200m of the site (2007).
• 2.16.5 A Protected Species Survey (October 2020) confirms that a number of common pipistrelle flew past the buildings and some foraged along the cliff top. No bats were seen emerging from the building (or using the building) and evidence of rat activity was seen.
• 2.16.6 They identify the following as issues that could impact on protected species at the site:

• o Reduction of space between the proposed buildings and the cliff face compared with the existing situation which reduces foraging areas.
• o Artificial lighting which has the potential to impact on chosen foraging and commuting routes, thereby reducing their foraging resource.
• o The removal of the buildings which would reduce potential future roosts therein.
• o Possible degradation of habitat from additional shading onto cliff vegetation, and
• o Predation from domestic dogs and cats as well as the potential spread of Schedule 8 Species.

• 2.16.7 They recommend the following to mitigate these impacts:

• o Method statements to demonstrate how impacts on the coastal cliff and its vegetation will be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels covering noise, vibration, dust and general structural stability.
• o Avoiding undertaking works at critical times for protected species (birds and bats).
• o Method statement to address how the structural integrity of stone walls will be maintained
• o Integration of artificial bat roost niches in the new building.
• o Precautionary Working Method Statement to address how works will avoid and/or minimise impacts on coastal grassland to acceptable levels.
• o Precautionary Working Method Statement to avoid impacts on coastal vegetation suitable for Grey Moth which may require a search for eggs and larva (July/August) prior to vegetation removal.
• o Sowing green roofs with sea campion (food for Grey Moth).
• o Areas of Montbretia highlighted to Site Manager and prevention of spread with eradication if avoidance is not possible.
• o Method Statements to demonstrate how site operations will not adversely impact the orchid population.
• o Method statements must be produced to demonstrate how site operations will avoid or minimise to insignificant levels any detrimental impact on habitats and species contained with the Wildlife Site and if detrimental impacts cannot reasonably be avoided, investment in beneficial management for biodiversity elsewhere in the Wildlife Site should be undertaken.
• o Method statements to demonstrate that safeguards are in pace to avoid or minimise detrimental impacts on Port Erin Bay Manx Nature Reserve.

• 2.16.8 A Herring Gull and Fulmar Surveys (July, 2021 by Manx Wildlife Trust) confirms that:

• o The majority of the Herring Gulls were observed on the cliffs around the old buildings with the occasional ones at the edges of the quarry and on the flat roof on the old Marine Lab building. The quarry to the east remains a stronghold for the Fulmar.
• o A pair of Choughs was seen on the 4th and 29th June south of Kione ny Garee and above the field behind the old buildings respectively, in suitable nesting habitat.

• 2.16.9 The survey concludes that the following species are confirmed breeding on the site:

• o Feral Pigeon
• o Herring Gull
• o Northern Fulmar

• o Eurasian Jackdaw

• 2.16.10 The applicants have indicated they would be willing to sign a Section 13 agreement which provides for:

• o Wall and Bothy repairs plus any ancillary boundary treatment to secure potential gull nesting from human interface.
• o Provide nesting ledges elsewhere, e.g. on west facing cliff adjacent to site. This will be based upon worst-case scenario that there is 100% loss of nesting by fulmars and herring gulls as a worst case scenario.
• o The scheme to provide for nil impact on marine ecology). Any failure will require mitigation to address this to the satisfaction of DEFRA
• o Provide for monitoring of marine life and water quality in Port Erin bay.

• 2.16.11 They comment that no areas on the green roofs will be required for ecological functions and that a covenant on tenancy can be inserted on the disposal of the properties along with lighting. They suggest that a Method Statement can be required and an Ecological Clerk of Works will be appointed for the construction of the development.
• 2.16.12 A recent correspondence has been provided by Brindle & Green Ecological Consultants Ltd provides advise regarding the potential impacts on the reduction in height of building A on breeding fulmars at the site (dated 1 February 2022). This advise which is purely desk based concludes that by lowering Block A's height by two stories between the original development application and the revised plans, that the approach to the nest site will be more accessible to fulmars at the site. They also indicate support for monitoring, remediation and mitigation to ensure that the reduced height of building A is sufficient in safeguarding fulmars.

2.17 Flood Risk and Drainage

• 2.17.1 The Flood Risk Assessment prepared March 2019 and revised March 2021 states the following:

• o The site is considered to be at moderate risk from flooding.
• o Details from Manx Utilities modelled tidal flood level for Port Erin for the 1 in 200 (0.5%) Annual Flood Probability plus climate change event of 4.37mAD02 and a review of the topographical survey for the site indicates that the site is wholly located outside of the 'High Flood Risk Zone'.
• o The site is considered to be at low risk of flooding from all other sources.

• 2.17.2 This FRA includes a Drainage Strategy which will provide a series of pipes that collect surface water from the site and discharge freely into the sea via a new outfall to the north of the site. The surface water system will provide attenuation for flows up to a 1 in 100 year storm event (+ 40 percent allowance for climate change) return period. Foul sewage will be collected and discharged to the existing combined system via gravity.
• 2.17.3 The Drainage strategy also includes a surface water strategy which consists of a network of surface water sewers which would gather runoff and discharge into the sea. The surface water from the cliff faces will be met by linear systems aligned adjacent to the peripheral retaining walls. This runoff will be collected and discharged into the new surface water network serving the proposed development. It is noted in their statement that this will minimise the risk of surface water flooding which has been indicated in correspondence with Manx utilities on 8 January 2019.

2.18 The applicant has provided additional correspondence on 20.05.21 which confirms their understanding of DoI Flood Risk Management's position in respect of coastal overtopping at the site.

• 2.18.1 They note in this correspondence that the disposal of surface water run-off by the preferred method of infiltration is subject to verification of suitable ground soakage capacity and no contaminated ground issues. Infiltration testing to BRE Digest 365 has not been undertaken due to the known presence of rockhead at shallow depths and the underlain geology is considered unviable for infiltration as a primary means of surface water disposal. In conclusion, they provided a list of

• the alternative SuDS features, which were considered for this site with reference to their suitability for the proposed development, prior to settling on the final drainage strategy proposals.
• 2.19 Other Issues

• 2.19.1 In relation to Climate Change / Sustainability in relation to the Residential Design Guide 2021
• 2.19.2 the proposal includes the following:

• o Sustainable Construction. An Energy Strategy report is attached by SVM Building Services, which relates to the Isle of Man context, although it also draws upon the UK National Planning Policy Framework on the same issue. It adopts a fabric first approach and highlights the following:
• o Improved building envelope with low heat loss. Improved U values, lower air permeability and Improved glazing performance;
• o Design to maximise natural daylight, Solar gain control measures;
• o Highly efficient LED lighting;
• o Communal space heating with high efficiency fossil fuel free Air Source Heat Pump systems;
• o Mechanical Ventilation with high level of Heat Recovery [MVHR];
• o Climate Change Resilience - addressed by the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy.

• 2.19.3 In respect of concerns which have been raised by the Fire and Rescue Service, amendments have been made to the building design to ensure that the scheme meets Fire safety requirements. This has been confirmed by the Fire Service who states that they have no objections to the proposals as now formulated, save for some issues with inner rooms which would be addressed at the Building Control application stage.
• 2.19.4 The applicant has indicated that they would produce a Construction Management Plan (including Environmental considerations and incorporating the presence of an Environmental Clerk of Works as appropriate) should be conditioned as part of any approval for the scheme.
• 2.19.5 Following concerns regarding rock fall at the site, the applicant have provided a Rock Face and Stability Preliminary Assessment and its Addendum (both dated 1 October 2021) as additional information in support of the application. Also, a Traffic Impact Assessment and its Addendum have also been provided to address gaps in highway information provided to support the application.
• 2.19.6 Further to the Rock Face and Stability Preliminary Assessment and its Addendum (both dated

• 1 October 2021), a detailed Rock Face and Slope Stability Inspection Report prepared by Ivy House Environmental (dated February 2022) has been submitted in support of the application. This report concludes by stating the following:

• o The rock face at the site has inherent global stability, however, there are some failure mechanisms, possibly resulting in minor future rock-fall. The development proposals mitigate against these failure mechanisms, due to the standoff between the rear of the car park and the rock face and the enclosed nature of the car park, which allows for any possible falling materials to accumulate in this area and not affect the rear of the car park or site users.
• o While the rear of the car park structure near Sections B, C and D (rear of Block C) is shown to have a standoff from the rock face, care will need to be taken as to not undermine the face by removing any rock should it be present within the lower slopes. Soil slopes (scree/talus) should be supported by appropriately design retaining walls where necessary, if the existing retaining walls need enhancing.
• o The large sections of overhanging rock in Sections E and H do not appear to be unstable and there is a low risk.
• o It should be noted that there are no records of any historic rockfall and no evidence was found during the inspection.

• o In summary, this assessment and the recommendations contained within has illustrated that the proposed development at the site, and condition of the existing rock face, poses low risks to
• operatives or end users at the site provided that a considered approach is taken.

• 2.19.7 The suggested mitigations states include the following:

• o The development proposal, i.e., the construction of the rear wall of the car park being set back from the face and slopes, is likely to mitigate most of the risks associated with spalling of rock material and the failure of the locally thinner overhangs (or the upper soil falling with any supporting overhangs).
• o From inspection, the likelihood of the rock overhangs in Section E (in lower rock face) and H (in mid rock face) failing is low, but the factor of safety against failure (quantified risk) is unknown.
• o Based on the history of the site, PH1 desk study, and this inspection, the current risk to the development building (rear car park) and site users are considered as low, As a result, it is not considered necessary to undertake any immediate remedial measures to the rock face at this present time.
• o While working at the bottom of the face operatives should wear appropriate PPE and plant should be installed with rock-guards (wire cages).
• o Under no circumstances should operatives work at the top of the rock-face without the correct training and safety equipment to prevent or arrest falls.

- 3.0 PLANNING POLICY

3.01 Area Plan for the South

3.1 The site is designated on the Area Plan for the South (2013) as Proposed Mixed Use and there is a development brief. The site is not within a Conservation Area, and the buildings on site are not Registered. The site is not within a Registered Tree Area, there are no protected trees on site, nor is the site within an area at risk of flooding on the national flood risk maps. - 3.2 The site is mostly within the village settlement boundary, the section of the site which accommodates the south western most building lies out with the settlement boundary and which is not designated for a particular purpose. This was incorrectly referred to in the previous application officer's report as being within the settlement boundary and within an area of proposed Mixed Use. The Written Statement of the Area Plan refers to the site as follows:

• "3.6.2 Beyond the Village centre, the former Marine Biological Station is now partially occupied but the land around it would benefit from some improvement."

• 3.2.1 Landscape Proposal 10: "Any additional new built development on the Meayll Peninsula, other than very limited development near its northern edge at the former Marine Biological Station, should be avoided as such development would adversely affect the largely unspoilt character and appearance of the Peninsula and/or would diminish its role in providing a vegetated, undeveloped backdrop to Port Erin, Port St Mary and Cregneash."
• 3.2.2 Section 4.61: Site 22

• "4.61.1 The former Marine Biological Station sits beyond the lifeboat house, up against the base of the cliffs in the south-western corner of Port Erin Bay. Most of the contiguous land between the former Biological Station and the harbour is vested in the Department of Infrastructure, and is not intensively used. Re-use or redevelopment of the composite site would be of general benefit to Port Erin."

• "4.61.2 The buildings which remain on the site became redundant as a Marine Laboratory in 2006, but have recently been let to a new user, keen to see the buildings used for purposes in keeping with their maritime heritage. The buildings and the land around them have considerable potential, and this wider site would support Mixed Use - primarily marine-based tourist/leisure uses (including associated accommodation) - but may also include a residential element."

• 3.2.3 Section 4.62: Development Brief 22

• "1. The use of the land is deemed suitable for marine-based tourist/leisure purposes (including associated accommodation), but an element of residential use may also be considered favourably.

• 2. Development should preferably make use of all existing buildings on the site, including the re-use of the original Marine Laboratory Building.
• 3. The overall development site should include not only the former Marine Biological Station site, but also contiguous land vested in the Department of Infrastructure. There should be consultations with the Department at an early stage in the formulation of development proposals.
• 4. The design of new buildings and the treatment of the spaces between them should reflect the conspicuous nature of the site as viewed from across the bay, and the appearance and character of the emerging Conservation Area.
• 5. The layout of the site must make appropriate provision for access to the cliff-top footpath from the harbour area. Applicants should be aware that due to the steep nature of the cliff, there exists a possibility that there will be water run-off from the top of the cliff to the cliff base at the rear of the buildings.
• 6. Port Erin Bay is known for its ecological importance, for example, as a plaice nursery area, basking shark hotspot and as an important dive site. Any new development should be sensitive to this ecological importance and also the scallop 'closed area'.
• 7. Any proposed scheme must include a Traffic Assessment evaluating the traffic impact of development on pedestrian and vehicular access along the narrow section of Shore Road."

• "6.30.1 The Harbours Division is also considering the development of further marine based leisure at Port Erin. Improvements to the harbour facilities in this location could be integrated with proposals to develop the former Marine Laboratory site and its immediate environs."

Finally, the Marine Biological Station is listed as a building to be researched for potential Registration. The site does not lie within the village's proposed Conservation Area whose boundary stops to the east before meeting the site.

• 3.2.4 The character Appraisal for Rushen (including Ballafesson) states the following concerning the area: "3.17 Implications of the Landscape Character Assessment Landscape Types - Coastal Cliffs, Incised Slopes, Uplands, Undulating Lowland Plain, Islands Landscape Area - H2 (Fleshwick), H3 (Bradda Head), H4 (Cregneash Head and Meayll Peninsula), A2 (Southern Uplands), F8 (Poyll Vaaish and Scarlett Peninsula), J1 (Calf of Man).

• i. A number of Landscape Character Types/Areas are identified in Rushen stretching from the Southern Uplands to the Meayll Peninsula. Care is needed in order to protect this array of different landscapes which include open and windswept coastal stretches and inland moorland, high and dramatic sea cliffs and pastoral and arable fields.
• ii. The Parish of Rushen is split into 3 distinct physical areas by the local authority areas of Port St Mary and Port Erin. The largest area stretching from its boundary with Patrick in the north to the boundaries of Port Erin and Port St Mary. The other 2 areas are the Meayll Peninsula and the Calf of Man. The Landscape Character Assessment stresses the importance of avoiding the coalescence of

• Ballafesson and Port Erin and also Port Erin and Port St Mary. Sufficient green space should be retained between the settlements of Ballafesson, Port Erin, Ballagawne/Ballakillowey, and Port St Mary to ensure preservation of their separate identities.
• iii. Avoid any new areas of ribbon development along the southern coastline at Bay ny Carrickey".

3.3 Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider the following policies within the Strategic Plan: - 3.4 Strategic Policy 1: "Development should make the best use of resources by:

• (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and reusing scarce indigenous building materials;
• (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space(1) and amenity standards; and
• (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."

3.5 Strategic Policy 3: "Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by:

• (a) avoiding coalescence and maintaining adequate physical separation between settlements; and
• (b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character."

3.6 Strategic Policy 4: "Proposals for development must:

• (a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings, Conservation Areas, buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest;
• (b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and
• (c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance."

3.7 Strategic Policy 5: "New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so

• as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies."

3.8 Strategic Policy 9: "All new retail development (excepting neighbourhood shops and those instances identified in Business Policy 5) and all new office development (excepting corporate headquarters suitable for a business park location) must be sited within the town and village centres on land zoned for these purposes in Area Plans, whilst taking into consideration Business Policies 7 and 8." - 3.9 Spatial Policy 2: "Outside Douglas development will be concentrated on the following Service Centres to provide regeneration and choice of location for housing, employment and services

• o Ramsey
• o Peel
• o Port Erin
• o Castletown
• o Onchan Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such centres so as to provide a range of housing and employment opportunities at a scale appropriate to the settlement."

3.10 General Policy 2: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

• (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
• (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
• (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
• (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
• (j) can be provided with all necessary services;
• (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;
• (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
• (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
• (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

3.11 General Policy 4: "Where appropriate the Department will enter into Agreements under section 13 of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act which may:

• (a) restrict the use of land;
• (b) require land to be used in a particular way;
• (c) restrict the operations which may be carried out in, on, under or over land;
• (d) require operations or activities to be carried out in, on, under or over land or;
• (e) require payments to be made to the Department either in a single sum or periodically, in particular as commuted sums for open space or parking provision, or other social or cultural provision, including public art, which is necessary and directly associated with the development proposed".

• 3.11.1 "6.4.2 Planning Agreements will not be used to support the approval of proposals which are not in accordance with the Aim, Objectives and Policies of the Plan. To date, Planning Agreements have only been used in a limited number of cases. Supplementary Guidance will be prepared for Agreements under Section 13 of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act, to be read in conjunction with the Strategic Plan. This will set out the principles and practice of the Department to ensure consistency and to avoid unnecessary delay to the planning and development system".

3.12 Paragraph 7.8.5 - 7.8.6 "7.8.5 In considering any development proposals on sites recognised for their ecological and scientific value, the Department will give full consideration to the legislation, policies and conservation objectives, which may be relevant including the Wildlife Act 1990 and species listed in Schedules 1-8 to the Wildlife 1990 Act and other habitats and species which are widely regarded as locally important. In association with the Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry and the Department of Transport, the Department has commissioned the Manx Wildlife Trust to undertake a survey of locally significant sites. The results of this survey work will be available for public scrutiny before inclusion in Area Plans as they become available.

7.8.6 Development which would affect any proposed or other recognised site of conservation value, including areas of ecological interest, will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that:

• o the proposed development will not compromise the conservation objectives of the site or unacceptably harm its conservation value and its overall integrity;

• o there is proven public interest where safety or exceptional social or economic considerations
• outweigh the ecological importance of the site; and o the need for the development cannot be met in other less ecologically damaging locations or by reasonable alternative means.

3.13 Environment Policy 4: Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect:

• (a) species and habitats of international importance:

• (i) protected species of international importance or their habitats; or
• (ii) proposed or designated Ramsar and Emerald Sites or other internationally important sites.

• (b) species and habitats of national importance:

• (i) protected species of national importance or their habitats;
• (ii) proposed or designated National Nature Reserves, or Areas of Special Scientific Interest; or
• (iii) Marine Nature Reserves; or
• (iv) National Trust Land.

• (c) species and habitats of local importance such as Wildlife Sites, local nature reserves, priority habitats or species identified in any Manx Biodiversity Action Plan which do not already benefit from statutory protection, Areas of Special Protection and Bird Sanctuaries and landscape features of importance to wild flora and fauna by reason of their continuous nature or function as a corridor between habitats.

Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward."

3.14 Environment Policy 7: "Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which could not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria:

• (a) all watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality;
• (b) details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted;
• (c) all engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in any adjacent watercourse; and
• (d) development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species."

3.15 Environment Policy 24: Development which is likely to have a significant effect on the environment will be required:

• i) to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment in certain cases; and
• ii) to be accompanied by suitable supporting environmental information in all other cases.

3.16 Environment Policy 42: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans. - 3.17 Paragraph 7.35: Urban Regeneration 7.35.1 Within some of the larger towns on the Island, there are areas which are showing signs of deterioration and degradation. Often these areas are characterised by older housing stock, limited

• investment, empty and underused buildings, derelict sites and generally poor environments. As a result these areas can suffer from economic, environmental and social problems which need tackling holistically to stem the process of decline and to encourage regeneration. Areas which are considered to be in need of regeneration should be identified in Area Plans and any schemes or proposals whether for refurbishment, environmental improvements or complete redevelopment must be formulated by involving the local community which would be directly affected by the regeneration of the area. The Department also supports, in general, environmental improvements to our towns and villages.
• 3.18 Environment Policy 43: The Department will generally support proposals which seek to regenerate run-down urban and rural areas. Such proposals will normally be set in the context of regeneration strategies identified in the associated Area Plans. The Department will encourage the re-use of sound built fabric, rather than its demolition.
• 3.19 Housing Policy 5: "In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more."
• 3.20 Housing Policy 17 provides advice on the conversion of buildings into flats. Whilst the proposal is for new build apartments, the standards set out here are useful:

"(a) adequate space can be provided for clothes-drying, refuse storage, general amenity, and, if practical, car-parking;

• (b) the flats created will have a pleasant clear outlook, particularly from the principal rooms and
• (c) if possible, this involves the creation of parking on site or as part of an overall traffic management strategy for the area."

3.21 Business Policy 1: "The growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island will be encouraged provided that development proposals accord with the policies of this Plan." - 3.22 Business Policy 9: "The Department will support new retail provision in existing retail areas

• at a scale appropriate to the existing area and which will not have an adverse effect on adjacent retail areas. Major retail development proposals will require to be supported by a Retail Impact Assessment.

(1) Retail Impact Assessment is defined in Appendix 1.

3.23 Business Policy 10: "Retail development will be permitted only in established town and village centres, with the exceptions of neighbourhood shops in large residential areas and those instances identified in Business Policy 5." - 3.24 Strategic Policy 6: "Major employment-generating development should be located in existing centres on land zoned for such purposes and identified as such in existing Local or new Area Plans". - 3.25 Recreation Policy 3: "Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. 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 to the Plan." - 3.26 Recreation Policy 4: Open Space must be provided on site or conveniently close to the development which it is intended to serve, and should be easily accessible by foot and public transport. - 3.27 Paragraph 10.3.3

"10.3.3 The Strategic Plan needs to facilitate sport and recreation opportunities and to ensure that areas of open space are retained, and provided to meet local needs. The Strategic Plan will facilitate this by a three pronged approach:

• a) protecting existing assets;
• b) making good deficiencies in existing provision; and
• c) providing adequate provision within new development.

In pursuing these three objectives, it is recognised that developers will not be expected to make good existing deficiencies in recreational facilities as a requirement of carrying out their developments".

3.28 Transport Policy 1: New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes. - 3.29 Transport Policy 2: The layout of development should, where appropriate, make provision for new bus, pedestrian and cycle routes, including linking into existing systems. - 3.30 Transport Policy 4: "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan." - 3.31 Transport Policy 6: "In the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users". - 3.32 Transport Policy 7: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards." - 3.33 Strategic Policy 10: "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:

• (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car;
• (b) make best use of public transport;
• (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and
• (d) encourage pedestrian movement"

3.34 Parking: The Strategic Plan requires there to be one space for every single bedroomed apartment, two spaces for units with two or more bedrooms, assembly and leisure facilities require one space per 15 sq m nett floorspace, retail units in the town centre require space for servicing the units. The Plan also states that:

"In the case of town centre and previously developed sites, the Department will consider reducing this requirement having regard to:

• (a) the location of the housing relative to public transport, employment, and public amenities;
• (b) the size of the dwelling;
• (c) any restriction on the nature of the occupancy (such as sheltered housing); and
• (d) the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area."

3.35 Recreation Policy 5: "Area Plans will identify areas where improvements to informal access to the countryside can be made and to the public footpath network. Existing public rights of way should be retained and any development which affects these will be permitted only if it provides diversions which are no less direct or attractive than existing routes." - 3.36 Energy Policy 5: The Department will prepare a Planning Policy Statement on Energy Efficiency. Pending the preparation and adoption of that PPS the Department will require proposals for more than 5 dwellings or 100 square metres of other development to be accompanied by an Energy Impact Assessment.

3.37 Strategic Policy 8: Tourist development proposals will generally be permitted where they make use of existing built fabric of interest and quality, where they do not affect adversely environmental, agricultural, or highway interests and where they enable enjoyment of our natural and man-made attractions. - 3.38 Section 7.11: Coastal Planning and Development "7.11.1 It will be the role of Area Plans to reconcile development requirements with the need to protect, conserve and, where appropriate, improve the landscape, environmental quality, ecology, cultural heritage, wildlife habitats and recreational opportunities of the coast. Whilst there is not at the moment a defined 'coastal zone', this may come forward via the revision of the Landscape Assessment. Whilst this new designation may result in specific policies for the management and protection of the coastline, the following points will be taken into account in the preparation of Area Plans and the consideration of planning applications, including proposals for marine installations where these are subject to planning control. It is generally understood that planning legislation extends as far as the mean high water mark and the Department of Transport Harbours Division controls the inter-tidal margins.

