AP250001 Ellis Brown Architects Appeal Statement on Behalf of the Applicant

Planning Appeal Statement against the refusal of PA24/91152/GB Erection of a New Dwelling and partial demolition of flat roofed extension to the former Groudle Glen Hotel, King Edward Road, Onchan

Ellis Brown • 1 Strathallan Sydney Mount • Douglas Isle of Man • IM1 3DB Telephone: +44 (0) 1624 621375 • Email: [email protected] • Online: www.ellisbrown.im

Prepared by Mark Pearce BA (hons) Dip Arch RIBA 2nd May 2025

• 1.0 Introduction
• 1.1 Planning Application 24/91152/GB was submitted in October 2024 for the demolition of the western end of the flat roofed extension to the former Groudle Glen Hotel and the erection of a 3-bedroom house on the hotel car park and the land cleared by the demolition.
• 1.2 The proposed house was designed to mimic the scale and art deco appearance of the property Glenholme, immediately to the east of the Groudle Glen Hotel.
• 1.3 The proposed site is narrow strip of land situated between King Edward Road and a steep bank that drops down into Groudle Glen behind.
• 1.4 The application was refused in December 2024 as the officer considered that the site did not meet the criteria required for General Policy 3 to allow development, that the siting and scale of the proposed house would be detrimental to the neighbouring registered building, that the parking arrangements did not meet the requirements of the DOI and that insufficient information had been supplied about the impact on the site’s ecology.
• 1.5 The case officer’s assessment considers seven issues.

• 1. The principle
• 2. Impact on the character and appearance of the countryside.
• 3. Impact on the adjacent Registered Building.
• 4. Impact on the amenity of other residential properties.
• 5. Highway issues
• 6. Impact on trees and biodiversity.
• 7. Drainage

• 2.0 The Principle
• 2.1 The footprint of the proposed house is currently occupied by a car parking area and a flat roofed extension to the Groudle Glen Hotel which contains toilets and storerooms. The site is clearly previously developed land as defined in Appendix 1 of the Strategic Plan 2016.
• 2.2 In paragraph 7.2.1 the case officer states that the site falls within the definition of previously developed land, however he goes on to say that because the site is in the countryside it can’t be developed because General Policy 3 resists rural development other than in specified exceptional circumstance.

General Policy 3c clearly specifies that previously developed land is one of those exceptional circumstances, however, the officer report goes on to state that the proposed site does not meet the exceptional circumstances listed in General Policy 3 when it clearly complies with GP3c.

• 2.3 The proposed site is located within the countryside, as defined by the Strategic Plan of 2016, and therefore subject to General Policy 3.
• 2.4 In paragraph 7.2.2 the planning officer argues that the land should not be developed due to its rural location with a lack of services and amenities. This is a bizarre assertion as the site is just outside Onchan, the second largest settlement on the island with a doctors’ surgery, two primary schools and two supermarkets. The village boundary is 150 metres to the southeast.

• 2.5 The case officer questions whether the continued use is redundant. This is despite the premises ceasing trading many years earlier. In the appeal to PA13/00531/A which sought to convert the former Groudle Glen Hotel to six flats, the appeal inspector describes the building as “disused”. The planning application was approved. Another former public house 1.5 miles to the north, the Liverpool Arms, was approved for change of use to residential in PA20/00967/C despite being is use until 2017, as the inspector accepted that building’s use as a pub had come to an end.

• 3.0 Impact on the character and appearance of the countryside
• 3.1 Most of the points in this section of the officer’s report are more relevant in the next section regarding the impact on the registered building and do not relate to the impact on the countryside.
• 3.2 The officer’s argument is that the proposed house would make some trees less visible, this is undeniable, however this needs to be viewed as a whole. Does the obscuring of two heavily limbed trees, a lime and a sycamore, behind the house outweigh the benefit of removing the single storey lean-to extensions on the registered building?

