DEC Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No.: 22/00561/B Applicant: Wardens Of Malew And Santon Proposal: Extension to existing burial ground Site Address: Part Field 434062 Malew And Castletown Burial Ground Great Meadow Castletown Isle Of Man Planning Officer: Mrs Vanessa Porter Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 01.08.2022

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. No development shall take place until full details of both soft and hard landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the hereby approved sheltered apartments, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species. The soft landscaping must include any hedging, tree planting and/or landscaping works, with the hard landscaping including all fencing and the central feature. The hard landscaping works shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details prior to the first use of the site. Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.

The site whilst its not designated for development and is a site with class 1/2 soil, the site is ultimately the best place for an extension of the graveyard at this time, accounting for the conflict within the Area Plan and the past history of the site. As such the application is recommended for approval.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the following plans and drawings, date stamped received on 10th May 2022;

• o Drawing No. PL481-LP
• o Drawing No. PL481-SP
• o Drawing No. PL481-00 A
• o Drawing No. PL481-01 B
• o Drawing No. PL481-02 _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE AS IT COULD BE CONISDERED A DEPARTURE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.

THE APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The application site is a parcel of land situated to the South East end of Malew Road, which is to the South East of the existing burial ground. To the North of the site is the original burial grounds and Malew Church (RB256), to the East of the site are agricultural fields and to the South is "Ballaqueston Farm House." THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The current planning application seeks approval for the continuation of the existing burial grounds, which will be divided up into four phases, which when not in use will be kept as a meadow, with 2.5m wide pathway around the outer area and through the middle. The overall size of the extension to the grounds is 45m by 90m.

2.2 Within the middle of the burial grounds there is proposed to be a circular bench with either a tree, fountain or statue up to 1.8m high. - 2.3 Other items within the application are a timber shed measuring 5m by 3m and alterations to the existing entrance and footpath.

PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 Whilst not on the site in question, it is relevant to note PA19/00143/B which was for a site across the roadside, for an extension to the graveyard and was Refused at Appeal.

3.2 The reasons for refusal are as follows;

• R1 - The proposed development would result in the permanent loss of productive Class 1 agricultural land, contrary to Environment Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. It is not accepted that the need for the proposed development outweighs the benefit of conserving this agricultural land; or that that there is no land of an inferior agricultural quality that could be made available as a burial ground.
• R2 - A substantial part of the application site falls within the countryside. The development of this land would be contrary to the objective of protecting the countryside, and would fail to comply with Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

• R3 - The proposed development would be counter to the overall strategy for the Poyll Vaaish and Scarlett Peninsula Landscaper Character Area, as set out in paragraph 3.4 the Area Plan for the South 2013. In particular, it would adversely affect the open character of the landscape to the west of this part of the A3; it would disrupt the established field pattern; and it would detract from the panoramic key view from the A3 toward the Southern Uplands, over open fields.

PLANNING POLICY

4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as "not for development" on the Area Plan for the South. The site is not within a Conservation Area nor a Flood Risk Zone.

4.2 The Strategic Plan (2016) does not contain any specific reference to graveyards, but does set out:

• - Strategic Policy 10 (Development Located/Designed to support an integrated transport network)
• - Spatial Policies 1-7 (Settlement Hierarchy)
• - General Policy 2 (Development Control considerations)
• - General Policy 3 (Circumstances in which the presumption against development in the countryside may be set-aside, none of which relate to this proposal)
• - Environment Policy 1 (Protection of Countryside and Landscape)
• - Environment Policy 3 (Protection of Woodland)
• - Strategic Policy 4, Environment Policies 4-5 (Protection of Biodiversity)
• - Strategic Policy 4, Environment Policies 30-33 (Protection of Registered Buildings, in this instance Malew Parish Church)
• - Strategic Policy 4, Environment Policies 40-41 (Archaeology)
• - Recreation Policy 2 (Protection/Provision of Open Space)
• - Community Policy 2 (Location of Facilities)
• - Community Policy 7 (Designing Out Crime)
• - Transport Policy 7 (Parking Provision)

4.3 Another material consideration is the Agricultural soils of the Isle of Man report which states that the land is within one of the highest quality on the Island. The site is within an area of limestone and stretches north to include Billown Quarry and to the other three sides of Cross Four Ways. All of the land surrounding the graveyards on both sides of the road are included in this as such Environment Policy 14 is relevant in this assessment. REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 The following representations can be found in full online, below is a short summery;

5.2 Highway Services have considered the proposal and state they do not oppose. (26.05.2022) - 5.3 Malew Parish Commissioners have considered the proposal and state they have no objection. (8.06.22)

ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are:

• - principle
• - layout/ character and appearance
• - other matters

6.2 PRINCIPLE

• 6.2.1 The site is not designated for development, nor does the proposal meet the expectation criteria in General Policy 3 as such the starting point is whether there has been a demonstrated need for the expansion of the churchyard, especially when taking into account he previously

refused application PA19/00143/B, which was satiated across the main road, part on land zoned for the extension of the graveyard and part not zoned.