• o Policies should aim to protect and enhance the character and landscape of the undeveloped coastline.
• o Coastal locations should only be proposed for development which needs to be on the coast.
• o The undeveloped coast will rarely be the most appropriate location for development.
• o Where new development requires a coastal location, the developed coast will normally provide the best option, provided that due regard is paid to the risks of erosion, flooding or land instability.
• o New coastal development should not generally be permitted in areas which would need expensive engineering work, either to protect developments on land subject to erosion by the sea or to defend land which may be inundated by the sea. There is also the need to consider the possibility
• of such works causing a transfer of risks to other areas.

3.39 Environment Policy 11: Coastal development will only be permitted where it would not: i) increase or transfer the risk of flooding or coastal erosion through its impact on natural coastal processes; ii) prejudice the capacity of the coast to form a natural sea defence; and iii) increase the need for additional coast protection works except where necessary to protect existing investment or development. - 3.40 Paragraph 7.4: Landscape Protection "7.4.1 Development which is permitted in 'Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance' or in important landscape and coastal areas as recognised by any new landscape classification, will be subject to higher design standards than would normally be required. Development must be properly integrated into the landscape in terms of scale, materials, architectural style, engineering works and landscaping. Landscape features such as trees, hedgerows, sod banks or traditional stone walls which are important to landscape character should be retained. In cases where development is not capable of being sensitively and unobtrusively integrated into the landscape, permission will not be granted".

3.4 Other policies within the Strategic Plan which are considered relevant in the assessment of the proposal are; Infrastructure Policy 5, Community Policy 11, Community Policy 7 and Community Policy 10, and Environment Policy 36 (given the proximity of the site boundary to the boundary of a Conservation Area). - 4.0 OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Whilst not adopted planning policy, DEFA's Residential Design Guide (2021) is a material consideration in the assessment of this application as, "It is intended to apply to any residential development within existing villages and towns, including individual houses, conversions and householder extensions…". Sections 2.0 on Sustainable Construction, 3.3 on Transport Issues, 3.4

on Private and Public Space, and 3.5 on Public Open Space, are considered relevant to the current scheme.

4.2 The Manual for Manx Roads

• 4.2.1 The following sections of the Manual for Manx Roads are particularly relevant:

• i. Section 2.3 - Enabling Walking and Cycling
• ii. Section 2.5 - Supporting Safety and Security
• iii. Section 4 - Promoting Active Movement
• iv. Section C.2 Cycle Parking Standards
• v. Section C.3 Electric Vehicles
• vi. Section C.5 Parking for Disabled Users

4.3 IOM Active Travel Strategy 2018 - 2021

• 4.3.1 The Overarching principles of this strategy and the action plan are to:

• o enable more active travel by creating a safe, convenient and effective active travel network for people to use; and
• o encourage and promote a shift of choice to active travel modes for everyday functional trips.

4.4 Port Erin Draft Conservation Area Character Appraisal (2009)

• 4.4.1 "2.4.2. Characterisation: The categorisation of the conservation area into these character types are outlined below. Marine: The Marine area is the area to the South of Port Erin Bay comprising the Marine Biological Station, the Herdman Institute, breakwater (and associated engine shed), Raglan Pier, the old and the new lifeboat stations, the Bay Hotel and some shops and private houses in the same area. This area is centre for marine activity in the village, partly dictated through the introduction of the Raglan Pier and the (still effectual but damaged) breakwater, both of which create a calmer sea environment in the south of the bay. The area is particularly important in the conservation area as it demonstrates the importance of fishing to the village (it was one of the key industries for the village), and also shows the link between the village and the sea - both in terms of rescue (the lifeboat stations) and research (the marine biological station)".

• "2.4.4. Registered buildings Unregistered buildings:

In terms of unregistered buildings in the conservation area, there are a number of buildings which should be noted here as either particularly positive, or negative buildings. Positive buildings are those which, according to the guidance used in the UK48 'make an important contribution to the character of a conservation area'. These buildings are seen as the epitome of the architecture in the area, and the design of any future development in the conservation area should mirror these buildings in preference to the negative buildings listed later in this report. In addition, it would be particularly detrimental to the conservation area if these buildings were demolished".

Positive buildings in the conservation area are:

• o Marine Biological Station, Old Lifeboat Station and the Herdman Institute, Shore Road - These are all historic buildings of importance to the village and as such their preservation is important. (Only the older parts of the Marine Biological Station are seen as positive). Negative buildings included in the conservation area are:
• o New Buildings, Promenade - There are two new buildings currently being built on the Promenade,
• one located between Erin Court and the Ocean Castle Hotel, and the other replacing the Bay View Hotel. We anticipate that the style of these buildings will also be inconsistent with the historic appearance of the Promenade

• The new wings of the Marine Biological Station - These sections of the Marine Biological Station were erected in the 1960s and later and are unattractive and utilitarian additions to an important historic building. These should not be emulated in building design in the area".

"5.3.2. Positive and negative buildings:As detailed above, there are a number of positive and negative buildings in the conservation area.

It is recommended that when considering planning applications, only planning applications which emulate the design of positive buildings should be approved. In the same light, it is recommended that any proposals for the alteration or replacement of negative buildings should only be allowed where they are designed in a fashion that is more sympathetic to the area. This guidance is particularly relevant for the Promenade, where there is an original building line, clearly visible from a large proportion of the village which is important to maintain".

4.5 Isle of Man Non-Serviced Accommodation Futures - Final Report

• 4.5.1 Planning Policy Recommendations "It will clearly be some time before planning policy can catch up. We have thus suggested two quicker, more proactive solutions that could be considered to bridge this current policy gap:

• o A clear articulation of what is meant by 'overriding national need';

In terms of defining what is meant by 'overriding national need', we have suggested a number of tests or criteria that could be considered in terms of:

• o Extending the season/attracting visitors outside the main May-September period;
• o Serving and helping attract target markets - accommodation aimed at families, emptynesters, walkers, cyclists etc.;
• o Securing and attracting investment from both Island and off-island developers and investors

• with developers signed up;

• o Showing 'additionality' in terms of providing something not already offered on the Island; meeting an identified gap in supply; attracting new markets rather than diluting existing ones; or bringing an established national or international brand name to the Island and all that brings with it in terms of profile, customer databases, and the ability to drive new demand through marketing, central reservations and customer loyalty schemes;
• o High quality, distinctive accommodation provision;
• o Spreading tourism activity and benefit geographically across the Island;
• o Encouraging longer stays and greater visitor spend as a result;
• o Inclusivity and contributing to the health and well-being agenda, e.g. the provision of accessible accommodation, provision for outdoor activities, accommodation that helps connect with nature;
• o Environmental sustainability in terms of eco-friendly accommodation development that respects, protects and enhances the Island's landscape and natural environment and develops its reputation as a sustainable tourism destination".

4.6 Isle of Man Hotel Futures - Final Report

• 4.6.1 Glossary of Hotel Definitions "Aparthotels, Suitehotels and Serviced Apartments

• A new generation of hotel accommodation that combines an element of self-catering through the provision of a kitchen in each unit, together with hotel services, including reception, daily cleaning, linen, toiletries and a hotel-style booking system. They are generally aimed at the extended stay market, and whilst they can offer rooms from one night upwards, most request a minimum stay. Some are purpose-built units in one ownership; others are individually owned and managed by an agency. Brands such as Staybridge Suites will also provide a limited food offer e.g. buffet style breakfast. Brand examples include Staybridge Suites, Residence Inn, Beyonder, Bridge Street Worldwide, SACO".

• 4.6.2 "6.4. Concluding Comments

6.4.1. The Isle of Man Hotel Futures Study shows a hotel industry that has been in decline for sometime, and that has fallen behind competitor island and resort destinations in terms quality. Withclear strategies now in place for economic, population and leisure tourism growth over a longerseason there is a clear need and potential for the renewal of the island's hotel offer throughinvestment in existing stock and some new hotel provision. The realities of operating and developinghotels on the island are however hampering the industry's ability to respond to these opportunities

and requirements. There is a clear case therefore for Isle of Man Government intervention in terms of financial assistance, advice and planning support, alongside the implementation of the Vision

• 2020 economic growth strategy and the new Destination Management Plan, to achieve a more compelling and competitive hotel offer on the island. The challenge going forward is to translate the recommendations of the Hotel Futures Study into an integrated programme of support that will accelerate investment in existing hotels and guest houses, and help bring forward new hotels that can meet the requirements of corporate hotel users and grow the island's leisure tourism market".

4.7 IOM Destination Management Plan 2016-2020

• 4.7.1 Part 3: How do we get there? "This section of the DMP provides a summary of the Strategic Objectives and Programme of Activity that will be undertaken for the period 2016 - 2020. The Strategic Objectives are based on evidence and research that has been reported and commissioned over the past two years by Isle of Man Tourism. They cover the 5 key aspects of development for the Visitor Economy up to 2020 and will be supported by annual Operational and Marketing Plans showing each year's work in more detail.

The Strategic Objectives that will be implemented during the period 2016 to 2020 are as follows. o PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT:

• 4.7.2 "d) Championing new investment and product development. OBJECTIVE: Develop and create new products and experiences that the defined target markets will enjoy at different times of the year. This will help to achieve growth in the market areas as well as achieve a longer tourism season".

4.8 Wildlife Act 1990

• 4.8.1 "Marine nature reserves [P1981/69/36]

(1) Where, in the case of any land covered (continuously or intermittently) by tidal waters or parts of the sea in or adjacent to the Island up to the seaward limits of territorial waters it appears to the Department expedient, on an application made by the Wildlife Committee that the land and waters covering it should be managed by the Department for the purpose of —

• (a) conserving marine flora or fauna or geological or physiographical features of special interest in the area; or
• (b) providing, under suitable conditions and control, special opportunities for the study of, and research into, matters relating to marine flora and fauna and the physical conditions in which they live, or for the study of geological and physiographical features of special interest in the area,

the Department may, subject to section 37(3), by order designate the area comprising that land and those waters as a marine nature reserve; and the Department shall manage any area so designated for either or both of those purposes".

- 5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 There have been three recent applications on the site which are relevant to the determination of the current application.

5.2 PA 13/00459/A - approval in principle for the conversion of existing educational establishment into a Marine Interpretation Centre including an associated retail unit and cafe, dive centre, offices for marine related businesses and a 20 bedroomed hotel with parking and landscaping. This application was approved by the Council of Ministers, following a recommendation for refusal by an independent inspector who was concerned that it had not been demonstrated how sufficient car parking could be laid out in a visually acceptable manner in this prominent and sensitive location. COMIN did not agree with this, considering that such concerns could be met by conditions which had been suggested by the inspector.

5.3 PA 13/00460/B - full approval for erection of extensions and conversion of existing educational establishment into a Marine Interpretation Centre including an associated retail unit and

cafe, dive centre and offices for marine related business. This was refused by Council of Ministers for the following reasons:

"With reference to the alterations and vertical extension proposed to the building at the eastern end of the site, the proposal would result in that building becoming overly dominant and intrusive in visual terms, to the detriment of the architectural and historical interest of the original Marine Biological Station building and also to the detriment of the general character and appearance of the existing group of buildings and of the area. It would thereby conflict with the intentions of parts b and c and g of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and with the Development Brief for site 22 of the Area Plan for the South."

"The proposal makes inadequate provision for car parking within the defined application site, and as a consequence would be likely to result in additional on-street parking to the detriment of the safety of highway users and the free flow of traffic. It would thereby conflict with the intentions of Transport Policy 7 and parts h and i of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan."

5.4 Planning approval has also been granted for the conversion of a former coal shed further north along the quay, to a facility for the sale, storage, distribution and manufacture of alcoholic drinks (16/00527/C) now known as "Foraging Vintners" and in operation.

5.5 The most relevant previous application for the site was for approval in principle for the erection of a building to provide exhibition space, retail, apartments and restaurant with associated 159 parking spaces under PA 19/00373/A.

• 5.5.1 The approval in principle proposed new buildings which would have accommodated a combination of exhibition space, an aparthotel, non-food retail, apartments, retail and a restaurant together with 144 parking spaces - 63 at ground and 81 at basement level which were shown in an illustrative form in the submitted plans. No matters were to be determined at that time and all were to be subject to a further application or applications for the details of access, siting, internal layout within the buildings, design and external appearance of the buildings and landscaping of the site. The application, nevertheless, included information to demonstrate how some of these issues could be resolved. A sketch of how the building could look was included - this showed that the building would have been similar in height to the current proposal, although no elevation drawings were provided.
• 5.5.2 The site plan showed an indicative layout of four elements one of which was completely separate from the others and where two of the other units abutted each other and two others were linked by a stairwell. The exhibition space unit, building 4 (now D) was shown as a six storey building at the eastern end of the site, with the exhibition space sitting below 5 apartments - one per floor. Next to this and linked to it is building 3 (now C), a larger six storey building which was to accommodate two retail areas and a restaurant in between at ground level with 38 apartments above. Next to the west, building 2 (now B) was another six storey building which will accommodate one retail unit and an adjoining restaurant with 3 apartments on the ground floor and 29 apartments above. Finally, building 1 (now A) was a five storey building comprising 8 apartments and an integral triple garage and would have sat at the western extent of the site.
• 5.5.3 Fourteen of these apartments were shown as being intended for hotel occupation and shown to be located on the first floor in Building 3. The apartments were arranged such that other than for buildings 1 and 4 and the penthouses of the other buildings, there will be apartments contained solely within the rear of the building.
• 5.5.4 The application also provided an Environmental Risk Assessment which looked at potential contamination, instability, pollution, hydrological issues and this concluded that there were no likely risks to or from the development.

• 5.5.5 The application also provided a flood risk assessment which had been prepared following discussions with Manx Utilities who considered that the site is at moderate risk of flooding from surface water. The site is at low risk from other potential sources of flooding and is not in a high flood risk area. The site and surrounding area are unsuitable for infiltration as a primary source of surface water disposal.
• 5.5.6 Following concerns raised by Highway Services, an additional Transport Assessment was submitted. This considered the highway network including the pedestrian access which is not via a consistent footway from the village to the site. The report stated that there are many facilities within a 2km radius - restaurants, recreation facilities, bus stops, the railway stations, post office and shops and the Southern Group Medical Practice. They noted that some parts of the link between the site and the village involve a steep incline and there are a number of issues which were itemised in the report as concerns that needed to be addressed.
• 5.5.7 The application involved a number of alterations which were all within the highway and thus not subject to planning control, as they were not within the defined site boundary.
• 5.5.8 The proposal made no provision for affordable housing or public open space (Housing Policy

5 and Recreation Policy 3). The applicant put forward the case that the site is not designated for residential use nor is it within an area of predominantly residential use or character as is required by HP5, and supported this claim with a number of reasons to justify exemption.

• 5.5.9 In terms of public open space, the applicant suggested that the site and development are very different from residential areas and residential use represents one of five proposed uses in the development. They also provided a number of justifications to support their lack of POS provisions for the development. They were, however, open to the idea to provide some services - water and electricity to the open area in front of the building which is used for public events following discussions with Port Erin Commissioners regarding public open space.
• 5.5.10 Additional Payments o Upon any sales at any time a 20% value figure must be factored in to be paid to the vendor (in this case Department of Infrastructure). They understand that this is to the direct benefit of the Isle of Man Government, but it is, of course, a further substantial cost to the developer. This means that whenever all or part of the property is disposed of, 20% of the proceeds revert to the Government. This would apply to both the whole site, but also the disposal of individual units.
• 5.5.11 This was approved subject to the following conditions: C1. The development hereby approved shall be begun either before the expiration of four years from the date of this approval or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters.

Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013.

C2. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Department before the expiration of two years from the date of this approval and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved.

Reason: To avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

C3. Approval of the details of siting, design, external appearance of the building[s], internal layout, means of access, drainage, landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Department in writing before any development is commenced.

Reason: to comply with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013.

C4. The application for the reserved matters must include a survey of the existing habitat on the cliff and broogh to the rear of the site together with an assessment of impact on the ecology of this area which is a designated Wildlife Site and measures for mitigation of any adverse impact thereon. The development must be undertaken in accordance with the details of mitigation. The applicant is encouraged to incorporate features which would be complementary to the existing habitats nearby through the use of planting, green walls, nest boxes or other appropriate features.

Reason: to ensure compliance with Environment Policy 4 and the Wildlife Act 1990.

C5. The application for the reserved matters must include details of the traffic management work described in the Transport Assessment together with a timetable for the implementation of these works.

Reason: to ensure that the development has an acceptable impact on highway safety.

C6. The application for reserved matters must demonstrate that sufficient car parking is provided to service the development in accordance with the standards in the Strategic Plan. If the standards in the Strategic Plan are not being met, justification for setting these aside must be provided in the application.

Reason: to accord with Transport Policy 7 in the interests of highway safety.

C7. The apart-hotel units hereby approved shall be used solely as serviced apartments and shall not be used as separate residential units or occupied as a person's sole or main place of residence or for any other purpose between the months of April and September (inclusive).

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the development fulfils the role of temporary hotel accommodation during the holiday season.

C8. This approval relates to a maximum of 83 apartments of which at least 14 shall be used as aparthotel suites and with retail, non-food retail, restaurant and exhibition space as generally shown in the submitted plans.

Reason: the approval is based upon a transport statement which is supportive of this level of development.

C9. No part of the building may be occupied until such times as there is in place a scheme which has first been approved by the Department, which provides electricity and water to the public open space immediately in front of the perimeter road which fronts the proposed building.

Reason: to enable the public open space to be better used for recreation and entertainment purposes.

• C10. No guest or customer of the aparthotel units may occupy any part of the accommodation for a period exceeding 28 days during the months of April and September (inclusive). Furthermore, before the apart-hotel units are brought into use, a management plan detailing the booking system for the serviced apartments shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Department. The plan shall include:

• i) the maximum permitted stay in the serviced apartments,
• ii) a system for keeping a register of customer bookings and a means by which the Department can check the register to ensure that the maximum permitted stays are enforced.
• iii) These registers shall be kept for not less than two years form the date of the last entry and shall be made available to be inspected by the Department upon reasonable demand.
• iv) The units shall be operated in accordance with the approved management plan.

Reason: to ensure that the development is only used and occupied as short-let holiday accommodation during the holiday season.

• C11. The aparthotel rooms hereby permitted shall be used for holiday accommodation only for the previously specified periods and shall for those periods be used for no other purpose (including any other purpose within Class 7 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012, or any Order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification.)

Reason: to maintain the availability of the units as short term holiday accommodation during holiday season.

• C12. The ground floor uses, where not shown on the submitted plans as being apartments, must be used for retail, shopping, cafe, community or exhibition space and all open to the visiting public.

Reason: to ensure that the building has at least on the ground floor, a public function and purpose to add interest and vitality to this end of the village.

NOTE: The applicant is encouraged to design a scheme which comprises a broken form, rather than one large building mass and a variety of different finishes and which has regard to the natural context of the site in terms of materials and colours. It should also be noted that the rear of the building(s) will also be publicly visible from the footpath to the east and south and as such, the rear elevation should present an attractive facade to the south.

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

6.1 Port Erin Commissioners have stated that they support the application (10 February 2021/12 May 2021/15 September 2021/13 October 2021/ 09 March 2022).

6.2 DOI Highway Services that had initially sought additional information (28.01.21 and 25.02.21), and confirmed that they do not oppose the application subject to conditions which secures the accesses, internal circulation, and bicycle and car parking as shown in the submitted drawings following the submission of further information Highway Services (19.04.21), have asked for further details to clarify issues between the interface at east of the public right of way and the amended external works and landscape plans for the mezzanine level (23 August 2021).

• 6.2.1 Having reviewed additional plans and additional information with the applicants, DOI Highways have stated that the development does not raise any significant highway safety or network functionality issues, and as such they continue to not oppose this proposal subject to conditions to cover the accesses, internal circulation and bicycle and car parking arrangements set out on the Drawings No's detailed above, the site plan: RBA_224_ (2) _A004 and the current individual block plans at lower ground and ground level showing detailed ramp and parking arrangements. They further advise that off-site works should be conditioned too as such works fall outside the scope of a s13 Planning Agreement; considering these works are integral to the development as they would minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicle drivers, avoid street clutter and respond to current guidance. Additionally, the conclude that the off-site highway works would provide suitable access for emergency and service vehicles as well as practical delivery and collection of goods and services, including those for waste collection (13 October 2021).

• 6.2.2 They note further amendments uploaded and make no further comments in their representation dated 13 October 2021.

• 6.2.3 They note the additions and amendments uploaded on 21 February 2022, and state that the reduction in units does not alter the comments made on 13 October 2021 (25 February 2022).

6.3 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Flood Risk Management Division initially requested a deferral pending the submission of a Flood Risk Assessment (19

• February 2021). On 25 March 2021, they confirm that they do not object to the application. Further to the previous representations on the scheme, they confirm that there is no objection in respect of the impact of coastal overtopping in the letter dated 14 May 2021.

• 6.3.1 Having received further queries on coastal overtopping for the site, DOI Flood Risk Management was consulted for conclusive advice on overtopping. There comments dated 6 October

2021 reads thus:

The tidal flood level for area for the 1 in 200 plus climate change event is 4.57mAD02. The area where the buildings are being constructed are well above this level. There hasn't been a wave overtopping study done for Port Erin. We would not envisage that with the proposed buildings elevation and position that they would be significantly affected by wave overtopping and for that reason we do not oppose the proposed development.

6.4 DEFA's Ecosystems Policy Team

• 6.4.1 Office sought additional time to comment on the application (3 February 2021).

• 6.4.2 They comment further on 10 March 2021, stating the following:

• 6.4.1.1 General Issues:

• o They are not opposed to the application
• o There are a number of ecological issues which need resolving prior to the determination of the application.
• o They refer to the Department's position to promote a policy of no net loss for semi natural Manx habitats and species and ensure that unavoidable loss is replaced or effectively compensated for.
• o They refer to the Future Fisheries Strategy which outlines policies to guide the sustainable development of the Island's commercial and recreational fisheries including Safeguarding the Marine Environment and the inclusion of spatial management to help maintain commercial fish stocks noting that Port Erin Bay Marine Nature Reserve forms part of the network of protected marine areas.

• 6.4.1.2 Fulmars:

• o They identify issues with nesting fulmars noting that this species return to the same nest each year and the cliffs provide an established nest site for 8 breeding pairs.
• o They note that the application suggests that the development may result in the loss of these nesting sites due to inadequate space between the building and the cliff together with the potential impact of artificial light and the disturbing impact of people on balconies next to the cliff and this has not been explored and this is likely to be a significant negative factor.
• o The proposed mitigation of artificial nest ledges is "novel" and "as yet untested" and the existing scientific evidence does not support this measure being successful.
• o They note that the Design Statement refers to this as being enhancement rather than mitigation.
• o They are supportive of the concept of the introduction of the nest ledges but do not accept that this alone is sufficient to mitigate the potential loss of the existing nest sites.
• o They note that without a significant reduction in windows in the southern elevation, there does not seem to be any suitable space for the ledges on any of the elevations.
• o They suggest potential avoidance including the redesign of Block A so that greater space is provided between the building and the cliff and between the building and the MNR, or the removal
• of Block A. o In terms of compensation, a condition should be attached requiring a 5 year monitoring and aftercare programme for fulmars including the identification of proportionate off site compensation should the 8 breeding pairs nests be lost partly or entirely.

• 6.4.1.3 Herring Gulls:

• o They refer to herring gulls and agree that the proposals within the application will acceptably and successfully provide for this species although they query whether the green roof areas intended for potential nest sites would also be used by the occupants.
• o They add that as gulls tend to be aggressive, and may conflict with the occupants and they also add that the gulls may end up using the ledges instead of the fulmars.
• o A monitoring and aftercare condition is also recommended for herring gulls.
• o They require further information in the form of a lighting plan making use of screens and baffles, destils of the nest opportunities in relation to windows and balconies and how the
• ownership of cats will be prevented.

• 6.4.1.4 Invasive Species: o They refer to montbretia and invasive species and recommend that none should be planted as part of the landscaping scheme.
• 6.4.1.5 Marine Nature Reserve:

• o They do not consider that adequate consideration has been given to this and there remain concerns regarding the proximity to the highest astronomical tide, the potential for short term interactions between the proposed development and the MNR and the potential for long-term impacts post construction on the MNR as a result of the proximity of the high density dwellings without sufficient buffer between the two.
• o They ask whether the full extent of the prevailing south westerly wind and the exposure of the site with the predicted long term sea level rise and storm surge and wave overtopping have been considered.
• o Other concerns include chemical run off from the construction, drainage from the car parking areas and potential vehicle contaminants and the lack of provision for combined sewer overflows or any other potential routes for sewage overflow into the bay.
• o They refer to a future project for restoration of historic eelgrass which may take place in the vicinity of the site and it should be confirmed that the proposed development does not adversely affect.
• o The request that an ecological survey of the MNR would be vital for decision making.