• 4.0 Impact on the adjacent Registered Building
• 4.1 The officer report criticises the design for being contemporary, flat roofed and for using unsympathetic materials. The report goes on to say that the design does not replicate the stye of the neighbouring registered building.
• 4.2 The description of the proposal as contemporary is questionable as the design tries to mimic the existing 1930s style house immediately to the east of the former Groudle Glen Hotel. The design is within the greater context of the site.
• 4.3 The report’s expectation that the proposed building should try to replicate the details of the existing Arts & Crafts style is contrary to the approach taken by many conservationists who argue that new development should be clearly legible as new rather than making pastiche additions that devalue the original.
• 4.4 It is surprising that in the planning officer’s assessment, part of the report chooses to completely ignore the half page of comments made by the Conservation Officer who argues that “on balance, I judge that the potential enhancement from the removal of the single storey flat-roof element would offset the potential harm to the setting that may result from the proposed dwelling. As such, overall, I judge that the application would preserve the special architectural and historic interest of registered building 287”. One must question the point of having a Conservation Officer if their comments are completely disregarded when assessing the impact of the proposal on the registered building.

• 5.0 Impact on the amenity of other residential properties
• 5.1 We agree with the officer’s assessment of the proposal’s impact on the neighbouring properties.

• 6.0 Highway issues
• 6.1 The parking spaces have been drawn on a topographic survey which shows that there is space for three 5.5m x 3.2m parking spaces, in accordance with Table C.2 of the Manual for Manx Roads, immediately to the west of the proposed house with 1.2m between the

• parking spaces and the carriageway to allow pedestrians to pass by. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Transport Policies 6 and 7 of the Strategic Plan.
• 6.2 Along with the space in the garage there will be four off-street parking spaces for the former Groudle Glen Hotel and the proposed new house which will meet the parking requirements of Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan for two parking spaces per house.
• 6.3 A visibility splay of 90m is possible to the east in accordance with table B.1 of the Manual for Manx Roads for a 40mph speed limit. To the west it is possible to see 44m to the corner where the bridge crosses the glen, according to table B.2 this would be enough of a visibility splay for a 30-mph speed limit. The bridge is very narrow with a sharp left turn as you approach the site thus causing cars to slow down significantly as they approach the proposed site, and much slower than the 30mph for a 44m sightline.

• 7.0 Impact on trees and biodiversity

• 7.1 The officer report claims that the building has been “minimally occupied in recent years” and that this is enough to justify a requirement for a bat survey. This is incorrect, the property

• has been occupied since it ceased to be a restaurant, and the applicant lives there with her family.
• 7.2 While the proposed site is close to existing trees, the base of the trees is notably lower, 3 to 4 metres lower, than the site of the proposed building and therefore the building cannot interfere with the existing root structure.

• 7.3 The two trees closest to the proposed site, a lime tree and a Sycamore, were limbed in recent years since the topographic survey of 2016 so the two tree spreads shown on the diagram below are not a fair reflection of the site today. The lime tree’s trunk is still in place, but the branches are new and very thin, these barely reach the site. The Sycamore was cut back substantially, the parts that enter the curtilage of the site are relatively recent growth and have a girth of less than four inches. The beech and oak trees canopies do not over sail the area of the proposed house and are not affected by the parking.

• 7.3 The matter of an ecological survey has been raised in the report. The site is currently either the single storey extension or tarmac, there is little vegetation of ecological interest beyond some blackberry bushes, sycamore branches and ivy that have grown through the existing picket fence or over the masonry wall along the rear boundary.

• 8.0 Drainage

• 8.1 The report states that there are no concerns from Manx Utilities about the shared use of the former Groudle Glen Hotel’s existing biodisc.

• 8.2 The report says that the Department of Infrastructure’s requirement to prevent rainwater runoff onto the highway could be dealt with via a condition.

9.0 Conclusion

• 9.1 In places the officer’s report does not appear to be a balanced and objective assessment of pros and cons of a proposed development rather it reads more like a list of negative interpretations of policy to justify the application’s refusal. The clearest evidence for this approach is the complete disregard for the comments of the Conservation Officer in assessing the impact of the proposal on the registered building.

• 9.2 The proposed site is on previously developed land, designed to look like one of its neighbouring buildings, does not affect the surrounding vegetation, meets its parking requirements and can be serviced with drainage and is therefore in accordance with the policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan of 2016 this appeal should be upheld.

Mark Pearce

Prepared by Mark Pearce BA (hons) DIP Arch RIBA