• 6.2.2 The previously refused application, was refused on several grounds at appeal, with the majority of the reasons regarding the proposed car parking area, the removal of viable agricultural land and how the proposed graveyard would impact the character and appearance of the area taking in the Character Assessment. Which stated, "The overall strategy is to conserve the strong sense of openness throughout the area, with strong field pattern as well as the setting of the numerous archaeological sites and wartime structures within the area."
• 6.2.3 Whilst this was the case with the previously refused application, the site was partly zoned for the proposed graveyard extension within the Area Plan for the South, which stated, "The second is an extension to the churchyard at Malew Church, the land required for such purposes is extensive and as such should only be laid out as formal churchyard when the need arises. In the meantime, the land, which is currently used for agricultural purposes, should remain as such. Land is also allocated for burial purposes at Arbory Church."
• 6.2.4 From the information above, we can clearly see that what was proposal within PA19/00143/B was not accounting for the land it was proposed upon and requested a large amount of items which were not acceptable for the site as per the information within the Area Plan for the South, such as a large car parking area and memorial gardens, and that part of the site was not zoned for development at all. Add in the agricultural soil classification and the character assessment it is understandable on why the proposal was refused.
• 6.2.5 Turning towards the proposal within this application, from the information provided, the only reasoning for the site to be within this area is, "The appellant suggested an alternative option, extending to the east of the 1935 Burial Ground. The appellant noted that this would have a reduced visual impact as it would sit behind the existing burial area. They also noted that there would be no impact on key views from the A3, and less harm to the historic field pattern."
• 6.2.6 It would seem then that the application is at an impasse, it can clearly be seen that the proposed extension of the site within this area would have a minimal impact upon the site when driving along Malew Road, though it is questionable about whether the impact would be reduced from a distance, such as from the Isle of Man Steam Railway or from views accessible further afield. It can also be seen that the proposed site would fit within the Character Assessment of the area by preserving the views of the fields.
• 6.2.7 These two points are then raised against the agricultural land designation and the land zoning, with the proposed site being situated within an area not zoned for development. As such a difficult decision needs to be made on whether there should be an exception to the Policies in place.
• 6.2.8 Firstly turning towards Environment Policy 14 which seeks that Agricultural Land which is zoned as Class 1 or 2 should be preserved and kept for agricultural purposes only. The site in question is situated within a Class 1/2 Area, of which the proposed site and surrounding area is the only land within this classification upon the whole Island. As such the need to override this policy must be high.
• 6.2.9 When the Area Plan for the South became a statutory document, a decision was made to zone a large area beside the existing graveyard as a proposed graveyard for future expansion of the site. The Agricultural Soils of the Isle of Man document (dated 2001) and the information upon the Character Appraisal would have been looked at when deciding upon extending the graveyard. As such is it acceptable to assume that the loss of some of the Class 1/2 land was deemed acceptable. Otherwise there would be no proposed graveyard.

• 6.2.10 It can then be deemed that whilst the proposal would be against Environment Policy 14, it is deemed acceptable as its removal would have been deemed acceptable at the time of the Area Plan for the South. The proposal within this application is also a smaller site that the proposed graveyard site.
• 6.2.11 Turning towards the land zoning of the site, as stated at the beginning of this assessment, the site is not designated and the proposed use would not fit within the exceptions of General Policy 3. Whilst this is the case, there is enough scope within this application and noting the previously refused application to override the land zoning of the site.
• 6.2.12 It is only sensible and pragmatic to accept that the proposed site which is zoned for the proposed graveyard is not acceptable for its land zoning with the site itself being in direct conflict with the Area Plan it was proposed within.
• 6.2.13 The inspector who assessed PA19/00143/B stated, "I recognise that no other sites in Malew are designated for development as a churchyard in the Area Plan. However, I have no reason to doubt that there are sites of inferior agricultural quality or productivity, and where a cemetery development would not have so adverse an effect on the landscape, which could be made available for the requisite development, if necessary through the use of compulsory purchase powers. As with the present appeal site, such a site may be partly or wholly within the countryside, and its development as a cemetery may entail a departure from the countryside protection policies set out in the Strategic Plan."
• 6.2.14 Whilst the above is noted from the Inspector it is only logical and desirable that an extension to the graveyard continue to be associated with the Church, rather than in a separate location. The inspector has already assumed that such a site would have to have a departure from the strategic policies, as such noting all the above, the proposed site would be the most applicable for the proposal.

- 6.3 LAYOUT / CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE

• 6.3.1 The site lies to the opposite side of Malew Church and the existing layby which will assist in the site being amalgamated with the existing site. As stated above it's unlikely from the main road that the rural nature of the overall site will be interrupted with additional gravestones and items associated with a graveyard.
• 6.3.2 The layout of the site, has more a modern feel to it, than the existing site and with the addition of the central feature will have a different feeling than the already existing graveyard. Whilst this is the case, it is noted that what was previously acceptable, graves in rows might not be acceptable these days, with a site having to accommodate all users. As such from this point of view the application is acceptable.
• 6.3.3 The proposed shed whilst not something which would be seen on such a site is acceptable as it's noted that the site will need to be maintained and having maintenance items on site is required.
• 6.3.4 Overall the character and appearance of the site is acceptable, with conditions regarding the central feature and the landscaping of the area.

- 6.4 OTHER MATTERS

• 6.4.1 It should be noted that if this application is approved, the site within the Area Plan for the South as a proposed graveyard will still be available and at any time there is potential that a new application will be received, especially within the next 10-15 years that the proposed space is supposed to accommodate.

• 6.4.2 With any application, the previous history of the site and the overall streetscene will be accounted for and such an application will be assessed on its own merits. The potential of receiving a new application for the site should not prejudice this application.

CONCLUSION

7.1 Overall, the site whilst it's not designated for development and is a site with class 1/2 soil, the site is ultimately the best place for an extension of the graveyard at this time, accounting for the conflict within the Area Plan and the past history of the site. As such the application is recommended for approval. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 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. 8.2 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

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

Decision Made : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 08.08.2022

Signed : V PORTER 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.