• 6.4.3 Following amendments to the application the Ecosystem Policy Team have made the following comments in a letter dated 19 October 2021:

• 6.4.3.1 They object to the application due to:

• o The fundamental impacts on nesting fulmars, which are an Isle of Man red-listed species (highest conservation concern) and a designation feature of Port Erin Bay Marine Nature Reserve.
• o Potential marine environmental impacts on the adjacent Marine Nature Reserve (MNR) subject to consideration and statutory agreement of a detailed monitoring and remediation plan which can be conditioned as part of any development approval.

• 6.4.3.2 They note that:

• o Should the application be granted approval despite the objections, the details of previous progress made regarding potential mitigation and compensation, which are outlined in a draft section 13 agreements in letter dated 22 September 2021 may ultimately form the basis of subsequent planning considerations and conditions.
• o They note that the numbers of fulmar and herring gull varied throughout the breeding season but, for the purpose of this proposal, the maximum number of Apparently Occupied Nests (herring gull) and Apparently Occupied Sites (fulmar) should be assumed. As such, taking the maximum numbers from the recent survey; 17 pairs of fulmars and 25 pairs of herring gull breeding
• on site, and to ensure no net loss for biodiversity, any proposed mitigation needs to reflect this.

• 6.4.3.3 Impact on Fulmars:

• o The need to integrate Fulmar Avoidance Measures in the proposed development.
• o No justification as to why avoidance measures have not been considered or applied are evident in the revised planning application, as on-site mitigation measures appear unfeasible and unproven.

• o The need for the development to consider the limited evidence available, including knowledge about basic fulmar ecology, which strongly suggests that fulmar will not remain on site and a worst case scenario must be assumed.
• o The possibility for significant conflict to occur between fulmars and residents of the apartments.
• o No acceptable on-site mitigation for fulmars has been proposed, or is considered likely to be successful.
• o Fulmar Compensation Measures should only be considered as a last resort where avoidance and other measures do not completely mitigate an impact.
• o Off-site compensation measures for fulmars: there is also no scientific evidence to suggest that such compensation measures would be successful.
• o As there has been no attempt to reduce the size of block A, to avoid or significantly reduce the impacts on nesting fulmar, and as there is no proven mitigation or compensation measures available for fulmars, they retain their objection to this planning application on this basis.

• 6.4.3.4 Impact on Herring Gulls

• o Herring Gulls are Isle of Man and UK red list species of highest conservation concern and they are also one of the designation features of Port Erin Bay MNR.
• o The Manx Wildlife Trust's Breeding Bird Survey report 2021 found that 25 pairs of herring gulls nested on site in 2021.
• o Mitigation for herring gull is proven, in-principal simpler to provide, and easier to accommodate on site as herring gull are known to nest in close proximity to humans, though this does also come with associated conflict issues between humans and gulls.
• o The mitigation proposal for nesting gulls is acceptable.
• o If residents do find that gulls are an issue and they wish to exclude them, then off-site compensation may be required.
• o As with fulmars we maintain our objection to this application until such a time as detailed S18 agreements have been reached to cover an ongoing monitoring programme and further herring gull mitigation should negative impacts be found and for the Wall and Bothy repairs including ancillary boundary treatment to secure potential gull nesting from human interference.

• 6.4.3.5 Other Nesting Bird Considerations

• o It is unclear as to how long-term impacts on nesting birds can be accommodated within the current planning process, and it is recommended that consideration is given to this issue.
• o Sensitive low level lighting, including use of baffles and screens will be required to protect cliff-nesting birds, migrating birds and marine life from the damaging impact of artificial light from Blocks B, C, and D.
• o The use of 'Feature Lighting' to the front of the façade may/is inappropriate given the setting and without appropriate mitigation.
• o Bothy repairs form an essential part of the development's ecological mitigation and therefore the specific details need to be formalised and integrated into a legally binding agreement.
• o There are concerns relating to the potential ornithological impacts of keeping cats in the apartments
• o Cliff netting of the site as mitigation to rock fall could potentially impact on birds at the site.

• 6.4.3.6 Fisheries and Marine Conservation Interests:

• o The potential impacts of the proposed development on the Port Erin Bay MNR have not been fully considered or addressed.
• o The developers need to clarify the distinction between the development and its proximity to HAT prior to determination of this application.
• o Detailed surface water management for the site should be built on nil-marine input.
• o The monitoring of Longer-Term Ecological Impacts (post construction) should include an ecological survey of the adjacent MNR (spatial extent to be agreed).

• 6.4.4 Following further amendments to the application the Ecosystem Policy Team and Fisheries Division (which relate to Marine Nature Reserves and Fisheries interests) have made the following comments in a letter dated 18 March 2022:

• 6.4.4.1 Fulmars:

• o They state that it would be preferable if Block A were removed entirely. However, they acknowledge the reduction of Block A, as this is was determined to be one of only two, feasible mitigation measure on site for fulmars.
• o They note that with this alteration, it is considered more likely that fulmars would be able to continue nesting in this location, although this cannot be guaranteed.
• o They note that Brindle and Green's letter, while supportive of the height reduction, does not state categorically that the alterations to Block A will be sufficient to ensure that fulmars will remain
• on site (as there is simply not enough scientific evidence available to be certain of this).
• o They state that they have determined to withdraw their objection on the grounds of nesting fulmar, but only on the basis that conditions are secured on approval to achieve the following:

• - the construction of Block A is undertaken as shown in the revised plan drawings (Street Elevations Drawings (Revision P04 dated 01/02/22) and the various Block A Elevation Drawings (Revision P03 dated 01/02/2022))
• - a fulmar monitoring and mitigation strategy, during and post construction, to assess the potential impact of this development on fulmar at this site (as an Isle of Man red-listed bird species

of highest conservation concern), is submitted to Planning for written approval and for the monitoring and any subsequent mitigation measures to be undertaken in strict accordance with the approved strategy. This strategy must include a mechanism for securing further mitigation/compensation/remediation measures should impacts from the development be shown.

• - a low-level, and ecologically-considered, lighting plan to be submitted to Planning for written approval prior to any works taking place, to ensure that nesting fulmars are not impacted by lighting originating from in and around the new buildings.
• - Measures to be put in place to prevent bird strikes onto the building's many glass balustrades and balconies.

• 6.4.4.2 Herring Gulls: o They note that as with fulmars, monitoring of nesting herring gulls during and post construction is required, to assess the impact of the development on this Isle of Man and UK red list species of highest conservation concern and to secure further mitigation/compensation/remediation measures should the monitoring show negative impacts on nesting gull populations.
• 6.4.4.3 Fisheries and Marine Environmental Impacts:

• o They note that outstanding issues remain in relation to the Port Erin Bay Marine Nature Reserve (MNR).
• o These issues relate to these relate to the proximity of the proposed development to the MNR and the potential for interactions and negative impacts upon the MNR, which is statutorily designated and protected under Manx legislation.

• 6.4.4.4 Interactions between the proposed development and the MNR:

• o They re-iterate that the sea in this location is a Marine Nature Reserve and therefore any discharge from the site, especially an unrestricted and potentially contaminated discharge (as proposed on Drawing 100217_03_500_01 Revision C), remains unacceptable, as this could result in harmful pollutants, such as foul water, PAHs (from car parks) nutrients, pesticides and microbiological contaminants, entering and negatively impacting the protected marine environment.
• o They request that updated drainage proposals are provided to ensure that there is a nil impact to the MNR from foul water, storm water and surface water.
• o They suggest the following Conditions in relation to the MNR:

• - No foul water discharge to the sea, including the use of combined sewage overflows (CSOs),

or equivalent.

• - No surface water discharge to the sea, including Storm Overflows (SOs).

• - No development to take place until a foul, surface and storm water drainage strategy, detailing any on and/or off site works that may be needed to dispose of foul and surface water from the development and which results in no outfall to Port Erin Marine Nature Reserve, has first been submitted to Planning for written agreement and for no part of the development to be occupied until the agreed drainage strategy has been implemented.

• o They reiterate that the foul and surface water outfall is a fundamental outstanding issue of this application for the protection of the Marine Nature Reserve, and which needs to be resolved. The Fisheries Directorate and Ecosystem Policy Team will maintain their objection to the application unless the above conditions are secured on approval.
• o They state that there is also an outstanding issue in regards to marine monitoring and mitigation, as Monitoring pre, during and post construction is required to assess the impact of the development on the MNR and determine if the measures to be implemented to protect the MNR are working.
• o They request that a condition be included to ensure this is integral to the development.

• 6.4.4.5 Additional considerations:

• o Cliffe netting: they recommend that to future-proof the non-installation of cliff netting at the site, that a condition is secured to achieve no netting of the rock face for any reason.
• o They suggest that an alternative condition could be secured for a cliff stability mitigation strategy to be developed in case of future rock falls, and which acknowledges the exclusion of cliff netting.

• 6.4.4.6 A suggested list of recommended conditions are provided.

6.5 DEFA's Inland Fisheries Policy Manager confirm that they have no objection to the application from a fisheries perspective given the nature of both the watercourse and the proposed works in a letter dated 7 September 2021. - 6.6 Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service (Department of Home Affairs)

• 6.6.1 They previously stated that the submitted plans do not meet with the Fire Precautions (Houses in Multiple Occupation and Flats) Regulations 2016 on 10 April 2021.
• 6.6.2 Having reviewed the amended plans and additional information, they state that the revised plans addresses the issue with the need for an additional staircase for buildings over 11m, as well as show inner rooms which are not permitted under the 2016 Regulations (2 September 2021). However, it has been agreed that the developers would submit plans at the Building Control stage to rectify these issues.

They further state that plans to be submitted should include solutions to the inner rooms within the conventional flats and also the duplex arrangements where the staircase discharges into the kitchen and living room.

• 6.6.3 Further to reviewing amended plans, they note that the submissions relate to planning approval only, but highlight the need for the building control submission to address concerns unacceptable inner rooms flagged in their representation on 2 September 2021 (11 October 2021).
• 6.6.4 They note that the amendments relate to planning approval only. However, they indicate that the issues identified in their correspondence dated 2 September 2021 (regarding inner rooms that are not permitted under 2016 regulations, and the duplex arrangements where staircases discharge into the kitchen/living room) have not yet been addressed by the applicant (8 March 2022).

6.7 Having identified possible issues with rock fall at the site, the Head of Design, Highway Services, DOI was consulted for comments on Geotechnical Assessment submitted by the applicants to address this concern. His comments received 18 October 2021 concludes that:

• o The likelihood of rock fall hazards would be low as the cliff face consists predominantly of exposed rock with minor areas of erosion materials in mid slope areas and its lower slopes.
• o The history of the site indicates that in relatively modern times there were several extensions to the original building most recently a three storey lecture theatre extension added at the rear of the original building. The addition of this building extension resulted in local rock face strengthening works.
• o The building control application that will be required should contain therein a Structural Engineer's/Geo Technical Engineering assessment of the existing rock face and confirmation of its stability in light of the proposed development incorporating retail, apartments and restaurant with associated parking.

6.8 Manx National Heritage express concern about the impact of the development on breeding birds nesting in the cliff behind the development and refer to the Wildlife Act 1990 and recommend that work on the project is undertaken outwith the bird breeding season (March to August) in a letter dated 08 February 2021. - 6.9 Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society state that they continue to object to the application on the following grounds in a letter dated 10 March 2021:

• o The current proposal is overly dominant to the detriment of the general character and appearance of the area and contrary to parts (b), (c), and (g) of general Policy 2 of the Isle of Man strategic Plan and with Development Brief for Site 22 in the Area Plan for the South.
• o The westerly block falls entirely outside of the Mixed Use designation contained in the Port Area Village Plan map in the Area Plan for the South and is not within any area zoned for development.
• o It will have a severe adverse impact on the coastal scenery of this area, the backdrop to the proposed Conservation Area and views of Port Erin both from the north (Bradda Head) side of the bay Landscape Area H3 and from the sea from which many people do enjoy the views when approaching Port Erin by boat.
• o The proposal would be contrary to Landscape Proposal 10 of the Area Plan for the South.
• o The proposal represents gross over-development of the site and its surroundings.
• o The Marine Biological Station building has the potential to be listed as a registered building and as such attempts should be made to retain this building via a full photographic survey completed and lodged, to the same standard as for a Registered Building.
• o The Society requests that if approved the building should be subject to a condition that protects the Marine Biological Station building.

• 6.9.1 Further to reviewing the revised plans, the Isle of Man Natural History & Antiquarian Society has made the following additional comments on the application in a letter dated 20 September 2021:

• o Isle of Man Natural History & Antiquarian Society objects to this application.
• o The proposal is still too massive for the site and will detract from the quality of the landscape both as seen from across Port Erin Bay and from the Raad ny Foillan.
• o The Society also believes that new building ie Block A should not be permitted on the open space currently on the westward seaward side of the existing complex as this six storey block will be apparent from Raad ny Foillan north of Port Erin and possibly from some distance away and not enhance the landscape. It is also not on land zoned for development.
• o If approved, it should be a condition that the cliff-side wall should be repaired to match the existing wall prior to the commencement of any works on the site. This is to protect the safety of Raad ny Foillan walkers.

6.10 Manx Utilities Drainage initially requested new drawings (08 February 2021 and 18 February

2021) and confirmed on 05 May 2021 that the most recently submitted information satisfies their concerns.

6.11 Since the proposed scheme has a significant tourism element, the DofE (Tourism Division) were consulted for comments on the application on 30 September 2021. Their response received on 14 October 2021 states thus:

• o The Visit Agency does not normally comment on mixed-use residential applications, noting that the majority of this development is for residential apartments and commercial space incorporating aparthotel rooms.
• o The provision of aparthotel accommodation at this location somewhat satisfies the findings
• of the 2016 Isle of Man Hotel Futures Study.
• o The Study only references scope for aparthotel development in Douglas to meet corporate demand for this type of accommodation in the capital. However it does also indicate that aparthotels are becoming increasingly popular with leisure markets, which is more likely to be the
• opportunity in Port Erin. o In addition, the proposed aparthotel element of the scheme is consistent with the ambition set out in the Visit Isle of Man Strategic Plan to 2023 to grow the Island's annual visitor numbers to 340,000 by 2023 and to meet the needs of our current and developing visitor markets.

6.12 Representations from Local residents and other third parties

• A. Objectors to the scheme:

6.13 A resident of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA recalls researching at the site in the past and noted the nature and ecology around the site. He refers to other parts of the world where coastal development is not allowed and where renewable energy is required to be installed. He considers that the site is ideal for a marine biological museum and Manx Museum. He is considering returning to the Island but would not consider living here if this building is erected (24 January 2021). - 6.14 The Owner/Occupier of 3, Viking Close, Ballakillowey, Colby.

• 6.14.1 They object to the application on the following grounds (28 February 2021):

• o A previous scheme for the site was refused on the basis that it was overly dominant and intrusive in visual terms to the detriment of the architecture and historic interest of the original Marine Biological Station buildings and also to the general character and appearance of the existing group of buildings and of the area.
• o They would prefer to see the original Marine Biological Station building retained as a feature
• of the history of the village.
• o The proposed building has dwarfed the original footprint of the buildings and is a gross overdevelopment of the site, disproportionate to the site and all its surroundings. It will be the most dominant statement building in Port Erin and not in keeping with any part of it.
• o The scale does not reflect any development south of the Island or in prominent coastal locations and is reminiscent of the very worst of unsympathetic over-development in places like Malta.
• o The development will completely dwarf all of the buildings in the vicinity and does not represent the character of Port Erin.
• o The development would impact on unspoiled nature which is the key attraction for visitors to places like Port Erin, untouched by modernity. This is completely at odds with that.
• o The building will be too large and too modern for the location and the vehicles generated by the proposal may impact on the highway network and pedestrian safety.
• o They query what provisions are there for these additional residents in terms of local infrastructure.
• o They wonder whether those behind the scheme are aware of the prevailing weather so close to the coast.
• o They wonder how the finishes will weather and whether the design of the roof will stand up to the prevailing wind: they do not consider that the site is suitable for any kind of residential development.
• o They wonder what measures are taken in respect of protecting the bird nesting sites alongside and whether the occupants will be affected by them if they remain, in the future.

• 6.14.2 This correspondent submits further correspondence on 01.03.21 and 16.04.21 referring to the "woefully inadequate" provision of electric vehicle charging points in relation to the Climate

• Change Mitigation Strategy and the lack of information on the inclusion of renewable energy within the buildings. They refer to the impact on breeding birds on the cliffs behind and consider that the proposed mitigation is not acceptable to offset the harm caused and future potential conflicts between the human and bird populations in such close proximity. They consider the proposed landscaping will not be successful in such a harsh and exposed position and does not understand the function of the green roofs and whether they are to be accessible by the occupants or not. They also refer to how air will pass around the buildings and a possible funnelling effect.
• 6.14.3 Having reviewed the additional documents, this correspondent has made further comments dated 10 September 2021:

• o The proposed development is still disproportionately large and its light colour (which is apparently lighter) would make it stand out and totally dominate the key views towards Port Erin.
• o The Isle of Man Birdlife has recently published the first Red List of Birds for the Island - the list of bird species of conservation concern in the Isle of Man (BoCCIoM 2021). Herring Gulls are on the Red list - the list of those species of the greatest conservation concern. The proposed development site is a long-established Herring Gull breeding area. A large number of our bird species are under increasing threat (some have now been completely lost locally) because of habitat degradation caused, in part, by development.
• o A development of this nature and scale, with the accompanying prolonged building works and the likely introduction of dozens of domestic cats and dogs in the immediate vicinity of a breeding site of a Red list species is not doing any good in strengthening wildlife protection.

• 6.14.4 Having reviewed the amended documents, they state that their previous comments remain unchanged considering nothing substantive appears to have changed with the scale and design of the proposed development (14 October 2021).

6.15 Pegasus Group (Qneens House, Queens Street, Manchester), representatives of an unspecified party object to the application on the following grounds (11 February 2021/9 September 2021):

• o The loss of the Marine Biological Station has not been formally approved and little regard or tribute has been paid to the site's past in the proposal.
• o The scale, height and visual impact would be unacceptable and have harmful and unprecedented impacts on the sensitive and protected environment around the site and would conflict with the approval in principle in terms of it being larger and being partly outwith the settlement boundary.
• o The application cannot be a reserved matters application as the site is not the same as that for the approval in principle although the application was amended prior to the submission of these comments to be a full, detailed application.
• o As the approval in principle contained little in the way of information on siting, design, access, drainage and landscaping, no assumptions can be made that any of these elements of the current application are acceptable and what were submitted were for illustrative purposes only.
• o The description of the development omitted the demolition of the buildings and the approval in principle did not include it.
• o There was no assessment of the heritage value of the existing buildings.
• o The site could be redeveloped whilst retaining the existing buildings or some of them.
• o What is proposed would harm the proposed CA and its setting.
• o site sits within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic or Coastal Significance on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982 and as such Environment Policies 2 and 11 of the Strategic Plan and General Policy 2 are relevant.
• o The village has retained much of its fishing and marine heritage and the few buildings at the site are smaller scale and did not match the scale of development elsewhere on the upper promenade.
• o The use of light coloured render and the scale of the building "lacks understanding of the historical development of the settlement and the different character areas of the townscape".
• o No contextual images are provided to show how the building will sit in its context.

• o The development will be contrary to Landscape Character Areas H3 and H4 which includes the sounds of nature (the sea and the birds) which could be adversely affected by the proposal.
• o There is no clear evidence to demonstrate that the development satisfies Environment Policy 11 and would not require additional costal defence measures to preserve the property and public safety

6.16 The Owners/Occupiers of Tinsleys, Spaldrick, Port Erin, object to the application with the following comments in a letter dated 25 August 2021:

• o The scale and height of the proposed buildings are excessive and would constitute a gross intrusion into the cliff scenery on the south side of Port Erin Bay.
• o The abandoned remains of the old Marine Biological Station are a shocking example of neglect and the lack of effective legislation to mitigate the blight of derelict buildings in the Isle of Man, there is no wisdom in replacing one eyesore with another.
• o The photo montages produced by the applicants illustrate just how intrusive this development would be.
• o The development represents a brutal concrete and glass construction not dissimilar in style to some of the 1960's tower blocks which are now thankfully demolished in numerous UK cities.
• o The extreme exposure of this site to adverse sea and weather conditions is a concern.
• o The prospect of a rust stained concrete edifice of the scale and style proposed for this beautiful coastal location should be considered.

6.17 The Owner/Occupant of 8 South Snowdon Wharf, Porthmadog, Gwynedd (an off Island address), object to the application on the following grounds in a letter dated 2 September 2021:

• o The north elevation will be seen from the Promenade, the Brooghs and paths to Bradda Head. No image of the proposed south elevation is provided. Since the site abuts the first complete national coastal footpath in the world, the site is particularly important and so deserves a good design.
• o Constructing a new building of this size will have a big carbon footprint. That will include transport for all imported materials.
• o A heat pump could reduce the carbon emissions when the building is occupied, but not to zero or anything near zero.
• o An imaginative design could incorporate passive solar gain in an interesting south facing elevation.
• o Solar powered photovoltaic cells have been installed elsewhere in the Island on roofs in exposed coastal houses. And as such could be included in the scheme.
• o There are errors on the application form concerning the local authority for the development and ownership of the site.

6.18 The owners/occupiers of Lhie Ny Greiney, Surby Road, Surby, Port Erin.

• 6.18.1 They object to the application on the following grounds (6 September 2021):

• o The structure proposed is completely out of keeping with its surroundings, by virtue of its size, shape and geometrical glass and white render frontage.
• o It would not be out of place in a modern urban environment, but is totally unsuited to a prominent site forming part of the magnificent cliff scenery of the Island's West coast.
• o It would spoil the view towards the Calf from the popular paths out along Bradda Head.
• o Any new development on the site should be sympathetic in scale and appearance to its surroundings, as was the original stone-faced Marine Biology Station building.
• o Many Mediterranean coastlines has been wrecked by intensive and unsympathetic developments and should not be replicated on the Isle of Man should.

• 6.18.2 Having reviewed amendments to the scheme the owners/occupiers of Lhie Ny Greiney, Surby Road, Surby, Port Erin have reiterated their objection for the proposed development noting the following reasons (18 October 2021):

• o With the modest reduction in height now proposed, the structures is still completely out of keeping with its surroundings, by virtue of its size, box shape and geometrical glass and render aspect. This is particularly well illustrated by CGI 3.
• o The effect of distance minimises the initial impact when CGI 1 is viewed, but on closer examination the unsympathetic nature of the proposed structure is clear.

6.19 The owners/occupiers of Ballafesson Farmhouse, Qualtrough's Lane, Ballafesson, Rushen object to the development with the following comments (7 September 2021):

• o The area and height of the buildings are vastly greater than that taken up by the Marine Biological Station. The site is in a prominent one in a coastal area of high landscape value.
• o The design of this development has all the charm of the '60's and '70's hotel blocks that blight so many coastal towns on the Continent.
• o The developers appear to have given scant consideration to the extremely exposed nature of the site.
• o The development represents an overbearing prospect in what is in effect open countryside.
• o The multiple owners of the many flats will ensure that it will not be as simple to remove as a Council owned city tower block.

6.20 The owners/occupiers of Ballacarnane Mooar Farm, Peel Road, object to the development with the following comments (9 September 2021):

• o The current plans are far too drastic and far from in keeping with the bay.
• o Although the additional accommodation and footfall would undoubtedly be beneficial to Port Erin it comes at too much of a cost.
• o The development would stand out and spoil the beauty of the bay and also risk the loss of the UNESCO Biosphere status.
• o The height of the proposed building currently at above the cliff would dominate the view from above walking down bradda head and from the beach. This would blight the view from Bradda head across the Meayll Peninsula to the Calf.
• o If the proposals were reduced by at-least two storeys, then it 'may' fit in with the surrounding headlands either side of the bay.
• o The foot print of the side is also large and likely to spoil the view.

6.21 The owner of 20, Fairway Close, Port Erin.

• 6.21.1 The state the following (12 April 2021):

• o They are in favour of appropriate scale and type of development on this site.
• o They expresses concern about the traffic implications of the development and welcomes the absence of proposals to alter the cliff.
• o They are concerned about the impact which the work to the highway will have on the area and asks that in the interests of equality that the full length of the footway of Strand Road is improved to be of sufficient width for safe passage by all.

• 6.21.2 Having reviewed amendments to the application, further representation has been submitted on 9 October 2021 by the owner of 20, Fairway Close, Port Erin which highlights the following:

• o The proposal is out of scale on grounds of height and length of frontage, and also for reasons of transport and accessibility.
• o DOI comments do not address concerns regarding hazardous inadequacy of footways and carriageways on Strand Road and Shore Road. This is a dangerous omission in view of the traffic that would be generated by this scale of development.
• o They express concerns regarding access of bus stop and railway station which only serves the upper promenade, as well as inadequate roads to serve the area.

6.22 A resident of 2963 N, Prospect Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA (Wisconsin Manx Society Inc.) has made the following comments regarding the application (24 January 2021):

• o This correspondent notes the biodiversity that are on/around the site which includes Herring population and seagulls, and the research opportunities offered by the site to study the birds, tide pools, and life in the ocean.

• o He refers to other parts of the world where coastal development is not allowed due to global Warming and rising seas, and where renewable energy is required to be installed.
• o He considers that the site is ideal for a marine biological museum and Manx Museum.
• o He opines that this space could be offered to other Universities, such as Oxford and Cambridge for regular summer classes and important research.

• B. The following correspondents support the application:

6.23 The Owner/Occupier of Foraging Vintners, Harbourmaster's Office on Breakwater Road, Port Erin (29 February 2021):

• o They support of the development, considering that the development will improve what has become an unauthorised camper van site lacking any proper facilities.
• o What is proposed will allow residents and the public to enjoy the amenities of the site and with sufficient car parking.
• o As business operators they welcome more hospitality, hotel and retail businesses to be located in this area and they do not view the project as impeding or competing with them but rather enhancing and ameliorating this part of the village.
• o They consider the design and density of development as appropriate and consider that public transport may improve to this part of the village as a result of the development being here.
• o They anticipate greater passing footfall and the development will help ensure that the village is less seasonal and has more all year round options.

6.23 The owner of 12, Bromet Road, Castletown, considers that the scheme is amazing for the south for a site which has been a mess for a long time and which will create more footfall and jobs and give the village a much needed lift, only adding to the other businesses pushing down south (29 January 2021). - 6.24 The owners/occupiers of the flowing properties also support the application, considering the scheme well thought through and will offer new facilities in and bring more people to this part of the village. Some note that the existing buildings on the site are an eyesore and what is proposed would be a good use of a brownfield site and that whilst the proposed buildings are not the same as what exists, designs and styles change over time and this should be of its time not a poor replication of the original: - 6.25 Aigney Mie, Shore Road, Gansey (02.02.21) - 6.26 Regent House, The Promenade, Port Erin (02.02.21) - 6.27 Papplewick 13, Hill Park, Ballakillowey, Rushen (02.02.21) - 6.28 Ballakinnag House, Shore Road, Ballaugh (04.02.21) - 6.29 Suas Ltd, Westminster House, Parliament Square, Castletown (03.02.21) - 6.30 Beach House, Beach Road, Gansey, Port St. Mary (03.02.21) - 6.31 1, Bradda View Grove, Ballakillowey, Rushen (03.02.21) - 6.32 33, Maghergarran, Port Erin (23.03.21) - 6.33 The following properties have made comments on the application after the new submissions were made by the applicants on 22 February 2022:

• 6.33.1 Pegasus Group (Qneens House, Queens Street, Manchester), who had made earlier representations still object to the application on the grounds previously stated (8 March 2022).
• 6.33.2 The Owners/Occupiers of Tinsleys, Spaldrick, Port Erin, still object to application on previous ground stated. They also state that the amount of money expended on the application should not in any way be construed as a reason to grant approval for such an over intensive and incongruous coastline development (14 March 2022).
• 6.33.3 The owners/occupiers of Ballafesson Farmhouse, Qualtrough's Lane, Ballafesson, Rushen still object to the application as the amendments have not addressed the concerns expressed in their previous representation (15 March 2022).

• 6.33.4 The owners/occupiers of Lhie Ny Greiney, Surby Road, Surby, Port Erin acknowledge the proposed reduction in height of block A. However, they still maintain their earlier objection to the scheme (10 March 2022).
• 6.33.5 The owners/occupiers of Soalt, Balnahowe Farm Cottages, Balnahow, Santon, support the scheme on the following grounds (24 February 2022):

• o The development would enhance the site which currently is an eyesore and potential hazard to health and safety.
• o The development would create a positive impression for the area.
• o The development would provide additional housing for the Island.
• o The development is sympathetic to the surroundings and the moderns design would have a lasting impact on the area.

6.34 Of the twenty (20) commentators on the scheme eleven (11) indicated support for the scheme, while nine (9) objected to the scheme. - 7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The issues in this case are as follows:

• i. Principle of the development and mix of uses (Area Plan for the South development brief, SP

6 & 9, BPS 1, 9 & 10, GP2A, SPP2, & EP43)

• ii. Visual Impact/Design (GP 2B, STP 3, 5 & 8, EP 42)
• iii. Impact on Adjacent Conservation Area (EP 36)
• iv. Impact on Ecology (Area Plan Development Brief, EP's 4, 5, 7, & 24, & GP 4)
• v. Impact on landscape (Landscape Proposal 10, SP3, SP4, SP5 & EP 42)
• vi. Impact on the public footpath (Area Plan Development Brief and RP5)
• vii. Impact on highway safety (Area Plan Development Brief, General Policy 2h & I, TP's 1, 2, 4,

6, & 7, & SP 10)

• viii. Levels of amenity (HP17, STP 1B, GP2h, & RP 3)
• ix. Affordable housing (HP5)
• x. Public open space (RP 3 & 4, & Appendix 6).
• xi. Energy Use (GP2n & ENP5)
• xii. Water Consumption/Management (IP5)
• xiii. Fire Safety (CP10 & 11)
• xiv. Designing Out Crime (CP7 & GP2m)
• xv. Flooding (EP 13 & GP 2L)
• xvi. Issue with Rock Fall from the Cliff Face (GP2m)
• xvii. Other Matters

7.2 PRINCIPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND MIX OF USES (SP 6 & 9, BPS 1, 9 & 10, AREA PLAN DEVELOPMENT BRIEF, GP2A, SPP2, & EP43)

• 7.2.1 The Development Brief indicates that the site is suitable for a range of uses including marine-based tourist/leisure uses (including associated accommodation), which may also include a residential element in the form of associated accommodation. The proposed uses are not exactly in line with these as it is dominated by residential accommodation, and the marine-based element only relates to the use of the exhibition space which would accommodate various displays and tourismcentred information based upon tourist events carried out at various times of the year on the Island, such as; major motor racing events on the Island, maritime events which may include observing basking sharks which are likely to appear at the Bay, tourism-based displays which would be displayed by the Manx Wildlife Trust or others bodies, and local heritage or exhibitions by local artists or craft displays; uses which would be difficult to define as marine-based tourist/leisure uses as they involve a broad range of activities. Whilst these are not particularly focused on marine based tourism, the space would be used to promote some element of marine-based tourism and other forms of ecology focused tourism which is relevant to the island.

• 7.2.2 The contributions of the Aparthotel element to the tourism mix within the development is also essential in ascertaining the acceptability of the level of mix when comparing the proportion of the tourist use with the number of residential apartments and commercial spaces. With the development incorporating 14 Aparthotel units which from their design appear to be high quality units, there contribution is considered to be significant in meeting the islands tourism targets, as additional tourism units would be located in Port Erin where such units are limited in supply. It is also considered noteworthy that the DofE (Tourism Division) officers consider that the creation of the aparthotel accommodation in Port Erin somewhat aligns with the findings of the 2016 Isle of Man Hotel Futures Study. Whilst the study only references scope for aparthotel development in Douglas to meet corporate demand for this type of accommodation in the capital (as indicated by the DofE Tourism Officers), it does also indicate that aparthotels are becoming increasingly popular with leisure markets, which is more likely to be the opportunity in Port Erin. The Aparthotel units would also serve as some form of economic benefit to the development as it would generate tourism revenue for the developers and Port Erin. As, such, it is considered the Aparthotel units, and the provision of exhibition spaces would to some extent satisfy the requirements of part 1 of Development Brief 22 of the Area Plan for the South.

• 7.2.3 It is also considered that approval in principle was granted under PA 19/00373/A for a development (though indicative) which showed and described 86 apartments including 14 aparthotel units. As such, this scheme includes a reduced ratio and number of residential uses compared to the maximum that were previously considered acceptable (from 86 to 66 - 23% reduction). There has been no change of circumstance or policy since that decision so it is considered that the two commercial units, the large exhibition space (measuring 427sqm and capable of hosting a range of tourism events) and the 52 apartments and 14 aparthotel units could constitute an acceptable range of mix uses here.

• 7.2.4 Likewise, the provision of eating and drinking facilities will complement the existing facilities around this part of Port Erin, and provide more opportunities for those already visiting the village to have refreshments, and explore the landscaped open spaces here, whilst enjoying the coastal views offered; factors which could be considered as being complimentary to the tourism uses within the site and locality.

• 7.2.5 In evaluating the retail (commercial) elements of the scheme, it is noted that whilst there could be concern that the location, outwith the centre of the village is not appropriate for retail, given BPs 9 and 10 and SP 9, the location is mostly within the settlement boundary, and the two retail units and the restaurant shown on the plans are less than the area which would necessitate a Retail Impact Assessment either individually or cumulatively. Moreover, the provision of retail opportunities alongside the restaurant is considered to be complementary in this case in an area where visitors already congregate despite the lack of facilities. The development brief clearly includes uses which are designed to attract visitors to the site and the retail units would support this.

• 7.2.6 Another factor that bodes well for the scheme in terms of acceptability of the principle is the fact that the scheme will facilitate the regeneration and the re-use of this derelict and redundant site, which could otherwise fall into increased disrepair; a situation which could further impede the redevelopment of the site in the future due to increased cost of restoration. Thus, the need to encourage the redevelopment of this run-down urban site situated in a prominent location serves to favour the proposed scheme and aligns with Spatial Policy 2 and Environment Policy 43.

• 7.2.7 Overall, taking account of the planning policies, the planning history and the particular circumstances of the site and proposal, it is considered that although the proposal does not comply fully with the site Development Brief, the proposed uses (and mix of uses) are acceptable in principle. 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 proposal would be appropriate for the site, considering the approval in principle only required that the principle of the development be assessed with other matters reserved.

- 7.3 VISUAL IMPACT/DESIGN (GP 2B, STRATEGIC POLICIES 3B, 5 & 8, EP42)

• 7.3.1 With regard to the visual impacts of the proposed scheme, it would be vital to consider the requirements of Strategic Policy 5 that 'New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island' and General Policy

2 paragraph (b) which requires that new development should 'respect the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them'.

• 7.3.2 The main public view would likely be from the lands that surround the bay which includes views from the Bradda Head and the surrounding developments, the properties along Spaldrick, the Promenade, Shore Road, and Breakwater Road.

• 7.3.2 When the proposed buildings are viewed from the surrounding area; particularly from the Promenade, Spaldrick, and Bradda Head, they will be prominent features in this location, given their siting, scale, design, finish which would make them obvious. These buildings would completely dominate the views towards the cliffs, given their height and width which would completely cover the cliffs (beside Block A which is set lower than the cliffs behind), when viewed from Breakwater Road or approaching the Port Erin Bay from the sea. From the immediate streetscene along Breakwater Road which is the highway access to the site, the two blocks of apartments which front the eastern boundary of the site (Block D and C) will be the most prominent buildings, with the other two blocks (A and B) further into the site area screened by the existing cliff projections and the orientation of these buildings which leans away towards the southwest direction.
• 7.3.3 The applicants have produced a photomontage of how the buildings would appear from distant views, which is useful to gain a good understanding of how it would site/appear. From reviewing these plans, it is evident that the proposal will clearly increase the amount of built development on the site, with buildings considerably taller than the existing properties within the entire area. Also evident in the photomontage provided is the fact that the new buildings would fill up the entire land area and project beyond the limits of the existing development on the site. It is acknowledged that recent changes, to address concerns raised by the Ecology team, have resulted in an amendment to Block A and that the scheme has gone through significant changes from it originally conceived scheme which was to take cue from the lie of the land. Recent revisions have also simplified the design and omitted some of the features; such as it slanted roof finish (which mirrored the cliff slant) and use of wall breaks in the form of balconies and wall projections which served to eliminate bland extensive walls of glass which are common features of budget developments in many coastal communities in Europe.
• 7.3.4 Whilst it is noted that the entire bay front is characterised by a mixture of various types, sizes, styles and designs of properties lining the major highways, with the new hotel and apartment buildings which offer dominant views when viewed from distant perspectives, dominating the streetscene, it is noted that the character appraisal for the proposed conservation area considers a number of the modern additions which the new development bears a resemblance to (such as the new building located between Erin Court and the Ocean Castle Hotel, and that replacing the Bay View Hotel), as buildings which should not be replicated in the area. In fact the character appraisal states that 'only planning applications which emulate the design of positive buildings should be approved'. The massing of some of the proposed buildings would also be greater than the existing properties in the area, with the proposed number of floors considerably higher than all the buildings in the area as the tallest buildings in the area (such as the Imperial Hotel development, Ocean Castle Hotel, and Former Port Erin Royal Hotel) have only six floors.
• 7.3.5 On balance, it is considered that the proportion, form, design and finish of the proposed buildings would be unmatched when compared with the buildings in the locality as they would dominate the views and be intrusive when viewed from various vantage points along the bay and headlands. The design also does not take cue from the character of the surrounding landscape which it is expected to be seamlessly integrated, and offers a form of development that could be

erected anywhere. Thus, the development would fail to align with General Policy 2(b & g), Strategic Policies 3(b), 5 and 8, and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

- 7.4 IMPACT ON ADJACENT CONSERVATION AREA (EP36)

• 7.4.1 The Department has a duty to determine whether development proposals outside, but close to the boundary of Conservation Areas will not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area (EP36). With this in mind it is very relevant to evaluate the key views into and out of the Propose Conservation Area to ascertain if there would be any detrimental impacts from this scheme which is a modern introduction to the streetscape when views from key views from Bradda Head and other vantage points within and around the Proposed Port Erin Conservation Area. A key guide in this regard is the Character Appraisal which highlights key views and other elements that do no good in promoting the character of the area.
• 7.4.2 From reviewing the character appraisal, it is noted that the site is situated within close proximity to the Old Lifeboat Station and the Herdman Institute, Shore Road, which are considered to be historic buildings of importance to the village and within the Proposed Conservation Area. The fact that the new buildings would also be similar in scale, proportion and appearance to some of the new buildings adjacent the Conservation area (along the promenade) is also a key consideration. It is also vital to note that the Character Appraisal recommends that only planning applications which emulate the design of positive buildings should be approved. This document further recommends that that any proposals for the alteration or replacement of negative buildings should only be allowed where they are designed in a fashion that is more sympathetic to the area. Whilst the proposed development would not fully align with these recommendations considering the new buildings will be similar to the new building located between Erin Court and the Ocean Castle Hotel, and that replacing the Bay View Hotel along the Promenade which are considered to be inconsistent with the historic appearance of the Promenade, the Character Appraisal clearly stipulates that "this guidance is particularly relevant for the Promenade, where there is an original building line, clearly visible from a large proportion of the village which is important to maintain". As such, it is considered that although the proposed development would serve as a modern addition to the views attainable along the bay, its design and appearance, although at variance with the dominant appearance of the area would not be sufficient to warrant refusal of the scheme. Besides, the modern appearance of the building cannot be judged to be detrimental, given the detached nature of the site from the nearby conservation area, due to the separating distance between the building and the nearest property in the Conservation area and the orientation of the headland presents an oblique view from the Proposed Conservation Area when approaching from Breakwater Road. The development would, accordingly, not affect adversely the character or quality of the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area, although it is accepted that distant views of the proposed buildings would still be achievable from the northern edge of the Proposed Conservation Area at Carlton Apartments Spaldrick, as would views from Bradda Head on the opposite headland.

• 7.4.5 Overall, for these reasons it is considered the proposal would not result in adverse impacts upon views into and out of the adjacent Proposed Conservation Area, and as such would broadly comply with EP36.

7.5 IMPACT ON ECOLOGY (AREA PLAN DEVELOPMENT BRIEF, STP4, GP2, EPS 4, 5, 7 & 24, & GP 4)

• 7.5.1 In ascertaining the impacts of the development on ecology on and around the site, it is considered that the application proposes to build close to the cliffs and within close proximity to the marine nature reserve (MNR) which includes a significant part of the surrounding bay and water body. These works would result in impacts on elements of the ecology which have clear mitigation, as well as impacts on red-list species for which there are no clear mitigation, and these impacts are termed to be significant.

• 7.5.2 Environment Policy 4 stipulates that developments which would adversely affect species and habitats of international importance, species and habitats of national importance, and species and habitats of local importance would not be permitted. Within this policy, there are no allowances for

• provisions set for allowing developments with detrimental impacts and emphasis is placed on obtaining specific advice from the relevant professionals within the Department if proposals are brought forward. In this case, the advice provided by the Ecosystem Policy Team clearly indicates the mitigation offered via the reduction in height of building A regarding Fulmars, a red list specie nesting at the application site (particularly at the rear of the proposed Building A) are acceptable, although the success of the approach is uncertain. As such, they have asked that conditions be imposed to ensure that a fulmar monitoring and mitigation strategy, during and post construction, to assess the potential impact of the development on fulmar at this site forms part of the approval. Therefore, a condition would be imposed to ensure that this is integral to the development should approval be granted. Given that their advice is of prominence here, as has been advocated by EP4, with the suggested mitigation considered to offer a means to minimise disturbance, it is considered that this element of the scheme would comply with the requirements of EP5.
• 7.5.3 Similarly, it has been identified that the scheme would impact on Herring Gulls which are also considered Isle of Man and UK red list species of highest conservation concern. In assessing impacts on the Herring Gulls, it is considered that these nest on the cliffs, the former marine biological station building, and cliff top of the grassland above the cliffs, with the proposed development possessing the potential to impact on these birds. Albeit, given that there are proven mitigation approaches, in addition to Herring Gulls being easier to provide for and accommodate on site, with these being able to nest within close proximity to humans, any impact is not considered significant, although it is acknowledged that there would still be impacts. The ecosystem policy team in considering sustainable approaches to minimizing impacts on these red list species have suggested that appropriate conditions to ensure monitoring of nesting herring gulls during and post construction is required, to assess the impact of the development on these birds, and to secure further mitigation/compensation/remediation measures should the monitoring show negative impacts on nesting gull populations. As such, it is considered that any impacts on gulls (although a red list specie) could be sustainably mitigated; thus any impacts in this case would not be sufficient to warrant refusal of the scheme. Consequently, this aspect of the development would comply with Environment Policy 5.
• 7.5.4 Concern has also be raised regarding possible impacts of rock fall at the site on potential mitigation measures for protected birds on the site, particularly Fulmars which nest in the cliffs (with limited approaches for mitigation). As such, given that the most appropriate mitigation measure would be to net the cliffs if rock fall is identified to be a concern; the objection raised by the Ecosystem Policy Team regarding future netting being unacceptable here holds significant weight. As a result, any mitigation measures proposed here to limit impacts of rock fall on the scheme would exclude netting of the cliffs; should rock fall be identified to be a major concern after further assessments have been carried out. This would be secured with a condition should approval be granted for the scheme.
• 7.5.5 With regard to other important species on the site (particularly the nesting birds - robin, wren, rock pipits, jackdaws and linnet), it is considered that the removal of the existing buildings on site would impact on their habitats and breeding patterns, given that these would be dislodged from their established habitats on the site. This concern is, however, manageable considering appropriate mitigation can be taken when removing the buildings or during construction to ensure that the development does not result in negative impacts on these components of the environment, such as when the birds are less active or when they will be most visible and able to relocate themselves. As well, provision would be made in/on the new buildings and other areas on the site for new nesting areas through the installation of nest boxes or 'bird bricks', ledges and other bird habitats to ensure that the affected birds are not completely dislodged from the site as a result of the development. These measures could be secured with conditions, making them integral to decisions on the current application. Therefore, it is not considered that the dislodging of these bird species which form a core part of the site ecology would warrant refusal of the scheme given that appropriate measures could be taken to guarantee their continued existence on the site, along with the new buildings. Based on the foregoing, it is not considered that the development would not cause or lead to

• unacceptable environmental disturbance and would comply with Strategic Policy 4 in this regard and Environment Policy 5.
• 7.5.6 In terms of orchids, the survey undertaken by the applicant reveals that the cliff is a key terrestrial habitat and specifically an area of acid grassland containing orchids (protected under the Wildlife Act). There would, however, be limited impacts from the proposed development on these habitats considering the proposed works would be set below the cliffs. Besides, the applicants have indicated that the area between the cliff and the rooftop gardens will be cultivated as coastal acid grassland to encourage orchids which are found locally. Whilst any impacts here would be limited, the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (October 2020) submitted by the applicants had recommended that a Method Statements to demonstrate how site operations will not adversely impact the orchid population be submitted. As such, a condition should be attached which require that the method statement be provided prior to commencement of any works on site.
• 7.5.7 In terms of impacts on the adjacent MNR, it is important to note here that Paragraph 7.8.6 of the Strategic Plan sets out further criteria for granting permissions to development which would affect any proposed or other recognised site of conservation value, including areas of ecological interest by stipulating that such proposals will only be permitted where it has been demonstrated that:

• o the proposed development will not compromise the conservation objectives of the site or unacceptably harm its conservation value and its overall integrity;
• o there is proven public interest where safety or exceptional social or economic considerations
• outweigh the ecological importance of the site; and o the need for the development cannot be met in other less ecologically damaging locations or by reasonable alternative means.

• 7.5.8 The comments from the Ecosystem Policy Team highlight the lack of information with regard to the potential impacts on the Marine Nature Reserve (MNR), in terms of impacts during construction and long-term impacts post construction given the proximity of the proposed high density dwellings without sufficient buffer between the application site and the MNR. The nonresolution of the issues related to the MNR are clearly articulated in their most recent consultation (dated 18 March 2022) which states that the proposed drainage proposal would not achieve a nil input from the site to the adjacent MNR, and as such is unacceptable, as this could result in harmful pollutants, such as foul water, PAHs (from car parks) nutrients, pesticides and microbiological contaminants, entering and negatively impacting the protected marine environment. They have, however, requested that an updated drainage proposals which would ensure that there is a nil impact to the MNR from foul water, storm water and surface water is provided. As such, this would be secured via a planning condition should approval be granted.
• 7.5.9 Other matters related to the monitoring of the adjacent MNR which has been suggested by the Ecosystem Policy Team to be included as an approval condition would fall outside the remit of the current planning application, as there has not been identified any ecological baselines which the proposed scheme would alter and which needs to be protected via a monitoring condition. Whilst it would have been more appropriate for an initial assessment to be carried out to ascertain potential impacts on the adjacent MNR at the onset of the application, no issues or protected attributes have been particularly identified for which an initial survey would be required and for which subsequent monitoring would be essential. Given that the conservation objectives of the site which may be compromised by the proposed development has not been identified as required by the preceding texts to Environment Policy 4 (Paragraph 7.8.6) which supports the policy, it would be difficult to argue that a monitoring condition be imposed to assess attributes that have not been identified. These, however, would easily be achieved via the applications of the conservation legislation on the Island, such as the Wildlife Act 1990.
• 7.5.10 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the matters related to the ecology of the site, such as impacts on fulmars, herring gulls, wild birds, orchids and other fauna on the site are considered to be acceptable provided they are protected or certain actions are implemented via

conditions or section 13 agreements. The success of some of these mitigation measures are, however, unascertain, particularly those that relate to Fulmars at the site and would be further assessed after implementation and monitoring on the site, should approval be granted. Therefore, the development is considered to broadly comply with Environment Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan.

7.6 IMPACT ON LANDSCAPE (LANDSCAPE PROPOSAL 10 & DEVELOPMENT BRIEF 22 (APS), SP4 & EP 42)

• 7.6.1 With regard to the impacts on the landscape, it is noted that Landscape Proposal 10 favours limited development on the site to ensure that development of the site does not adversely affect the largely unspoilt character and appearance of the Peninsula. Landscape Proposal 10 also requires that new development should not diminish the role of the peninsula in providing a vegetative, undeveloped backdrop to Port Erin; conditions which the proposed development would not comply with as the scheme would have a significant developed footprint which cannot be termed as being limited.

• 7.6.2 Part 4 of Development brief 22 also requires that the design of new buildings and the treatment of the spaces between them should reflect the conspicuous nature of the site as viewed from across the bay. Granting attempts have been made to reduce the height of the buildings to enable it fit with the undulation of the cliff face, three of the buildings (B, C and D) would still rise higher than the cliff face such that they would obstruct the views to the cliff when viewed from the bay, the Promenade and adjacent headland (Bradda Head), making the development form the dominant views here; thus appearing obtrusive on the landscape. Equally, the spaces between the buildings are also compact with the gaps comprising 3.1m between Block B and D, 8.6m between block B and C, and about 13.4m between block A and B where the largest gap exists; and as such would screen views to these high and dramatic sea cliffs (that forms part of the Meayll Peninsula), which the Landscape Character Assessment classifies as landscape to be protected. These factors would cause the proposed development to dominate the views over this picturesque coastal landscape when viewed from the surrounding area failing the landscape requirements of Development Brief 22 as contained in Part 4 of the brief. It is also vital to note that the current changes to the design would further depart from the undulation of the land which was initially indicated by the applicants in their submissions regarding the design that the buildings would follow the lie of the cliff behind.
• 7.6.3 Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policy 42 would also be vital in determining the acceptability of any impacts on the landscape here, particularly parts (b) of SP4, and the preceding texts within paragraph 4.3.11. The key thrust of these policies and texts border on developments taking into account the landscape context and the impact on the amenities of the area in which they are sited. When the scheme is assessed against these texts, it is considered that the scale and size of the proposed development would make it difficult for the scheme to be seamlessly integrated into the surrounding landscape context.
• 7.6.4 It should be noted here that the importance of the cliffs and surrounding landscape is hinged on the visual values placed by those that enjoy the scenic beauty of the area when they visit the area or through observations across the bay from Bradda Head, or from the Promenade. From assessing the submitted documents (particularly the section drawings), visiting the area and assessing comments made by people who use the area, the key issue lies in the fact that the development would change the appearance of the landscape at such a scale that it would be difficult to relate it to the current appearance of the area where the cliffs and fields above form the dominant views over the existing buildings on site.
• 7.6.5 Also vital in this regard is the magnitude of the change which would have long term effects (resulting in permanent changes to the views). Besides, it is not considered that the surrounding landscape would be able to accommodate the proposed development without undue consequences in terms of losing the visual character of the area which comprises high cliffs and green fields above. In fact, the visual appearance of the site will change considerably and become more formal

• and managed, which would differ substantially from the current state which is predominantly natural with some built form situated at the base of the cliffs.
• 7.6.6 Granting the Officer for the approval in principle noted that the application clearly indicated that the proposed development would comprise buildings which would be substantially larger and different to what currently exists on site - buildings up to six storeys, it would be vital to note that the lowest of the buildings currently proposed is four storeys (which is taller than the maximum height of the existing buildings on site); with new submissions, such as the photomontage, section drawings, and elevation drawings, which were not provided as part of the approval in principle clearly indicating that the current scale of the development would have significant adverse impacts on the landscape. It is also vital to note here that the scheme as proposed would not have 'a backdrop of cliff and headland behind it' (as initially considered in the Officer report for PA 19/00373/A), given that the new buildings would completely screen the cliff and headland behind, with only Block A offering views of the cliff and headland above its roof.
• 7.6.7 On balance, whilst it is noted that there are limitations within the Area Plan which makes it difficult to specifically define what 'limited development' for the site entails (as there are no provisions within the development brief which prescribe a maximum height or size of buildings), it would be difficult to argue that the proposed development constitutes limited development. In fact, it could be argued that the recommendation within Part 2 of Development Brief 22 that "Development should preferably make use of all existing buildings on the site, including the re-use of the original Marine Laboratory Building" is a clear indication of the type of development scale sought by the development brief. It is, therefore, concluded that the development would be contrary to Strategic Policy 4, Environment Policy 42, General Policy 2b and paragraph 7.4.1 of the Strategic Plan, Landscape proposal 10 and Development Brief 22 of the Area Plan for the South.

- 7.7 IMPACT ON PUBLIC FOOTPATH (AREA PLAN DEVELOPMENT BRIEF AND RP5)

• 7.7.1 In assessing the impacts of the development on the footpaths to the rear of the proposed buildings and over the cliff, it is considered that the public footpath is already impacted upon by the existing buildings: the general character of the footpath is of a confined and steep first section where the existing buildings dominate the view, particularly the view of the rear of the buildings which is not particularly attractive. Whilst it is noted that the new buildings would be set higher than the top of the cliffs (with only block A set lower than the top of the cliffs), these buildings will offer more interesting and attractive views when viewed from the footpath, given that the view to the rear of the buildings would be over landscaped gardens which would be more in keeping with the fields that line the footpath above. Besides, the principal character of the path and most of its quality comes higher up where expansive views are available towards Bradda Head and south towards the Calf of Man. Granting views towards the bay would be affected by some of the new buildings, the much greater majority of the view will still be available for a considerable part of the upper sections of the path.

• 7.7.2 It should be noted here that the height of the proposed buildings was a key concern given that they would to a certain extent dominate views from the footpath. This was, however, discussed with the applicants who have now reduced the height of the buildings to be set considerably lower than initially proposed. Whilst the reduction in height has not completely diminished the impacts on views from the footpath, the reduction in the height of building A (to be set considerably lower than the cliff face) has increased the range of views from the footpath towards the bay. As such, the reduced height of building A would serve to diminish observed impacts of the development on the abutting public footpath to the rear.
• 7.7.3 Another factor the bodes well for the scheme in this regard is the fact that the development would not in any way alter the course of this footpath which skirts behind the site rising from the gap west of the existing substation (which connect the footpath with Breakwater Road), running a little way from the edge of the cliffs and then climbs steeply up to the west of the site, giving clear views towards Bradda Head and Milner's Tower, uninterrupted by the proposed buildings. In fact, a new path has been added to the eastern end by the steps and through a landscaped garden which

• would offer an alternative unhindered access to Breakwater Road (via pleasant grounds). As such, it is not considered that the proposal will impact on the character and enjoyment of the footpath to such an extent as to warrant refusal of the scheme.
• 7.7.4 Overall, it is not considered that the proposal will impact the character and enjoyment of the footpath to such an extent as to warrant refusal of the scheme. Thus, it is considered that the scheme would comply with Development Brief 22 of the Area Plan for the South and Recreation Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan.

- 7.8 LEVELS OF AMENITY (HP17, STP 1B, GP2 H, & RP 3)

• 7.8.1 With regard to the amenity space provisions, it is clear that the buildings as proposed would mostly have available a principal view to the north across the bay to Bradda Head, with the rear view towards the natural cliff positioned between 14-16m to the south offering outlooks over landscaped gardens. As well, the apartments are designed with adequate amount of space within each apartment suitable for the number of occupants specified. Additionally, each apartment would be self-contained and large enough to accommodate a lounge, kitchen, toilets and bedrooms to support each unit.

• 7.8.2 There are limited external communal areas for the apartments on each level, although the roof gardens and raised terraces which are restricted to some levels provide some communal areas. All clothes drying and storage will, therefore, have to be provided within the building, which is not uncommon for apartment developments. As well, there is ease of level access to the available public open spaces that would provide a degree of respite from the activity in the area, offered by the beach and other leisure areas around the bay. Additionally, the bin storage provision which has been integrated within the development would be accessible for use by all of the apartments.
• 7.8.3 The external amenity spaces that would be provided at the rear of the buildings (landscaped roof gardens and terrace) would be in shade most parts of the day due to the shadow cast by the cliff to the south and buildings to the north, beside the times when the sun would be directly overhead at mid-day. During a recent site visit on 25 September 2021, it was noted that the rear of the existing buildings, which are significantly lower than those proposed here create a considerably high level of shading to the rear of the buildings, along with the adjacent cliff. It is also noted that the amenity enjoyed within the proposed landscaped gardens may be impacted by the birds using the cliffs (if they stay), whose droppings constantly fall on the grounds below (which would be occupied by the proposed landscaped gardens). Rock fall could also pose a safety hazard to those using the proposed gardens at the rear of the buildings (This issue has been discussed in detail within section 7.17 of this report). The recent suggestion by the applicants in their correspondence dated 16 March 2022 that they would be willing to fence off a 3m section of the landscaped gardens/ roof terrace should rock fall become a challenge would significantly reduce the area of amenity space available to future occupants. It is, however, worth noting that the proximity of the beach and other public spaces around the beach within close proximity to the proposed development may serve to some extent to ameliorate these gaps in the standard of external amenity space provisions.
• 7.8.4 It is, therefore, considered that the internal amenity space provided as part of this application is of an acceptable standard. There are some concerns with the practicality/usability of the external spaces which weighs against the application but is not in isolation ground for refusal. Thus, the development would broadly comply with Housing Policy 17, Strategic Policy 1(b), and General Policy 2 (h) in terms of the adequacy of amenity provisions.

7.8.3 The adequacy of car parking will be assessed in section 7.11 of this report.

- 7.9 AFFORDABLE HOUSING (HP5)

• 7.9.1 Housing Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan states that "In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will

apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more." There is generally the requirement that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing to developments of 8 dwellings or more. In this case, and like the application before it (19/00373/A), the proposal makes no provision for affordable housing. Housing Policy 5 states that this will be required "on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas". The site is neither of these things. In seeking approval for a predominantly residential development on a site where the approved land use is not predominantly residential, the applicant is suggesting that the site is suitable for residential development. As such there is an argument that affordable housing should be sought.

• 7.9.2 The issues to consider here is:

• o Firstly, whether the site of this application is within land zoned for residential development or in a predominantly residential area;
• o Secondly, if it is not, is it reasonable to expect provision of affordable housing; and
• o Thirdly, if it is reasonable, and none is provided should the application be refused?

• 7.9.3 Map 7 of the Area Plan for the South defines the land zoned for residential development. It is clear that the site of this application is not so zoned for residential development, being specifically allocated for Mixed Use as Site 22 on page 59 of the Plan. Equally, the site is not within a predominantly residential area being separated by nearly half of a kilometre from the nearest residential area.

• 7.9.4 The applicants have provided a legal opinion which states the following: "It is therefore clear that the Site is intended for a mix of uses. In my opinion, that does not make it "land identified for housing purposes". Moreover, the wording of the allocation makes clear that the land is plainly identified for primarily marine based tourist/ leisure uses, with the possibility of housing being allowed. That certainly does not make it "land identified for housing purposes." That interpretation, that it is not land identified for housing, would also be wholly consistent with the fact the wording of Housing Policy 5 itself requires the land to be zoned for residential development. It is clear to me that the allocation is far removed from that."

• 7.9.5 The Officer's report on the AIP (PA 19/00373/A) while coming to same conclusion argues differently: "The site is an unusual one in that there is significant public gain in the redevelopment of the site and there is a requirement for the site to include not simply housing but other, potentially less profitable or economically viable uses, which, distinguishes this from most other cases where affordable housing should be required. The applicant has also had limited access to the site prior to purchase which has made accurate build and demolition cost estimates less certain although some of the costs given by the applicant could have been foreseen and taken into account in the offer given to purchase the site. As a result of the discussions with Highway Services, there are improvements to the public highway to be undertaken to facilitate the development, which would not have been known to the applicant at the time of agreement to purchase. The applicant also has to give a 20% contribution of any profits derived back to Government - in this case through the same Department which administers the delivery of affordable housing through the House Purchase Assistance Scheme and some public sector housing. Given the benefits of the development (see 7.1) and some of the factors listed in 6.9 above, it is not considered appropriate to refuse the application for lack of provision for affordable housing in this case."

• 7.9.6 The applicants also argue that since the above consideration, the scheme has evolved to fit in with more stringent detailed design and revised Residential Design Guide requirements in relation to climate change. The number of residential units has been reduced by 30% compared to the maximum allowed for by the Approval in Principle (The details from submitted plans show that the number of units would actually be 23% less than shown on application for approval in principle and not 30%), while costs per unit are claimed to have increased, with the total costs being shared over a smaller quantum of development.

• 7.9.7 Given that Housing Policy 5 requires a contribution for affordable housing provision on housing sites, it would seem strange to argue that because a proposal was a departure from the plan in relation to one policy, it should then not have to comply with any other policies. Indeed, it could be argued that going above and beyond the requirements of the other policies would be prudent to justify the non-compliance. In this case, the proposal does not comply with the Development Brief, and as such a strict application of policies would result in a refusal. However, other material considerations are identified which would mean that this is not in itself grounds for refusal.
• 7.9.8 Failure to provide affordable housing weighs against the application however, given the benefits of the development and the factors which have been discussed above; it is not considered to be a reason for refusal in isolation.

7.10 PUBLIC OPEN SPACE (RP's 3 & 4, STP 1b, & APPENDIX 6)

• 7.10.1 As the development proposes more than 10 residential units (i.e. 58 apartments), Public Open Space provision is required by Recreation Policy 3. In the case of this application, the development proposes some level of public open space within the site area (574.6sqm), some offsite open space provisions on leased land directly opposite the site (3339.6sqm), with some commuted sums provided under a section 13 Agreement, which would be paid to the Local Authority as a contribution towards the provision of community recreational open space within close proximity to the development to make up for the non-provision of children's play area on the site. The applicants have agreed a figure of £20,000 with the Port Erin Commissioners which would be paid in lieu of children's play area provision on the site. These provisions for children's play area are acceptable given the application site is close to and within a short walking distance to a number of open spaces provision i.e. the beach, headlands, brooghs, public footpaths, and the golf course, although it is not clear if children's play space will be provided within suitable distance of the development.

• 7.10.2 Whilst it could be argued that the provisions for public open space for the development exceeds the requirement in terms of quantities provided (3914.2sqm), it should be noted here that the proposed approach does not comply with the requirements of the Strategic Plan for provision of offsite POS provisions. This assertion is hinged on the fact that the leased Public Open spaces that have been included as part of the POS (which form the bulk of the provision - 3339.6sqm) are not new provisions but already existing public open spaces by the site which would only be changed through the addition of the artwork and creation of the footpath connections, which is not significantly improved over the existing, besides the collective management as the other public spaces within the site, and as such cannot be judged as new POS provisions.

• 7.10.3 The issue, therefore, arises as to how much weight can be given to these offsite POS in terms of meeting the required POS provisions given that they already exist as public open spaces available to the public. It would also be difficult to argue that the inclusion of art work and extension of a footpath by a few meters would be considered to be sufficient improvement over these public open spaces which cannot be assessed as being in poor form. As such, whilst the applicants would argue that this arrangement (with the leased open spaces) meets the provision for public open space provision, the reality is that this element of the scheme only annexes existing public open spaces and would not be considered to add to the volume of POS available in Port Erin. In fact, the acceptable option would have been to provide a monetary figure in lieu of POS provisions not adequately provided within the site, as with the children's play area, considering only a small proportion of new POS provision (574.6sqm) has been effectively delivered by the current scheme, and this would fall short of the required 2520sqm of public open space required by the development. This implies that the applicant would have provided a sum in lieu of the shortfall of 1945.6sqm of POS that should have been provided by the development (that is 77.2 percent of the cost of provision elsewhere).

• 7.10.4 The extract from Appendix 6 of the Strategic Plan below provides the required guidance in this regard and clearly highlights the deficiencies with the approach to POS provision within the current scheme:

"A.6.7 The cost of providing the public open space will be calculated as a percentage figure of the overall cost of providing open space within the development. For example, where no public open space is being provided on site that would be required by the standards, the developer will be required to provide 100% of the cost of the provision elsewhere. Where the off-site provision is addressing a shortfall in the overall provision on site, in that areas of open space are to be included within the development, but the full requirement of the standards cannot be accommodated, the applicant will be required to provide the remaining percentage cost. The payment of commuted sums will be the subject of legal agreements under Section 13 of the 1999 Act".

• 7.10.5 As such, it is noted that whilst the provision of children's play area would meet the requirements of the Strategic Plan, it is not considered that the approach to offsite public open space provision meets the requirements of Appendix 6 of the Strategic Plan which defines the approach to open space provisions for new residential developments, Recreation Policy 3, Strategic

• Policy 1 (b) of the Strategic Plan.

• 7.10.6 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the development does make some contribution to open space, but does not fully comply with the policy requirement in that some of the areas being provided are already available and it is not clear how/if children's play space will be provided within suitable distance of the development. This is considered to weigh against the application but is not in isolation a reason for refusal.

7.11 IMPACT ON HIGHWAY SAFETY (AREA PLAN DEVELOPMENT BRIEF, GP 2h& i, TP's 1, 2, 4, 6, & 7, & SP 10)

• 7.11.1 With regard to highway impacts, the comments from Highways services are heavily relied upon and in this instance, DOI Highways advise that the development does not raise any significant highway safety or network functionality issues, allowing Highways DC to continue to not oppose this proposal subject to conditions to cover the accesses, internal circulation and bicycle and car parking arrangements set out on the submitted details. They further advise that if appropriate, off-site works should be conditioned as part of approval granted, since the offsite works would be integral to minimising the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicle drivers, avoid street clutter and respond to current guidance, in addition to providing suitable access for emergency and service vehicles, practical delivery and collection of goods and services, as well as waste collection.

• 7.11.2 It is also considered that the proposed parking provisions would be sufficient for the elements of the proposed development which includes, residential use, tourist use (Aparthotel) and commercial use of the site. With regard to the 58 residential units, it is considered that the parking spaces provided for residential use would be more than sufficient as it would meet the parking requirements of the IOM strategic Plan which stipulates car parking standard of one space per one bedroom apartment and two spaces for the two or more bedroomed apartments. This implies that 112 parking spaces would be required for the 56 two and three bedroom apartments (31 two bedroom and 25 three bedroom units), while two additional spaces would be provided for the two 1 bedroom units. The 14 parking spaces provided for the Aparthotel units would also meet the Strategic Plan standard of 1 space per guest bedroom for Hotels, motels, guest houses. The balance of 31 parking spaces available on site should be sufficient to meet the parking requirements for the Sui Generis Exhibition facility), the Class 1.1 Shop, and restaurant/pub, considering the facility is located within a reasonable distance of an existing public transport corridor. Besides, the scheme will provide 82 bicycle parking spaces (58 for the apartments 14 for the aparthotel and 10 for the commercial units) which would serve to diminish any pressures on parking demand for vehicles. The integration of 12 electric vehicle charging spaces, and 11 spaces suitable for use by disabled persons would also ensure that the scheme would also serve to foster the projects inclusivity and support for sustainable travel. Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the parking provisions would meet the requirements of Transport Policy 7 and General Policy 2 (h).

• 7.11.3 It is also considered that the proposal is unlikely to give rise to significant negative impacts on the adjoining highway network in terms of highway safety or network efficiency with the site traffic being accommodated onto the existing network via Breakwater Road, subject to the off-site works required by DOI Highways to minimise conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicle drivers and street clutter being implemented. As such, these works would be secured with a condition to ensure that they are implemented prior to the occupation of the development, should approval be granted. Moreover, the existing public footpath which goes through the site would be retained with some improvement along the south-eastern section to facilitate its use by the public.

7.11.4 Granting this element of the development would give rise to some pressures on the surrounding highways, the proposal is considered to significantly accord with highway requirements, and is therefore considered to be compliant with GP2 (h & i), Transport Policies 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7, and Strategic Policy 10.

7.12 ENERGY USE/CONSERVATION (GP2n & ENP5)

7.12.15 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. In assessing the energy conservation approaches within the scheme, it is considered that the scheme would incorporate high efficiency Air Source Heat Pumps combined with electric boilers for heating and generation of domestic hot water using apartment based heat interface units, improved building envelope with low heat loss, The scheme would also benefit from the use of energy efficient lighting, mechanical ventilation with heat recovery to dwellings, design to maximise natural daylight, and solar gain control measures, as well as the utilisation of energy efficient control systems to ensure systems are only used as required during the building operation, with a dedicated onsite metering system to monitor energy usage and provide valuable feedback to maximise efficiency.

• 7.12.2 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.
• 7.12.3 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.

- 7.13 WATER CONSUMPTION/MANAGEMENT (INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY 5)

• 7.13.2 Whilst the above operations may seem minimal in meeting water conservation requirements, it should be noted that these measures would yield significant conservation benefits considering the scheme would serve a high occupancy level of about 140 people (3 for the 1 bedroom units, 62 for the 2 bedroom units, and 75 for the 3 bedroom units), not counting the other water uses for the Aparthotel units, exhibitions spaces and retail/commercial units.

• 7.13.1 In assessing the compliance of the development to the requirements of Infrastructure Policy

• 5 which deals with water conservation within developments, it is noted that all the proposed residential units will maximise water efficiency by limiting consumption to 125 litres per day per person. This will be achieved using low consumption sanitary fittings such as dual flush toilets, and low flow bathroom taps / fittings. It would be vital to note that dual flush cisterns allow users to decide whether to flush only a portion of, or all the water from the cistern and as such allows users to limit the use of water within the cisterns when the flush only requires a limited amount of water. The low flow taps on their part allows the units to use flow rates of about 6 litres per minute which also serves to minimise the quantity of water used for basic domestic requirements.

• 7.13.3 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the water conservation measures would meet the requirements of Infrastructure Policy 5.

- 7.14 FIRE SAFETY (COMMUNITY POLICY 10 & 11)

• 7.14.1 As outlined within the initial comments by Isle of Man Fire & Rescue Service there were significant concerns in relation to floors with height above 11m being served by a single staircase. Accordingly, the applicants have now revised the plans to address this concern, with the Fire Service considering this to be acceptable and as such, it is considered that the scheme broadly meets the requirements of Community Policy 11.
• 7.14.2 No objection has been received from the Fire & Rescue Service or Highway Services in relation to access of fire apparatus etc., although this concern was highlighted by the Planning Authority for which additional information in the form of a Traffic Impacts Assessment was sought. This additional information has been reviewed by the DOI Highway Development Control Officer who considers the proposal to be acceptable in this regard. Consequently, it is considered that the proposal would comply with Community Policy 10 & 11.
• 7.14.3 There are, however, outstanding issues with the design of the internal layout of the apartments (regarding inner rooms that are not permitted under 2016 regulations, and the duplex arrangements where staircases discharge into the kitchen/living room), which have still not been addressed in the revised submissions and acknowledged to be outstanding issues in the Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service consultation dated 8 March 2022. Whilst the IOM Fire and Rescue Service has asked that this be addressed at the Building Control Stage, the development would not be able to progress to the construction phase should the scheme be refused at Building Control stage, and new plans would have to be submitted which would considerably alter the basis for decisions made on the application should approval be granted. Given the above, it would be difficult to argue that the development complies fully with fire requirements, although these issues cannot be taken as reasons for refusal in isolation.

7.15 DESIGNING OUT CRIME (COMMUNITY POLICY 7 & GP2m)

• 7.15.1 In terms of designing out crime and antisocial behaviour, it is considered that the new apartment spaces are mostly only accessible by those with access to the apartments, other than those in the basement of blocks B and C where the spaces have been clearly marked out so that they are not used by other visitors to the site. As well, rising bollards with key fob control will be installed at the junction where the private drive meets with the existing highway (in front of Block B) to control access to this driveway; thus ensuring that only authorised vehicles have access to the private areas.
• 7.15.2 The development will also entail providing sufficient levels of external lighting to illuminate the pedestrian walkways, vehicle access roads and car parks (in accordance with British Standard requirements, CIBSE guidance, etc.) to ensure that these spaces do not become easy targets for crime, which would in turn improve that safety and security of the residents, the public, and staff. Likewise, the proposed rear garden spaces are positioned such that there are overlooking views from the apartments to ensure legible unrestricted public surveillance at all times of the day. AS well, the proposed landscape plantings within the garden would be at scales and include species that would not create blind spots which impede surveillance.
• 7.15.3 When these elements of the proposal are assessed against the requirements of General

• Policy 2 (m) and Community Policy 7, it is considered that the proposed development complies with the relevant policies.

7.16 FLOODING (EP 13 & GP 2l)

• 7.16.1 In respect of drainage, it is noted that the scheme is supported by a drainage strategy which includes a surface water strategy that consists of a network of surface water sewers which would gather runoff and discharge into the sea via a non-return valve to prevent sea water from backing up into the network. This strategy has been clearly depicted on a Plan which clearly shows every element of the drainage management scheme. These have been considered by Manx Utilities Drainage who confirms that the submitted information satisfies their concerns.

• 7.16.2 In terms of flood risk concerns, the site is not within a High Flood Risk zone (River or Tidal). Advise has, however, been sought from DOI Flood Management Division who have confirmed that there are no concerns with flooding in relation to the development.

• 7.16.3 However, there has been recent concern that the site is prone to coastal overtopping and given that these concerns bordered on the safety of occupants of the development when completed, additional advice was sought on the issue for which DOI Flood Management Division who advise that the tidal flood level for area for the 1 in 200 plus climate change event is 4.57mAD02, and as the area where the buildings are being constructed are well above this level, there were no concerns. They also note that there hasn't been a wave overtopping study done for Port Erin, albeit, they would not envisage that with the proposed buildings elevation and position, wave overtopping would be a significant concern; thus they do not oppose the proposed development for these reasons.

• 7.16.4 It is also noted that the applicants have provided a Flood Risk Assessment Report for the site from specialist flood consultants who assessed the risk of flooding from the development and to the development, and concluded that there were no likely risks to or from the development.
• 7.16.5 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that flooding of or from the site is not a concern, and the development would comply with Environment Policy 13 and General Policy 2(l) in terms of flooding concerns on and off-site.

7.17 ISSUE WITH ROCK FALL FROM THE CLIFF FACE (GP2m)

• 7.17.1 A concern that was identified on a recent site visit on 25 September 2021 borders on the possibility for rock fall to be a concern at the site. During the site visit rock fall was experienced on site moments after sighting a sign that clearly reads "Danger falling rocks". This issue was raised with the applicants who provided a geotechnical desk study of the cliffs which concludes that the condition of the existing rock face and associated slopes, poses very low risks to construction workers or end users at the site. Further advice was sought from the Head of Design, DOI Highway Services who advises that the likelihood of rock fall hazards at the site would be low as the cliff face consists predominantly of exposed rock with minor areas of erosion materials in mid slope areas and its lower slopes. He further reinforced this assertion by stating that the addition of the three storey lecture theatre extension to the Old Marine Biological Station resulted in local rock face strengthening works, although he recommended that the fully detailed building control application for the development should contain a Structural Engineer's / Geo Technical Engineering assessment of the existing rock face and confirmation of its stability in light of the proposed development incorporating retail, apartments and restaurant with associated parking.

• 7.17.2 Whilst the above serves to diminish concerns with rock fall, they, however, do not discountenance the view that rock fall could occur or is a possibility; hence the requirement for a detailed Geo Technical Engineering assessment during the building control phase of the application by the Head of Design, DOI Highway Services.

• 7.17.3 The detailed Geo Technical Engineering Assessment has now been provided in the form of a Rock Face and Slope Stability Inspection Report prepared by Ivy House Environmental (dated

• February 2022). This report has assessed the key issues with rock fall at the scene and provided possible mitigations, much of which are centred on the construction phase, and do little in mitigating or ameliorating possible impacts that could result from the development for future users.

• 7.17.4 These gaps with the submitted report was discussed with the applicants who have prepared a response that states the measures to mitigate impacts for future users; such as:

• o On completion of the development demolition, and groundworks near to the cliff face, another inspection of the cliff face may be undertaken to see if any vibration disturbance has increased risks of local rock fall at anywhere on the face and a report produced;

• o After the completed development, a condition survey of the cliff face would be undertaken by the development management company in consultation with building control at regular intervals e.g. every 2 years (This would assess if there is any need to change the risk assessment and if necessary undertake any local remedial measures, and be undertaken by a specialist contractor and consultant);
• o The roof terrace may be fenced off 3m back from the cliff face if necessary;

• 7.17.5 Whilst these additional measures suggested by the consultants would be suitable for a site with a lot of manoeuvrability in terms of potential approaches to development of the site to keep occupant areas away from the cliff, the quantum of development and the limited land available to the development limits the avenues for such measures should safety hazards prevail after the construction works.
• 7.17.6 Granting the geotechnical report and the advice from DOI indicate that the hazards posed by the occasional rock fall would be low, the fact that minor areas of erosion materials still exist in mid slope areas and lower slopes along the rock face, with the potential for rock stability to be altered by construction activity still eminent, suggests that there could still be hazards during the construction phase/occupation of the development. Based on the foregoing, the key concern here still lies in determining what levels of rock fall would be considered low enough to make the area safe for future use.
• 7.17.7 From reviewing the mitigation measures suggested, it is noted that a condition could be imposed to ensure that a Structural Engineer's / Geo Technical Engineering assessment of the existing rock face and confirmation of its stability (including possible mitigation measures should rock fall be considered to be a significant concern after the construction phase) be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department prior to occupation of the development. The suggestion that fencing be erected within the roof terrace and garden to separate occupant areas from the rock face could also be included as a condition for approval. However, given that no plans have been submitted to this effect (as the protective measures are not included as part of the revised submissions), the possible impacts of the fencing measure have not been assessed. Besides, such a proposal would result in significant changes in the landscape and roof design, and would result in a scheme that considerably reduces the amenity areas available to future occupants of the development.
• 7.17.8 The objection raised by the Ecosystem Policy Team regarding future netting being unacceptable here due to possible impacts on amber listed nesting birds holds significant weight in determining acceptable mitigation in this case (should rock fall be a concern). Accordingly, any mitigation measure proposed for the site to ameliorate rock fall impacts if the further Geotechnical assessment of the rocks here requires more safety installations would exclude netting of the cliffs as a mitigation options.
• 7.17.9 The email received from the applicants agent received 27 October regarding factual errors within the Ecosystem Policy Team's consultation which discusses rock fall dated 19 October 2021 is also noted. However, this has not altered the contents of the report regarding rock fall as the issues highlighted within the correspondence have been adequately covered in the report.
• 7.17.10 On balance, it could be argued that the proposed scheme partly satisfies the requirements of General Policy 2 (m) which requires that developments should "take account of community and personal safety…in the design of buildings and the spaces around them" since a report has been provided which assesses the concerns with rock fall at the site. Notwithstanding, this does not eliminate any potential for danger at the site as was experienced during a site visit on 25 September 2021.

7.18 OTHER MATTERS A. Loss of existing buildings on site

• 7.18.1 Whilst it would have been more appropriate for the development to integrate the existing buildings on site (as defined in Part 2 of the Development Brief), the loss of the existing buildings have been clearly addressed in paragraph 6.8.1 of the Officer report for PA 19/00373/A which states that "None of the buildings is currently in a particularly good state of repair or appearance. The older buildings, particularly the original Marine Biological Station is of acknowledged historical and architectural interest, having been identified in the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 as worthy of consideration for Registration. However, this has never been progressed and even in the face of a planning application which clearly proposes demolition of the building, the Department has taken no steps to protect any of the existing buildings on site. It is therefore not considered that the loss of the existing buildings should not be a reason for refusal, given that the buildings on site could be demolished without the need for planning approval under Part 2, Section 6(2) e of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and Class 36 of The Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012". As such, their retention as required by Part 2 of the brief is not practical in this case.

• 7.18.2 No other concerns have been noted.

- 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 The following issues weigh in favour of the proposal; the regeneration opportunities; the limited impacts on the adjacent conservation area; the volume of amenity provision; the highway safety impacts; the contributions to energy use and conservation; approach to water consumption/management; the approach to designing out crime and prevention; and flood impacts. In particular, significant weight is placed on the regeneration benefits and use of previously developed land, and possible social/economic benefits that would be triggered by the development.

8.2 Conversely, the following issues weigh against the proposal; the potential adverse impacts upon the visual amenities of the area; the detrimental impacts on the landscape; the approach to public open space provision; and the adverse impacts on ecology (particularly the impact on fulmars); and partial compliance with Development Brief 22. In particular, significant weight is placed on Development Brief 22, Visual impacts, impacts on the landscape, and the impact on ecology. When assessed together, the combination of these factors indicates that the overall scale of development is inappropriate for the site.

8.3 It is also vital to note that some of the elements are borderline as they only partly comply with the relevant policies, but would not comply fully with the policies and legislation; such as the requirement of the Development Brief 22 which stipulates that the site is suitable for marine-based tourist/leisure purposes (including associated accommodation), but with an element of residential use (with the scheme involving predominant residential use with some associated tourist accommodation and minimal marine-based tourism; impacts on the public footpath, fire hazard management, and approach to affordable housing.

8.4 Whilst it has been established that there are a number of factors which weigh in favour of and against the development, with particular weight placed on certain elements, it should be noted here that the key considerations for determining the acceptability of development proposal here is Development Brief 22 which sets out the criteria for how the site should be developed. Of the seven items identified here, the proposed development would only comply fully with items 3, 5, and 7, and only partially compliant with item 1, with the scheme failing items 2, 4, 6 and significant parts of item 1. As such, it is considered that the scheme would fail to comply with the Development Brief for the site. The scheme would also fail to comply with Landscape proposal 10 which supports the Development Brief for the site and requires that only very limited additional new built development should be allowed on the site.

8.5 Therefore, on balance, given the weight assigned to Development Brief 22 of the Area Plan (as required by General Policy 2a), and ecological considerations over economic and social considerations for sites of ecological importance, the application is recommended for refusal.

- 9.0 SECTION 13 LEGAL AGREEMENT

9.1 The applicants have indicated that should the application be approved they would be willing to enter into Section 13 Legal Agreements to facilitate the scheme, and ensure that the proposal aligns with Environment Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan which provides for the inclusion of Planning Agreements to minimise disturbance, conserve and manage ecological interests, and provide new or replacement habitats so that the loss to the total ecological resource is mitigated, is situations where damage is unavoidable. - 9.2 With regard to the provision of children's play space, the applicants have stated that discussions have been held with the Port Erin Commissioners who agree with and welcome the contribution of a commuted sum offered by the developers to improving a local play area to the value of c. £20,000, in lieu of on-site children play area provisions. This would be secured through a Section 13 agreement, should approval be granted. - 9.3 The heads of terms of a section 13 agreement to secure mitigation measures and monitoring measures for nesting birds has also been discussed with the relevant consultees. These heads of terms include: o Wall and Bothy repairs plus any ancillary boundary treatment to secure potential gull nesting from human interface. o Provision of nesting ledges elsewhere, e.g. on west facing cliff adjacent to site. This will be based upon worst-case scenario that there is 100% loss of nesting by fulmars and herring gulls as a worst case scenario.

10.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 10.1 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.

10.2 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

10.3 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 confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : …Permitted.. Committee Meeting Date:…28.03.2022

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 28.03.2022 Application No. : 20/01467/B Applicant : Delgatie Limited Proposal : Erection of a building to provide exhibition space, retail, apartments and restaurant with associated parking spaces (relating to PA 19/00373/A) Site Address : The Former Marine Biological Station Breakwater Road Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6JA Planning Officer Mr Paul Visigah Reporting Officer As above (correct manually if not the case officer) Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Committee, with the exception of Mr Cubbon, rejected the recommendation of the case officer. Mr Kermode put forward an alternative proposal, which was seconded by Mr Cubbon, that the application be approved subject to the following conditions, a legal agreement as set out in the Officer's report (and below) and for the reason as set out below;

REASON FOR APPROVAL The Planning Committee considers that the Case Officer's report adequately covers the material issues, and which weigh in favour and against the application. Whilst the concerns raised are noted (and in particular it is acknowledged that there are potential adverse visual and landscape impacts due to the design, shape and massing of the buildings) the Committee consider that the economic benefit and reuse of a prominent previously developed site outweigh these. It is considered that the proposed mitigation and compensation in relation to ecological matters is acceptable. It is also noted that the highway impacts are considered to be acceptable by the Department of Infrastructure (subject to conditions) and that the proposal is supported by the Local Authority.

CONDITIONS Standard 4 years

• 1. Standard 4 years The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this 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.

Approved Development

• 2. This approval relates to erection of: the construction of multi-use buildings incorporating retail, restaurant and exhibition space (not specifically allocated as such but referred to in the application description), aparthotel rooms and apartment uses with associated landscaping, access, parking and open space and shall be carried

out in accordance with the drawings and other documents listed on this decision notice, and any drawings approved subsequently in writing by the Department pursuant to any conditions on this decision notice.

Reason: for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. Block A

• 3. Block A shall be carried out in accordance with the revised plans

• o RBA_224_(2A) _A101 _Block A Ground Floor - P01 dated 8 August 2021
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A102 _Block A Mezzanine - P01 dated 18 August 2021
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A103 _Block A First Floor - P02 dated 21 February 2022
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A104 _Block A Second Floor - P02 dated 21 February 2022
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A105 _Block A Roof Plan - P01 dated 18 August 2021
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A201 _Block A North Elevation - P03 dated 21 February 2022
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A202 _Block A West Elevation - P03 dated 21 February 2022
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A203 _Block A South Elevation - P03 dated 21 February 2022
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A204 _Block A East Elevation - P03 dated 21 February 2022 Reason: for the avoidance of doubt and to protect nesting birds.

Strategic Views and Appearance of the Building

• 4. There must not be any building, engineering or other work which will involve increasing the height of the building above what is shown on the approved plans and other document listed on this decision notice.

Reason: in the interests of the wider strategic views of the area, the character and appearance of the development and the visual amenity of the area and the Raad Ny Foillan.

Stacks/Pipes and Flues etc

• 5. Other than those shown on the approved drawings, or as approved under any other Conditions on this decision notice, no soil stacks, soil vent pipes, flues, ductwork or any other pipework shall be fixed to the elevations of the building hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out to the highest standards of architecture and materials and in the interests of the character and appearance of the development.

External Plant/Apparatus

• 6. Any telecommunications apparatus (not for the purposes as set out under Town and Country Planning (Telecommunications) Development Order 2019), extraction plant, air conditioning units and any other plant or equipment that is required on the exterior of the buildings shall be installed in accordance with details to be submitted to the Department in writing to be agreed. The details shall include: proposals for communal provision of television receiving equipment, wherever possible; siting; appearance; any arrangements for minimising the visual impact; and any arrangements for mitigating potential noise and vibration.

Reason: To ensure that any telecommunications apparatus and other plant or equipment that is required on the exterior of the buildings preserves the highest standards of architecture and materials as a key feature building.

Removal of Telecoms PD

• 7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Telecommunications) Development Order 2019 or any order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order no telecommunications apparatus shall be erected or installed under Schedules 2 or 3 to that order without an express grant of planning approval from the Department.

Reason: in the interests of the wider strategic views of the area, the character and appearance of the development and the visual amenity of the area and the Raad Ny Foillan.

Substation Works

• 8. The development/use hereby approved shall not be brought into use/commence until the proposed works to the substation have been carried out in accordance with drawing Existing. Proposed Substation Details 4423/PL/101 P00 dated 31 March 2021. Once carried out the substation shall thereafter be permanently retained as such.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the development and the visual amenity of the area and the Raad Ny Foillan

Phasing plan

• 9. No works in connection with the development hereby approved shall commence unless a Phasing Plan setting out the details of the phasing of the development has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Department. The phasing plan shall include but is not limited to making provisions for the following; The delivery of the commercial elements prior to the occupation of the residential units;

• o The development to be delivered in each phase;
• o The timing of each phase;
• o The sequence of the development;
• o How earlier phases will be able to operate satisfactorily while later phases are still under construction.

Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved Phasing Plan.

Reason: To ensure that build-out of the development is phased so as to avoid adverse impact on local services and infrastructure and in the interests of the visual amenity of the area and to make sure that the development is carried out in full and the commercial elements are provided as per the approval as the development has been assessed on a mixed use provision and to comply with the Development Brief 22 of the Area Plan for the South (2013)

Demolition (inc protection of rock face)

• 10. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a dust, noise vibration management plan and any potential run off has first been submitted to the Department in writing to be agreed.

The plan shall detail timing of said works, measures for the control and reduction of dust and noise emissions associated with demolition, earthworks, construction and track out, and arrangements for protection and monitoring of the rock face and any run off into the Marine Nature Reserve. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the plan so agreed. Any rock face protection shall not include netting.

Reason: To ensure that measures are put in place to manage and reduce dust emissions during demolition and construction to safeguard local amenity and to ensure rock face and bird habitat and the Marine Nature Reserve is not affected by the demolition or construction.

Piling method statement

• 11. In the event that piling is used, no piling shall take place until a piling method statement (detailing the depth and type of piling to be undertaken and the methodology by which such piling will be carried out, including measures to prevent and minimise the potential for damage to subsurface sewerage infrastructure, potential impact on the Marine Nature Reserve and the

programme for works) has first been submitted to the Department in writing to be agreed. Any piling must be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the approved piling method statement.

Reason: To ensure that the rock face is in a safe condition for the life time of the development and to prevent any instability and increased risk of rock fall on site and to third parties.

Hours of Building work

• 12. Except for piling, excavation and demolition work, you must carry out any building work which can be heard at the boundary of the site only:

• o between 08.00 and 18.00 Monday to Friday;
• o between 08.00 and 13.00 on Saturday; and
• o not at all on Sundays, bank holidays and public holidays. You must carry out piling, excavation and demolition work only:
• o between 08.00 and 18.00 Monday to Friday; and
• o not at all on Saturdays, Sundays, bank holidays and public holidays.

Reason: to protect the local environment. Rock face

• 13. There shall be no netting of the rock face for any purpose. Reason: for the avoidance of doubt and to protect nesting birds.

Drainage provision Linear Drain

• 14. The development hereby approved shall not progress above lower ground level until there has first been submitted to the Department in writing to be agreed, details of the proposed linear drain as shown on Proposed Drainage Strategy drawing 100217_03_500_01 dated 28.03.19 Rev D dealing with run off/discharge from the rock face to the adjacent land, including amenity space, and management thereof.

No part of the development shall not be occupied until the agreed drainage strategy has been implemented. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the report so agreed, and shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure that the amenity of future occupiers of the development is protected and that there is adequate infrastructure in place.

Surface water

• 15. Notwithstanding the details shown on Proposed Drainage Strategy drawings 100217_03_005_01 Revision D dated 287.03.19 no development shall take place, other than works of demolition, until details of works for the disposal of storm and surface water, including any required attenuation and/or storage, has first been submitted to the Department in writing to be agreed. The strategy shall not include any discharge to the sea or the use of storm overflows.

No part of the development shall not be occupied until the agreed drainage strategy has been implemented.

The surface water drainage system shall be permanently retained thereafter in accordance with the approved maintenance 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 adjacent to a tidal flooding zone and to protect the Marine Nature Reserve and Bathing water quality.

Foul Water

• 16. Notwithstanding the details shown on Proposed Drainage Strategy drawings 100217_03_005_01 Revision C, no development shall take place, other than works of demolition, until a foul water drainage strategy, detailing any on and / or off site works that may be needed to dispose of foul water from the development and to safeguard the development from foul water flooding, has first been submitted to the Department in writing to be agreed.

No part of the development shall be occupied until the agreed drainage strategy has been implemented.

The strategy shall not include any discharge to the sea or the use of combined sewage overflows. The foul water drainage system shall be permanently retained thereafter in accordance with the approved maintenance scheme.

REASON: To ensure that there would be adequate infrastructure in place for the disposal of foul water arising from the development and to protect the Marine Nature Reserve and Bathing water quality.

Highways and Parking

• 17. The development and uses hereby approved shall not be brought into use and / or commence unless the vehicular and pedestrian access and all parking and turning areas, for each block, have been provided and surfaced in accordance with the details shown on the approved plan. Once provided, all parking and turning areas shall thereafter be permanently retained as such.

Reason: To ensure the provision of a means of access and turning space to an adequate standard in the interests of road safety

Loading/offloading/parking/turning areas

• 18. The development and use hereby approved shall not be brought into use unless its loading, offloading, turning and parking areas have been provided and surfaced in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans, for each block. Once provided, the loading, offloading, turning and parking areas shall thereafter be permanently retained as such.

Reason: To ensure the timely completion and retention of the on-site facilities to an adequate standard in the interests of road safety

Rising Bollards

• 19. Prior to the commencement of development details of the proposed security barriers (rising bollards) positioned at access point 3 serving Block A as shown on Studio RBA's No: RBA_224_(90)_A101 P01 named Ground Floor External Works uploaded on 18 August 2021 shall be submitted to and approved in writing to the Department.

The security barriers/bollards shall be carried out in accordance with the report so agreed, and shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: to ensure that any nuisance caused by vehicle queuing onto the highway is minimised.

Car and Cycle Parking

• 20. For the residential apartments at least one car parking space per apartment shall be allocated to the one bedroom apartments and two spaces for each of the two and three bedroom apartments, and shall be retained as such thereafter and use for no other purposes other than the parking of vehicles associated with the residential apartments.

• Reason: to ensure that the appropriate level of parking is provided for the apartments hereby approved.
• 21. Prior to occupation and / or use of each Block, or in accordance with the details approved under the phasing plan, the cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans for the sole use of the development. Thereafter the cycle spaces must be retained and the space used for no other purpose.

Reason: to ensure the satisfactory provision of safe cycle storage facilities and to provide facilities for all uses of the site and in the interests if highways safety and sustainable transport.

Carpark ventilation

• 22. In the event that car park ventilation is required, no part of the development hereby approved shall progress above lower ground level until there has first been submitted to the Department in writing to be agreed, a scheme to ventilate the car park and minimise the ingress of polluted air, and management thereof. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the report so agreed, and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the amenity of future occupiers of the development is protected and to ensure that the development is carried out to the highest standards of architecture and materials and in the interests of the character and appearance of the development.

Materials - details

• 23. No works in connection with the development hereby approved shall commence until details, 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 have been 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: In the interests of the appearance of the development and the visual amenities of the area. Materials - sample panel

• 24. No development shall take place before sample panels of all proposed materials demonstrating the colour, texture, bond and pointing of any stonework and render have been constructed on site.

The Department shall approve in writing the colour, texture, bond and pointing of the materials prior to development commencing and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The sample panel shall be retained on site until development is completed or removal is approved in writing by the Department.

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.

Restricted Uses and Hours Aparthotels

• 25. The apart-hotel units hereby approved shall be used solely as serviced apartments and shall not be used as separate residential units or occupied as a person's sole or main place of residence or for any other purpose between the months of April and September (inclusive).

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the development fulfils the role of temporary hotel accommodation during the holiday season.

• 26. No guest or customer of the aparthotel units may occupy any part of the accommodation for a period exceeding 28 days during the months of April and September (inclusive)

Furthermore, before the apart-hotel units are brought into use, a management plan detailing the booking system for the serviced apartments shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Department.

• o The plan shall include:
• o the maximum permitted stay in the serviced apartments,
• o a system for keeping a register of customer bookings and a means by which the Department can check the register to ensure that the maximum permitted stays are enforced.

These registers shall be kept for not less than two years form the date of the last entry and shall be made available to be inspected by the Department upon reasonable demand.

The units shall be operated in accordance with the approved management plan.

Reason: to ensure that the development is only used and occupied as short-let holiday accommodation during the holiday season and to maintain the availability of the units as short term holiday accommodation during holiday season.

Removal of Permitted Development Rights

• 27. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2019 or Town and Country Planning (Change of Use) (Development) (No. 2) Order 2019 or any order amending, revoking or re-enacting these Orders, the shop in Block C hereby approved shall be used only for the purpose hereby approved and shall not be used for any other purpose within Use Class

1.1 without the express grant of planning approval from the Department.

Reason: To enable the Department to consider the implications of any subsequent change of use on the amenities of the area and the impact of the change on the relevant policies including Development Brief 22 of Area Plan for South (2016).

• 28. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2012 or any order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order no means of enclosure, other than that shown on the approved plans and other documents listed on this decision notice, and any drawings approved subsequently in writing by the Department pursuant to any conditions on this decision notice, shall be erected on the site under the terms of Class 39 of Schedule 1 to that Order without an express grant of planning approval from the Department. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the development. Opening Hours
• 29. Customers shall not be permitted within the proposed restaurant/pub hereby approved in Block D between the hours of Midnight to 6am Monday to Friday; Saturday & Sunday. Reason: To protect the environment of people in neighbouring properties. Noise and Insulation
• 30. No development shall take place in relation to Block D before a scheme detailing the insulation between the ground floor (restaurant/pub) and the mezzanine floor against the transmission of noise and vibration has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The approved scheme shall be carried out before the use/operation commences, and be thereafter maintained.

Reason: To protect amenities of the aparthotel by ensuring measures are implemented to avoid any noise nuisance.

Ventilation

• 31. No development shall take place before a scheme detailing all plant, machinery, chimneys, ducting, filters or extraction vents to be used in connection with the pub/ restaurant use have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, Department. The scheme shall be implemented prior to the use commencing and be so retained.

Reason: To satisfactorily protect the character and appearance of the area and to ensure that the development is carried out to the highest standards of architecture and materials and in the interests of the character and appearance of the development.

Refuse Storage

• 32. Prior to occupation and / or use of each Block, or in accordance with the details approved under the phasing plan, the refuse stores shall be provided in accordance with the approved details and shall be permanently retained thereafter and solely for the purpose of refuse storage.

Reason: to ensure the satisfactory provision of refuse storage facilities and to safeguard the appearance of the surrounding area.

Sustainability Measures Energy strategy

• 33. No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied / brought into use until the proposed community heating system incorporating air source heat pumps system with associated thermal storage and direct electric boiler as set out in Section 5 of the ADDB (Rev B) Energy Strategy Statement 18 August 21, is installed and fully operational. These measures shall be retained in place and fully operational thereafter.

Reason: to ensure this development complies with the energy efficiency requirements of the Strategic Plan and to future proof the development.

• 34. No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied / brought into use unless the electric vehicle charging points have been provided in accordance with the details

Reason: to ensure this development complies with the energy efficiency requirements of the Strategic Plan and to future proof the development.

Public Open Space

• 35. No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied/brought into use until the Public Open Space provisions and associated landscaping, on the leased land north of and adjacent to the building, as shown on drawing 3959 101 [dated 18 August 2021] are completed and available for use and thereafter retained.

Reason: An exception has been made on the grounds that the improvement to the current open space is acceptable in lieu of additional provision and to ensure that the Public Open Space is provided in a timely manner and contributes to the creation of a high quality, accessible, safe and attractive public realm.

Landscaping Landscaping Strategy - public areas

• 36. Notwithstanding the details that have been submitted, the development hereby approved shall not commence until a detailed landscaping strategy and revised planting palette (which removes reference to use of griselinia, buddleia and Stipa tenuissima) , has first been submitted to the Department in writing to be agreed.

The detailed landscape strategy shall include a detailed landscaping layout, details of planting (no none non-native species), hard surfacing materials, site levels, external lighting, a space-sharing

strategy, external cycle parking, public seating and details of all gradients, ramps and steps within publicly accessible areas of the development.

Soft landscaping works shall include: planting plans (at a scale not less than 1:100), written specification of planting and cultivation works to be undertaken and schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers / densities and a programme for the implementation, completion and subsequent management of the proposed landscaping.

Any proposed planting should be in accordance with details contained within the revised Planting Palette - which removes reference to use of griselinia, buddleia and Stipa tenuissima).

The hard surfacing details shall include details of planters and samples showing the texture and colour of the materials to be used and information about their sourcing/manufacturer.

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 be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and shall be retained as such thereafter.

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 public realm and that the lighting regime avoids impacts on marine and terrestrial ecology.

Maintenance and Ongoing Management

• 37. Notwithstanding the details submitted, all soft and hard landscaping proposals shall be carried out in accordance with an approved landscape management programme/scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and any details pursuant to any other conditions on this decision notice.

Any planting which, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development, in the opinion of the Department is dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased, shall be replaced by plants of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted. Once provided, all hard landscaping works shall thereafter be permanently retained.

Reason: To ensure the implementation and management of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping which will help to integrate the proposed development into the local landscape in the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

Green roofs and wall

• 38. The development hereby approved shall not progress beyond ground floor level until details of the provision of green roofs within the development has first been submitted to the Department in writing to be agreed.

The green roofs shall be designed to contribute to the creation of appropriate habitats targeted in Biodiversity Action Plan.

• o The details to be submitted shall comprise:
• o identification of the roof areas to be used for the provision of green roofs;
• o details of the planting to be used; and
• o details of the maintenance including irrigation.
• o The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details so agreed and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the development makes appropriate provision for the protection, enhancement, creation and management of biodiversity

Rooftop gardens

• 39. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, the development hereby approved shall not progress beyond lower ground level until revised details for the approved roof terraces/gardens has first been submitted to the Department in writing to be agreed. The revised details shall include:

• o A revised layout for each of the roof terraces which contributes to privacy for neighbouring
• occupiers and comfort for users of the roof terraces;
• o Hard and soft landscaping details;
• o Details of measures to address noise levels and wind microclimate;
• o Details of how inclusive access to and within communal rooftop gardens is achieved;
• o Details of proposed safety railings
• o The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details so agreed and shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure that the development achieves safe, comfortable and attractive amenity spaces.

Birds/Biodiversity - demolition and construction

• 40. No works in connection with the development hereby approved (including demolition, ground works and vegetation clearance) shall commence unless a construction environmental management plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The CEMP shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following;

• o risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities.
• o Identification of "biodiversity protection zones, such as coastal grassland vegetation and maritime hard cliff and coastal grassland, orchid areas and Port Erin Bay Marine Nature Reserve and specific species to include common lizards, breeding birds, bats)".
• o Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements).
• o The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features.
• o The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to
• oversee works.
• o Responsible persons and lines of communication.
• o The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person.
• o Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs.
• o All works carried out during the construction period shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the approved CEMP. Reason: In the interests of protecting the biodiversity of the environment.

Bird Strike

• 41. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans all glass balustrades/balconies shall be installed with measures to prevent bird strikes to be either etchings on the glass or use of ultraviolet decals. Reason: To prevent bird strikes, due to proximity of nearby nesting birds. Biodiversity Monitoring, Mitigation and Compensation
• 42. No works in connection with the development hereby approved (including demolition, ground works and vegetation clearance) shall commence until a biodiversity monitoring and mitigation strategy for Fulmars, Herring Gulls has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Department.

The purpose of the strategy shall be to monitor the effects of development and subsequent occupation on that status. As a consequence appropriate mitigation, remediation or compensatory measures may be required. The content of the Strategy shall include, as a minimum, the following.

• o Aims and objectives of monitoring.
• o Identification of adequate baseline conditions prior to the start of development.
• o Appropriate success criteria, thresholds, triggers and targets against which the impacts of the development can be judged.
• o Methods for data gathering and analysis.
• o Location of monitoring.
• o Timing and duration of monitoring (at least 5 years).
• o Responsible persons and lines of communication.
• o Appropriate success criteria, thresholds, triggers and targets against which the impact of the development can be judged.
• o Reporting, review, and where appropriate, publication of results and outcomes.

A report describing the results of monitoring shall be submitted to the Department at intervals identified in the strategy. The report shall also set out how contingencies and remedial action will be identified, agreed with the Department and then implemented. The development shall be carried

• out in strict accordance with the approved biodiversity monitoring and mitigation strategy. Reason: In order to protect and enhance biodiversity in the environment.

Ecological Design and Mitigation Strategies

• 43. No works in connection with the development hereby approved (including demolition, ground works and vegetation clearance) shall commence unless an ecological design strategy (EDS) addressing mitigation, compensation, enhancement and restoration has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The EDS shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:

• o Purpose and conservation objectives for the proposed works.
• o Review of site potential and constraints.
• o Detailed design and working method to achieve the stated objectives.
• o Extent, location and specifications of the proposed works on appropriately scaled maps and plans.
• o Type and source of materials to be used where appropriate, e.g. native species of local provenance.
• o Timetable for implementation demonstrating that works are aligned with the proposed phasing of development.
• o Persons responsible for implementing the works.
• o Details of initial aftercare and long-term maintenance.
• o Details for monitoring and remedial measures.
• o Details for disposal of any wastes arising from works. The strategy shall have particular regard to, but not necessarily limited to, the Fulmars, Herring Gulls The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved EDS. Reason: In order to protect and enhance biodiversity in the environment.

Lighting design (building and amenity spaces)

• 44. The development hereby approved shall not progress beyond lower ground level until a Lighting Design Strategy for Biodiversity, including any amenity or open space to be lit has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The strategy shall:

• o identify the areas or features on or adjacent to the development, including relevant transit corridors that are particularly sensitive to light pollution ; and

• o show how and where all the proposed external lighting will be installed and utilised to demonstrate (through the provision of appropriate lighting contour plans and technical specifications) that those areas to be lit will not disturb the behaviours of, or prevent sensitive species from using their territory or gaining access to their breeding sites, resting places and foraging areas.

All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the approved strategy, and no other external lighting shall be installed without prior express consent from the Department.

Reason: In the interests of protecting and enhancing the biodiversity of the environment. Provision of Bird and Bat Boxes

• 45. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied/brought into use unless the bat boxes and bird boxes have been installed/constructed in accordance with details referred to in;

• o in 6.1-6.5 of the Manx Wildlife Trust's Protected Species Survey Report (dated October 2020)
• o in section 6.1 of the Manx Wildlife Trust's Breeding Bird Survey (dated October 2020)
• o in sections 8.30, 8.33 and 8.35 of the Design and Access Statement (dated December 2020). And on the Elevational Drawings for Block B, C and D. The boxes shall be retained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of protecting and enhancing the biodiversity of the environment.

• 46. Notwithstanding the information submitted further details of the proposed location of the bird boxes for Block A shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The boxes shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter. Reason: The current proposed locations are not considered to be the most appropriate locations.

PROW Protection during Works

• 47. No works in connection with the development hereby approved shall commence unless a scheme for the protection of the Public Right of Way on the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The scheme shall include details of:

• o The location of the existing PROW
• o Details of any proposed amendment to the PROW
• o The location and duration of any temporary diversions or alternative routes during construction of the approved development.
• o Details of the route protection measures.
• o Details of and timescales for the implementation and phasing of the protection works.
• o The protection scheme MUST include timescales for the implementation of the works and the route protection works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: to ensure PROW is not obstructed by the development.

Public footpath - final

• 48. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or commenced until the public footpath has been provided in its entirety as shown on the approved plans. Once provided, the footpath shall thereafter be permanently retained as such. Reason: To ensure safe access for pedestrians to the existing footpath network.

• Grampian Conditions
• 49. No development in connection with the development hereby approved shall be occupied/brought into use until the off-site highway works shown on drawing 100217_03_0100_01.1 and Dice Consulting Engineers Ltd March 2021 report 'Discharge of condition

• 5 off-site highway works' has been implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: to ensure that the development will not compromise the free flow of traffic or highway safety.

List of Approved Plans and Documents This approval relates to the following plans and documents: Studio RBA Drawings

• o RBA_224_(2-) _A002 _Existing Site Plan - P03
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A004 _Proposed Site Plan - P06
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A100 _GA Lower Ground Floor - P02
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A101 _GA Ground Floor - P03
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A102 _GA Mezzanine - P03
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A103 _GA First Floor - P03
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A104 _GA Second Floor - P03
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A105 _GA Third Floor - P03
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A106 _GA Fourth Floor - P03
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A107 _GA Fifth Floor Plan - P03
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A108 _GA Sixth Plan - P03
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A109 _GA Roof Plan - P01
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A201 _Proposed Street Elevation - P04
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A300 _Site Context Section A-A, B-B, C-C, D-D - P02
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A301 _Site Section 1-1, 2-2, 3-3 - P02
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A302 _Site Section 4-4, 5-5, 6-6 - P01
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A303 _Site Section 7-7, 8-8, 9-9 - P02
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A304 _Site Section 1-1_Cliff Interface Study - P04
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A603 _Visual Location Plan - P01
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A101 _Block A Ground Floor - P01
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A102 _Block A Mezzanine - P01
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A103 _Block A First Floor - P02
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A104 _Block A Second Floor - P02
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A105 _Block A Roof Plan - P01
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A201 _Block A North Elevation - P03
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A202 _Block A West Elevation - P03
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A203 _Block A South Elevation - P03
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A204 _Block A East Elevation - P03
• o RBA_224_(2B) _A100 _Block B Lower Ground Floor - P02
• o RBA_224_(2B) _A101 _Block B Ground Floor - P03
• o RBA_224_(2B) _A102 _Block B Mezzanine - P03
• o RBA_224_(2B) _A103 _Block B First - Fifth Floor - P03
• o RBA_224_(2B) _A104 _Block B Sixth Floor - P03
• o RBA_224_(2B) _A105 _Block B Roof Plan - P02
• o RBA_224_(2B) _A201 _Block B North Elevation - P02
• o RBA_224_(2B) _A202 _Block B West Elevation - P02
• o RBA_224_(2B) _A203 _Block B South Elevation - P02
• o RBA_224_(2B) _A204 _Block B East Elevation - P02

• o RBA_224_(2C) _A100 _Block C Lower Ground Floor - P02
• o RBA_224_(2C) _A101 _Block C Ground Floor - P02
• o RBA_224_(2C) _A102 _Block C Mezzanine - P01
• o RBA_224_(2C) _A103 _Block C First - Fourth Floor - P02
• o RBA_224_(2C) _A104 _Block C Fifth Floor - P02
• o RBA_224_(2C) _A105 _Block C Roof Plan - P02
• o RBA_224_(2C) _A201 _Block C North Elevation - P02
• o RBA_224_(2C) _A202 _Block C West Elevation - P02
• o RBA_224_(2C) _A203 _Block C South Elevation - P02
• o RBA_224_(2C) _A204 _Block C East Elevation - P02
• o RBA_224_(2D) _A101 _Block D Ground Floor - P02
• o RBA_224_(2D) _A102 _Block D Mezzanine - P03
• o RBA_224_(2D) _A103 _Block D First - Third Floor - P02
• o RBA_224_(2D) _A104 _Block D Fourth Floor - P03
• o RBA_224_(2D) _A105 _Block D Roof Plan - P01
• o RBA_224_(2D) _A201 _Block D North Elevation - P02
• o RBA_224_(2D) _A202 _Block D West Elevation - P02
• o RBA_224_(2D) _A203 _Block D South Elevation - P02
• o RBA_224_(2D) _A204 _Block D East Elevation - P02
• o RBA_224_(90) _A101 _Ground Floor External Works - P01
• o RBA_224_(90) _A102 _Mezzanine External Works - P01
• o RBA_224_(90) _A103 _First Floor External Works - P01 Dice Consulting
• o Proposed Vehicle Tracking sht 1 of 6 - 100217_03_1100_01.1
• o Proposed Vehicle Tracking sht 2 of 6 - 100217_03_1100_01.2
• o Proposed Vehicle Tracking sht 3 of 6 - 100217_03_1100_01.3
• o Proposed Vehicle Tracking sht 4 of 6 - 100217_03_1100_01.4
• o Proposed Vehicle Tracking sht 5 of 6 - 100217_03_1100_01.5
• o Proposed Vehicle Tracking sht 6 of 6 - 100217_03_1100_01.6
• o Proposed Car Parking Sht 1 of 1 - 100217_03_1100_02.1
• o Access Measures Drawing - 100217_03_0100_01.1
• o Vehicle Tracking swept path analysis - 100217_03_0100_01.2
• o Visibility Splays - 100217_03_0100_01.3
• o Flood Risk Assessment Revision B revised FRA 2021-03-10 (Dated March 2021) Excluding Proposed Drainage Strategy drawing 100217_03_500_01 dated 28.03.19 Rev D
• o Dice Consultancy Discharge of Condition 5 - Offsite Highway Works Transport Report (Dated March 2021)
• o Dice Consultancy Discharge of Condition 6 - Parking Transport Report 100217/MC (Dated March 2021)
• o Transport Assessment 100217/MC/JULY-19/01 (Dated July 2019)
• o Transport Assessment Addendum 100217/MC/JULY-19/02 (Dated August 2019) TPM Landscape
• o Landscape Masterplan (1of3) - Ground Floor 3959 101
• o Landscape Masterplan (2of3) - Mezzanine Floor 3959 102
• o Landscape Masterplan (3of3) - First Floor 3959 103 Corporate Architecture
• o Topographic Survey 4423/PL/003
• o MBS Existing Site Plan 4423/PL/005
• o MBS Existing Floor Plan 4423/PL/006
• o MBS Existing Elevations - 4423/PL/007

• o Existing/ Proposed Substation 4423/PL/101 SVM Building Services Design
• o Stage 1 Energy Strategy Statement (Rev1) dated 10 October 2021 Ivy House Environmental
• o Phase 1 Desk Study Rock Face and Slope Stability Preliminary Assessment - Ivy House Environmental October 2021
• o IV.360.18 The Breakwater Port Erin - Figures - - Ivy House Environmental October 2021
• o Phase 2 Ground Investigation Study - December 2021
• o Rock Face and Slope Stability Inspection Report (dated 9 February 2022)

Manx Wildlife Trust Consultancy

• o Manx Wildlife Trust Consultancy - Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report 6 Oct 2020 Version

• 2

• o Manx Wildlife Trust Consultancy - Breeding Bird Survey 6 Oct 2020 Version 3
• o Manx Wildlife Trust Consultancy - Protected Species Survey 27 Sept 2020 Version 1
• o Manx Wildlife Trust Consultancy - Herring Gull and Fulmar Surveys July 2021 Version 1
• o Manx Wildlife Trust - Technical Note Herring Gull and Fulmar Surveys (dated July 2021) Other Written Documentation
• o Landmark Planning - Covering letter to S Butler 2 (dated 13th August 2021)
• o Draft Management Checklist dated 18 August 2021
• o Chris Young QC - Legal Opinion (dated 21st October 2019)
• o Brindle and Greens letter (dated 1 February 2022)
• o Landmark Planning Letter (dated 7 February 2022) Section 13 Legal Agreement Heads of Terms

• * Commuted sum for improving a local play area to the value of c. £20,000, in lieu of on-site children play area provisions to be paid to the Local Authority;
• * Wall and Bothy repairs plus any ancillary boundary treatment to secure potential gull nesting from human interface;
• * Provision of nesting ledges for Fulmars and Herring Gulls elsewhere, e.g. on west facing cliff adjacent to site. This will be based upon worst-case scenario that there is 100% loss of nesting by fulmars and herring gulls as a worst case scenario.

INTERESTED PERSON STATUS The HDM clarified that the response from the DESC Minister did include the email signature of the Minister and therefore it should be taken as being from a Government Department. Members then discussed the content of the email which appeared to relate to events that had taken place during the previous administration when the now Minister was Member for DoI. It was noted that the test for Government Departments relates to planning matters and it was noted that this email related to matters of landownership and as such it was recommended that IPS should not be afforded in this instance.

Reason for Refusal/Conditions of Approval Delete as appropriate

• C 1. Standard 4 years

The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this 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. Approved Development

This approval relates to erection of: the construction of multi-use buildings incorporating retail, restaurant and exhibition space (not specifically allocated as such but referred to in the application description), aparthotel rooms and apartment uses with associated landscaping, access, parking and open space and shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings and other documents listed on this decision notice, and any drawings approved subsequently in writing by the Department pursuant to any conditions on this decision notice.

Reason: for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

• C 3. Block A Block A shall be carried out in accordance with the revised plans

• o RBA_224_(2A) _A101 _Block A Ground Floor - P01 dated 8 August 2021
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A102 _Block A Mezzanine - P01 dated 18 August 2021
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A103 _Block A First Floor - P02 dated 21 February 2022
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A104 _Block A Second Floor - P02 dated 21 February 2022
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A105 _Block A Roof Plan - P01 dated 18 August 2021
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A201 _Block A North Elevation - P03 dated 21 February 2022
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A202 _Block A West Elevation - P03 dated 21 February 2022
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A203 _Block A South Elevation - P03 dated 21 February 2022
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A204 _Block A East Elevation - P03 dated 21 February 2022 Reason: for the avoidance of doubt and to protect nesting birds.

• C 4. Strategic Views and Appearance of the Building

There must not be any building, engineering or other work which will involve increasing the height of the building above what is shown on the approved plans and other document listed on this decision notice.

Reason: in the interests of the wider strategic views of the area, the character and appearance of the development and the visual amenity of the area and the Raad Ny Foillan.

• C 5. Stacks/Pipes and Flues etc

Other than those shown on the approved drawings, or as approved under any other Conditions on this decision notice, no soil stacks, soil vent pipes, flues, ductwork or any other pipework shall be fixed to the elevations of the building hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out to the highest standards of architecture and materials and in the interests of the character and appearance of the development.

• C 6. External Plant/Apparatus

Any telecommunications apparatus (not for the purposes as set out under Town and Country Planning (Telecommunications) Development Order 2019), extraction plant, air conditioning units and any other plant or equipment that is required on the exterior of the buildings shall be installed in accordance with details to be submitted to the Department in writing to be agreed. The details shall include: proposals for communal provision of television receiving equipment, wherever

possible; siting; appearance; any arrangements for minimising the visual impact; and any arrangements for mitigating potential noise and vibration.

Reason: To ensure that any telecommunications apparatus and other plant or equipment that is required on the exterior of the buildings preserves the highest standards of architecture and materials as a key feature building.

• C 7. Removal of Telecoms PD

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Telecommunications) Development Order 2019 or any order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order no telecommunications apparatus shall be erected or installed under Schedules 2 or 3 to that order without an express grant of planning approval from the Department.

Reason: in the interests of the wider strategic views of the area, the character and appearance of the development and the visual amenity of the area and the Raad Ny Foillan.

• C 8. Substation Works

The development/use hereby approved shall not be brought into use/commence until the proposed works to the substation have been carried out in accordance with drawing Existing. Proposed Substation Details 4423/PL/101 P00 dated 31 March 2021.

Once carried out the substation shall thereafter be permanently retained as such. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the development and the visual amenity of the area and the Raad Ny Foillan

• C 9. Phasing plan

No works in connection with the development hereby approved shall commence unless a Phasing Plan setting out the details of the phasing of the development has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Department. The phasing plan shall include but is not limited to making provisions for the following;

The delivery of the commercial elements prior to the occupation of the residential units;

• o The development to be delivered in each phase;
• o The timing of each phase;
• o The sequence of the development;
• o How earlier phases will be able to operate satisfactorily while later phases are still under construction.

Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved Phasing Plan.

Reason: To ensure that build-out of the development is phased so as to avoid adverse impact on local services and infrastructure and in the interests of the visual amenity of the area and to make sure that the development is carried out in full and the commercial elements are provided as per the approval as the development has been assessed on a mixed use provision and to comply with the Development Brief 22 of the Area Plan for the South (2013)

• C 10. Demolition (inc protection of rock face)

No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a dust, noise vibration management plan and any potential run off has first been submitted to the Department in writing to be agreed.

The plan shall detail timing of said works, measures for the control and reduction of dust and noise emissions associated with demolition, earthworks, construction and track out, and arrangements for protection and monitoring of the rock face and any run off into the Marine Nature Reserve. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the plan so agreed. Any rock face protection shall not include netting.

Reason: To ensure that measures are put in place to manage and reduce dust emissions during demolition and construction to safeguard local amenity and to ensure rock face and bird habitat and the Marine Nature Reserve is not affected by the demolition or construction.

• C 11. Piling method statement

In the event that piling is used, no piling shall take place until a piling method statement (detailing the depth and type of piling to be undertaken and the methodology by which such piling will be carried out, including measures to prevent and minimise the potential for damage to subsurface sewerage infrastructure, potential impact on the Marine Nature Reserve and the programme for works) has first been submitted to the Department in writing to be agreed. Any piling must be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the approved piling method statement.

Reason: To ensure that the rock face is in a safe condition for the life time of the development and to prevent any instability and increased risk of rock fall on site and to third parties.

• C 12. Hours of Building work

Except for piling, excavation and demolition work, you must carry out any building work which can be heard at the boundary of the site only:

• o between 08.00 and 18.00 Monday to Friday;
• o between 08.00 and 13.00 on Saturday; and
• o not at all on Sundays, bank holidays and public holidays. You must carry out piling, excavation and demolition work only:
• o between 08.00 and 18.00 Monday to Friday; and
• o not at all on Saturdays, Sundays, bank holidays and public holidays. Reason: to protect the local environment.

• C 13. Rock face There shall be no netting of the rock face for any purpose. Reason: for the avoidance of doubt and to protect nesting birds.
• C 14. Drainage provision

Linear Drain The development hereby approved shall not progress above lower ground level until there has first been submitted to the Department in writing to be agreed, details of the proposed linear drain as shown on Proposed Drainage Strategy drawing 100217_03_500_01 dated 28.03.19 Rev D dealing with run off/discharge from the rock face to the adjacent land, including amenity space, and management thereof.

No part of the development shall not be occupied until the agreed drainage strategy has been implemented.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the report so agreed, and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the amenity of future occupiers of the development is protected and that there is adequate infrastructure in place.

• C 15. Surface water Notwithstanding the details shown on Proposed Drainage Strategy drawings 100217_03_005_01 Revision D dated 287.03.19 no development shall take place, other than works of demolition, until details of works for the disposal of storm and surface water, including any required attenuation and/or storage, has first been submitted to the Department in writing to be agreed. The strategy shall not include any discharge to the sea or the use of storm overflows.

No part of the development shall not be occupied until the agreed drainage strategy has been implemented.

The surface water drainage system shall be permanently retained thereafter in accordance with the approved maintenance 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 adjacent to a tidal flooding zone and to protect the Marine Nature Reserve and Bathing water quality.

• C 16. Foul Water Notwithstanding the details shown on Proposed Drainage Strategy drawings 100217_03_005_01 Revision C, no development shall take place, other than works of demolition, until a foul water drainage strategy, detailing any on and / or off site works that may be needed to dispose of foul water from the development and to safeguard the development from foul water flooding, has first been submitted to the Department in writing to be agreed.

No part of the development shall be occupied until the agreed drainage strategy has been implemented.

The strategy shall not include any discharge to the sea or the use of combined sewage overflows. The foul water drainage system shall be permanently retained thereafter in accordance with the approved maintenance scheme.

REASON: To ensure that there would be adequate infrastructure in place for the disposal of foul water arising from the development and to protect the Marine Nature Reserve and Bathing water quality.

• C 17. Highways and Parking

The development and uses hereby approved shall not be brought into use and/or commence unless the vehicular and pedestrian access and all parking and turning areas, for each block, have been provided and surfaced in accordance with the details shown on the approved plan. Once provided, all parking and turning areas shall thereafter be permanently retained as such.

Reason: To ensure the provision of a means of access and turning space to an adequate standard in the interests of road safety

• C 18. Loading/offloading/parking/turning areas

The development and use hereby approved shall not be brought into use unless its loading, offloading, turning and parking areas have been provided and surfaced in accordance with the

details shown on the approved plans, for each block. Once provided, the loading, offloading, turning and parking areas shall thereafter be permanently retained as such.

Reason: To ensure the timely completion and retention of the on-site facilities to an adequate standard in the interests of road safety

• C 19. Rising Bollards

Prior to the commencement of development details of the proposed security barriers (rising bollards) positioned at access point 3 serving Block A as shown on Studio RBA's No: RBA_224_(90)_A101 P01 named Ground Floor External Works uploaded on 18 August 2021 shall be submitted to and approved in writing to the Department.

The security barriers/bollards shall be carried out in accordance with the report so agreed, and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: to ensure that any nuisance caused by vehicle queuing onto the highway is minimised.

• C 20. Car and Cycle Parking

For the residential apartments at least one car parking space per apartment shall be allocated to the one bedroom apartments and two spaces for each of the two and three bedroom apartments, and shall be retained as such thereafter and use for no other purposes other than the parking of vehicles associated with the residential apartments.

Reason: to ensure that the appropriate level of parking is provided for the apartments hereby approved.

• C 21. . Prior to occupation and/or use of each Block, or in accordance with the details approved under the phasing plan, the cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans for the sole use of the development. Thereafter the cycle spaces must be retained and the space used for no other purpose.

Reason: to ensure the satisfactory provision of safe cycle storage facilities and to provide facilities for all uses of the site and in the interests if highways safety and sustainable transport.

• C 22. Carpark ventilation

In the event that car park ventilation is required, no part of the development hereby approved shall progress above lower ground level until there has first been submitted to the Department in writing to be agreed, a scheme to ventilate the car park and minimise the ingress of polluted air, and management thereof. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the report so agreed, and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the amenity of future occupiers of the development is protected and to ensure that the development is carried out to the highest standards of architecture and materials and in the interests of the character and appearance of the development.

• C 23. Materials - details

No works in connection with the development hereby approved shall commence until details, 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 have been 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: In the interests of the appearance of the development and the visual amenities of the area.

• C 24. Materials - sample panel

No development shall take place before sample panels of all proposed materials demonstrating the colour, texture, bond and pointing of any stonework and render have been constructed on site.

The Department shall approve in writing the colour, texture, bond and pointing of the materials prior to development commencing and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The sample panel shall be retained on site until development is completed or removal is approved in writing by the Department.

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 25. Restricted Uses and Hours

Aparthotels The apart-hotel units hereby approved shall be used solely as serviced apartments and shall not be used as separate residential units or occupied as a person's sole or main place of residence or for any other purpose between the months of April and September (inclusive).

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the development fulfils the role of temporary hotel accommodation during the holiday season.

• C 26. No guest or customer of the aparthotel units may occupy any part of the accommodation for a period exceeding 28 days during the months of April and September (inclusive)

Furthermore, before the apart-hotel units are brought into use, a management plan detailing the booking system for the serviced apartments shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Department.

• o The plan shall include:
• o the maximum permitted stay in the serviced apartments,
• o a system for keeping a register of customer bookings and a means by which the Department can check the register to ensure that the maximum permitted stays are enforced.

These registers shall be kept for not less than two years form the date of the last entry and shall be made available to be inspected by the Department upon reasonable demand.

The units shall be operated in accordance with the approved management plan.

Reason: to ensure that the development is only used and occupied as short-let holiday accommodation during the holiday season and to maintain the availability of the units as short term holiday accommodation during holiday season.

• C 27. Removal of Permitted Development Rights

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2019 or Town and Country Planning (Change of Use) (Development) (No. 2) Order 2019 or any order amending, revoking or re-enacting these Orders, the shop in Block C hereby approved shall be used only for the purpose hereby approved and shall not be used for any other purpose within Use Class

1.1 without the express grant of planning approval from the Department.

Reason: To enable the Department to consider the implications of any subsequent change of use on the amenities of the area and the impact of the change on the relevant policies including Development Brief 22 of Area Plan for South (2016).

• C 28. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2012 or any order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order no means of enclosure, other than that shown on the approved plans and other documents listed on this decision notice, and any drawings approved subsequently in writing by the Department pursuant to any conditions on this decision notice, shall be erected on the site under the terms of Class 39 of Schedule 1 to that Order without an express grant of planning approval from the Department. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the development.
• C 29. Opening Hours

Customers shall not be permitted within the proposed restaurant/pub hereby approved in Block D between the hours of Midnight to 6am Monday to Friday; Saturday & Sunday.

Reason: To protect the environment of people in neighbouring properties.

• C 30. Noise and Insulation

No development shall take place in relation to Block D before a scheme detailing the insulation between the ground floor (restaurant/pub) and the mezzanine floor against the transmission of noise and vibration has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The approved scheme shall be carried out before the use/operation commences, and be thereafter maintained.

Reason: To protect amenities of the aparthotel by ensuring measures are implemented to avoid any noise nuisance.

• C 31. Ventilation

No development shall take place before a scheme detailing all plant, machinery, chimneys, ducting, filters or extraction vents to be used in connection with the pub/ restaurant use have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, Department. The scheme shall be implemented prior to the use commencing and be so retained.

Reason: To satisfactorily protect the character and appearance of the area and to ensure that the development is carried out to the highest standards of architecture and materials and in the interests of the character and appearance of the development.

• C 32. Refuse Storage

Prior to occupation and / or use of each Block, or in accordance with the details approved under the phasing plan, the refuse stores shall be provided in accordance with the approved details and shall be permanently retained thereafter and solely for the purpose of refuse storage.

Reason: to ensure the satisfactory provision of refuse storage facilities and to safeguard the appearance of the surrounding area.

• C 33. Sustainability Measures

Energy strategy No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied / brought into use until the proposed community heating system incorporating air source heat pumps system with associated

thermal storage and direct electric boiler as set out in Section 5 of the ADDB (Rev B) Energy Strategy Statement 18 August 21, is installed and fully operational. These measures shall be retained in place and fully operational thereafter.

Reason: to ensure this development complies with the energy efficiency requirements of the Strategic Plan and to future proof the development.

• C 34. No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied / brought into use unless the electric vehicle charging points have been provided in accordance with the details

Reason: to ensure this development complies with the energy efficiency requirements of the Strategic Plan and to future proof the development.

• C 35. Public Open Space

No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied/brought into use until the Public Open Space provisions and associated landscaping, on the leased land north of and adjacent to the building, as shown on drawing 3959 101 [dated 18 August 2021] are completed and available for use and thereafter retained.

Reason: An exception has been made on the grounds that the improvement to the current open space is acceptable in lieu of additional provision and to ensure that the Public Open Space is provided in a timely manner and contributes to the creation of a high quality, accessible, safe and attractive public realm.

• C 36. Landscaping

Landscaping Strategy - public areas Notwithstanding the details that have been submitted, the development hereby approved shall not commence until a detailed landscaping strategy and revised planting palette (which removes reference to use of griselinia, buddleia and Stipa tenuissima) , has first been submitted to the Department in writing to be agreed.

The detailed landscape strategy shall include a detailed landscaping layout, details of planting (no none non-native species), hard surfacing materials, site levels, external lighting, a space-sharing strategy, external cycle parking, public seating and details of all gradients, ramps and steps within publicly accessible areas of the development.

Soft landscaping works shall include: planting plans (at a scale not less than 1:100), written specification of planting and cultivation works to be undertaken and schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers / densities and a programme for the implementation, completion and subsequent management of the proposed landscaping.

Any proposed planting should be in accordance with details contained within the revised Planting Palette - which removes reference to use of griselinia, buddleia and Stipa tenuissima).

The hard surfacing details shall include details of planters and samples showing the texture and colour of the materials to be used and information about their sourcing/manufacturer.

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 be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and shall be retained as such thereafter.

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 public realm and that the lighting regime avoids impacts on marine and terrestrial ecology.

• C 37. Maintenance and Ongoing Management

Notwithstanding the details submitted, all soft and hard landscaping proposals shall be carried out in accordance with an approved landscape management programme/scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and any details pursuant to any other conditions on this decision notice.

Any planting which, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development, in the opinion of the Department is dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased, shall be replaced by plants of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted. Once provided, all hard landscaping works shall thereafter be permanently retained.

Reason: To ensure the implementation and management of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping which will help to integrate the proposed development into the local landscape in the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

• C 38. Green roofs and wall

The development hereby approved shall not progress beyond ground floor level until details of the provision of green roofs within the development has first been submitted to the Department in writing to be agreed.

The green roofs shall be designed to contribute to the creation of appropriate habitats targeted in Biodiversity Action Plan.

• o The details to be submitted shall comprise:
• o identification of the roof areas to be used for the provision of green roofs;
• o details of the planting to be used; and
• o details of the maintenance including irrigation.
• o The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details so agreed and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the development makes appropriate provision for the protection, enhancement, creation and management of biodiversity

• C 39. Rooftop gardens

Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, the development hereby approved shall not progress beyond lower ground level until revised details for the approved roof terraces/gardens has first been submitted to the Department in writing to be agreed.

The revised details shall include:

• o A revised layout for each of the roof terraces which contributes to privacy for neighbouring
• occupiers and comfort for users of the roof terraces; o Hard and soft landscaping details; o Details of measures to address noise levels and wind microclimate; o Details of how inclusive access to and within communal rooftop gardens is achieved; o Details of proposed safety railings o The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details so agreed and shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure that the development achieves safe, comfortable and attractive amenity spaces.

• C 40. Birds/Biodiversity - demolition and construction

No works in connection with the development hereby approved (including demolition, ground works and vegetation clearance) shall commence unless a construction environmental management plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The CEMP shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following;

• o risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities.
• o Identification of "biodiversity protection zones, such as coastal grassland vegetation and maritime hard cliff and coastal grassland, orchid areas and Port Erin Bay Marine Nature Reserve and specific species to include common lizards, breeding birds, bats)".
• o Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements).
• o The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features.
• o The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to
• oversee works.
• o Responsible persons and lines of communication.
• o The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person.
• o Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs.
• o All works carried out during the construction period shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the approved CEMP. Reason: In the interests of protecting the biodiversity of the environment.

• C 41. Bird Strike

Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans all glass balustrades/balconies shall be installed with measures to prevent bird strikes to be either etchings on the glass or use of ultraviolet decals.

Reason: To prevent bird strikes, due to proximity of nearby nesting birds.

• C 42. Biodiversity Monitoring, Mitigation and Compensation

No works in connection with the development hereby approved (including demolition, ground works and vegetation clearance) shall commence until a biodiversity monitoring and mitigation strategy for Fulmars, Herring Gulls has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Department.

The purpose of the strategy shall be to monitor the effects of development and subsequent occupation on that status. As a consequence appropriate mitigation, remediation or compensatory measures may be required. The content of the Strategy shall include, as a minimum, the following.

• o Aims and objectives of monitoring.
• o Identification of adequate baseline conditions prior to the start of development.
• o Appropriate success criteria, thresholds, triggers and targets against which the impacts of the development can be judged.
• o Methods for data gathering and analysis.
• o Location of monitoring.
• o Timing and duration of monitoring (at least 5 years).
• o Responsible persons and lines of communication.
• o Appropriate success criteria, thresholds, triggers and targets against which the impact of the development can be judged.
• o Reporting, review, and where appropriate, publication of results and outcomes.

• A report describing the results of monitoring shall be submitted to the Department at intervals identified in the strategy. The report shall also set out how contingencies and remedial action will be identified, agreed with the Department and then implemented. The development shall be carried
• out in strict accordance with the approved biodiversity monitoring and mitigation strategy. Reason: In order to protect and enhance biodiversity in the environment.

• C 43. Ecological Design and Mitigation Strategies

No works in connection with the development hereby approved (including demolition, ground works and vegetation clearance) shall commence unless an ecological design strategy (EDS) addressing mitigation, compensation, enhancement and restoration has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The EDS shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:

• o Purpose and conservation objectives for the proposed works.
• o Review of site potential and constraints.
• o Detailed design and working method to achieve the stated objectives.
• o Extent, location and specifications of the proposed works on appropriately scaled maps and plans.
• o Type and source of materials to be used where appropriate, e.g. native species of local provenance.
• o Timetable for implementation demonstrating that works are aligned with the proposed phasing of development.
• o Persons responsible for implementing the works.
• o Details of initial aftercare and long-term maintenance.
• o Details for monitoring and remedial measures.
• o Details for disposal of any wastes arising from works. The strategy shall have particular regard to, but not necessarily limited to, the Fulmars, Herring Gulls The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved EDS. Reason: In order to protect and enhance biodiversity in the environment.

• C 44. Lighting design (building and amenity spaces)

The development hereby approved shall not progress beyond lower ground level until a Lighting Design Strategy for Biodiversity, including any amenity or open space to be lit has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The strategy shall:

• o identify the areas or features on or adjacent to the development, including relevant transit corridors that are particularly sensitive to light pollution; and
• o show how and where all the proposed external lighting will be installed and utilised to demonstrate (through the provision of appropriate lighting contour plans and technical specifications) that those areas to be lit will not disturb the behaviours of, or prevent sensitive species from using their territory or gaining access to their breeding sites, resting places and foraging areas.

All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the approved strategy, and no other external lighting shall be installed without prior express consent from the Department.

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

• C 45. Provision of Bird and Bat Boxes

The development hereby approved shall not be occupied/brought into use unless the bat boxes and bird boxes have been installed/constructed in accordance with details referred to in;

• o in 6.1-6.5 of the Manx Wildlife Trust's Protected Species Survey Report (dated October 2020)
• o in section 6.1 of the Manx Wildlife Trust's Breeding Bird Survey (dated October 2020)
• o in sections 8.30, 8.33 and 8.35 of the Design and Access Statement (dated December 2020). And on the Elevational Drawings for Block B, C and D. The boxes shall be retained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of protecting and enhancing the biodiversity of the environment.

• C 46. Notwithstanding the information submitted further details of the proposed location of the bird boxes for Block A shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The boxes shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter. Reason: The current proposed locations are not considered to be the most appropriate locations.
• C 47. Public Rights of Way Protection during Works

No works in connection with the development hereby approved shall commence unless a scheme for the protection of the Public Right of Way on the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department.

The scheme shall include details of:

• o The location of the existing PROW
• o Details of any proposed amendment to the PROW
• o The location and duration of any temporary diversions or alternative routes during construction of the approved development.
• o Details of the route protection measures.
• o Details of and timescales for the implementation and phasing of the protection works.
• o The protection scheme MUST include timescales for the implementation of the works and the route protection works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: to ensure PROW is not obstructed by the development.

• C 48. Public footpath - final

The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or commenced until the public footpath has been provided in its entirety as shown on the approved plans. Once provided, the footpath shall thereafter be permanently retained as such.

Reason: To ensure safe access for pedestrians to the existing footpath network.

• C 49. Grampian Conditions

No development in connection with the development hereby approved shall be occupied/brought into use until the off-site highway works shown on drawing 100217_03_0100_01.1 and Dice Consulting Engineers Ltd March 2021 report 'Discharge of condition 5 off-site highway works' has been implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: to ensure that the development will not compromise the free flow of traffic or highway safety.

N 1. The decision to grant planning approval, subject to a Section 13 agreement, was made by Planning Committee on the 28th March 2022. The issue of the decision notice has been triggered by the Section 13 agreement having been concluded. The 21 days for appeal (for those with Interested Person Status) runs from the date of the decision notice.

carrying out their developments. List of Approved Plans and Documents This approval relates to the following plans and documents: Studio RBA Drawings

• o RBA_224_(2-) _A002 _Existing Site Plan - P03
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A004 _Proposed Site Plan - P06
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A100 _GA Lower Ground Floor - P02
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A101 _GA Ground Floor - P03
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A102 _GA Mezzanine - P03
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A103 _GA First Floor - P03
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A104 _GA Second Floor - P03
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A105 _GA Third Floor - P03
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A106 _GA Fourth Floor - P03
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A107 _GA Fifth Floor Plan - P03
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A108 _GA Sixth Plan - P03
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A109 _GA Roof Plan - P01
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A201 _Proposed Street Elevation - P04
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A300 _Site Context Section A-A, B-B, C-C, D-D - P02
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A301 _Site Section 1-1, 2-2, 3-3 - P02
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A302 _Site Section 4-4, 5-5, 6-6 - P01
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A303 _Site Section 7-7, 8-8, 9-9 - P02
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A304 _Site Section 1-1_Cliff Interface Study - P04
• o RBA_224_(2-) _A603 _Visual Location Plan - P01
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A101 _Block A Ground Floor - P01
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A102 _Block A Mezzanine - P01
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A103 _Block A First Floor - P02
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A104 _Block A Second Floor - P02
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A105 _Block A Roof Plan - P01
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A201 _Block A North Elevation - P03
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A202 _Block A West Elevation - P03
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A203 _Block A South Elevation - P03
• o RBA_224_(2A) _A204 _Block A East Elevation - P03
• o RBA_224_(2B) _A100 _Block B Lower Ground Floor - P02
• o RBA_224_(2B) _A101 _Block B Ground Floor - P03
• o RBA_224_(2B) _A102 _Block B Mezzanine - P03
• o RBA_224_(2B) _A103 _Block B First - Fifth Floor - P03
• o RBA_224_(2B) _A104 _Block B Sixth Floor - P03
• o RBA_224_(2B) _A105 _Block B Roof Plan - P02
• o RBA_224_(2B) _A201 _Block B North Elevation - P02
• o RBA_224_(2B) _A202 _Block B West Elevation - P02
• o RBA_224_(2B) _A203 _Block B South Elevation - P02

• o RBA_224_(2B) _A204 _Block B East Elevation - P02
• o RBA_224_(2C) _A100 _Block C Lower Ground Floor - P02
• o RBA_224_(2C) _A101 _Block C Ground Floor - P02
• o RBA_224_(2C) _A102 _Block C Mezzanine - P01
• o RBA_224_(2C) _A103 _Block C First - Fourth Floor - P02
• o RBA_224_(2C) _A104 _Block C Fifth Floor - P02
• o RBA_224_(2C) _A105 _Block C Roof Plan - P02
• o RBA_224_(2C) _A201 _Block C North Elevation - P02
• o RBA_224_(2C) _A202 _Block C West Elevation - P02
• o RBA_224_(2C) _A203 _Block C South Elevation - P02
• o RBA_224_(2C) _A204 _Block C East Elevation - P02
• o RBA_224_(2D) _A101 _Block D Ground Floor - P02
• o RBA_224_(2D) _A102 _Block D Mezzanine - P03
• o RBA_224_(2D) _A103 _Block D First - Third Floor - P02
• o RBA_224_(2D) _A104 _Block D Fourth Floor - P03
• o RBA_224_(2D) _A105 _Block D Roof Plan - P01
• o RBA_224_(2D) _A201 _Block D North Elevation - P02
• o RBA_224_(2D) _A202 _Block D West Elevation - P02
• o RBA_224_(2D) _A203 _Block D South Elevation - P02
• o RBA_224_(2D) _A204 _Block D East Elevation - P02
• o RBA_224_(90) _A101 _Ground Floor External Works - P01
• o RBA_224_(90) _A102 _Mezzanine External Works - P01
• o RBA_224_(90) _A103 _First Floor External Works - P01 Dice Consulting
• o Proposed Vehicle Tracking sht 1 of 6 - 100217_03_1100_01.1
• o Proposed Vehicle Tracking sht 2 of 6 - 100217_03_1100_01.2
• o Proposed Vehicle Tracking sht 3 of 6 - 100217_03_1100_01.3
• o Proposed Vehicle Tracking sht 4 of 6 - 100217_03_1100_01.4
• o Proposed Vehicle Tracking sht 5 of 6 - 100217_03_1100_01.5
• o Proposed Vehicle Tracking sht 6 of 6 - 100217_03_1100_01.6
• o Proposed Car Parking Sht 1 of 1 - 100217_03_1100_02.1
• o Access Measures Drawing - 100217_03_0100_01.1
• o Vehicle Tracking swept path analysis - 100217_03_0100_01.2
• o Visibility Splays - 100217_03_0100_01.3
• o Flood Risk Assessment Revision B revised FRA 2021-03-10 (Dated March 2021) Excluding Proposed Drainage Strategy drawing 100217_03_500_01 dated 28.03.19 Rev D
• o Dice Consultancy Discharge of Condition 5 - Offsite Highway Works Transport Report (Dated March 2021)
• o Dice Consultancy Discharge of Condition 6 - Parking Transport Report 100217/MC (Dated March 2021)
• o Transport Assessment 100217/MC/JULY-19/01 (Dated July 2019)
• o Transport Assessment Addendum 100217/MC/JULY-19/02 (Dated August 2019) TPM Landscape
• o Landscape Masterplan (1of3) - Ground Floor 3959 101
• o Landscape Masterplan (2of3) - Mezzanine Floor 3959 102
• o Landscape Masterplan (3of3) - First Floor 3959 103 Corporate Architecture
• o Topographic Survey 4423/PL/003
• o MBS Existing Site Plan 4423/PL/005

• o MBS Existing Floor Plan 4423/PL/006
• o MBS Existing Elevations - 4423/PL/007
• o Existing/ Proposed Substation 4423/PL/101 SVM Building Services Design
• o Stage 1 Energy Strategy Statement (Rev1) dated 10 October 2021 Ivy House Environmental
• o Phase 1 Desk Study Rock Face and Slope Stability Preliminary Assessment - Ivy House Environmental October 2021
• o IV.360.18 The Breakwater Port Erin - Figures - - Ivy House Environmental October 2021
• o Phase 2 Ground Investigation Study - December 2021
• o Rock Face and Slope Stability Inspection Report (dated 9 February 2022)

Manx Wildlife Trust Consultancy

• o Manx Wildlife Trust Consultancy - Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report 6 Oct 2020 Version

• 2

• o Manx Wildlife Trust Consultancy - Breeding Bird Survey 6 Oct 2020 Version 3
• o Manx Wildlife Trust Consultancy - Protected Species Survey 27 Sept 2020 Version 1
• o Manx Wildlife Trust Consultancy - Herring Gull and Fulmar Surveys July 2021 Version 1
• o Manx Wildlife Trust - Technical Note Herring Gull and Fulmar Surveys (dated July 2021) Other Written Documentation
• o Landmark Planning - Covering letter to S Butler 2 (dated 13th August 2021)
• o Draft Management Checklist dated 18 August 2021
• o Chris Young QC - Legal Opinion (dated 21st October 2019)
• o Brindle and Greens letter (dated 1 February 2022)
• o Landmark Planning Letter (dated 7 February 2022)