DEC Officer Report

Applicant: Mr & Mrs David Pearce Proposal Approval in principle for proposed residential development, addressing means of access and number of plots Site Address The Auburns 19 Lezayre Road Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 2LP Case Officer : Mr Paul Visigah Site Visit: Expected Decision Level Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation 20.09.2023 Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that appropriate mitigation measures could be implemented on site to safeguard the occupants of the four dwellings proposed within the scheme from future flood occurrence in accordance with the requirements set out in Appendix 4 of the Strategic Plan and as required by Environment Policy 10. - R 2. It has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the proposal would not result in unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or offsite, for future occupants of the proposed dwellings, and that the development would not increase flood vulnerabilities and intensity of flooding in the area. Therefore, the scheme is considered to fail the requirements of Environment Policy 13. - R 3. Due to the overall layout of the site, positioning of the buildings and the spaces around them, coupled with the volume of hardstanding areas to be created on site, it is considered that the proposal would result in significant loss of an established green corridor which has public amenity value and contributes to the character of the site and locality. The removal of large sections of the garden area and its replacement with about 526sqm of hardstanding areas (impermeable parking areas and dwellings) would considerably deplete the green corridor with potential to further decrease the available green corridor, resulting in deleterious impacts on the character and appearance of the area and the context of this part of Ramsey, and a loss of a sense of place for the immediate locality, thus failing to comply with Policy R/R/P3 of the Ramsey Local Plan, and Environment Policy 42, General Policy 2 (b, c, & g), and Strategic Policy 4(b & c) of the Strategic Plan.

_______________________________________________________________ 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:

DOI Flood Risk Management Manx Utilities Authority Drainage Manx National Heritage

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

Clairmont, 17 Lezayre Road, Ramsey, as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status.

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):

The Oaks, Lezayre Road, Ramsey; and Abbeystead, 2 Auburn Place, Lezayre Road, Ramsey

as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.

________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE PRINCIPAL PLANNER

0.0 PREMABLE - 0.1 This application was refused by the Planning Committee on 2nd October 2023. Subsequent to the meeting and prior to the issue of the decision notice, it became apparent that an additional consultation from the Ramsey Commissioners, which had been received prior to the public sitting was not assessed by the Case Officer or presented to the Committee. The consultation comments had not been included in the original officer report as it had been submitted after the report was concluded.

• 0.1.1 Therefore the application was brought back to Committee in the interest of due diligence.

0.0 PREAMBLE - 0.1 This application was originally on the agenda for 22nd May 2023 and was deferred at the applicant's request to enable them provide further flood related information. Since then, additional information has been received, and the report has been amended to reflect the additional details provided, with the assessment also amended to capture the new information.

- 1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The application site is the curtilage of the 'The Auburns', 19 Lezayre Road, Ramsey which is a large two storey detached property with a large garden located on the southern side

• of Lezayre Road, and situated about 113m from the junction connecting Lezayre Road, Bowring Road, Parliament Street and Parliament Square. The southern boundary of the site directly abuts the The Litney Stream which runs along the entire stretch of the southern boundary.
• 1.2 Within the rear garden of the site sits an L-shaped two storey stone outbuilding which is situated at the rear of the main dwelling. This building is covered almost entirely in overgrown shrubs which now screens large sections of the outbuilding and contributes to the variety of biota on site.
• 1.3 Large parts of the rear garden boundary is covered in mature landscaping comprising trees and shrubs which mostly encloses the rear of the property. The ground level within the garden rises towards the boundary forming raised embankments on the boundary with the stream and the western boundary of the garden, with level differences between the embankments and garden site level set at between 400 to 600mm.

- 2.0 PROPOSAL

2.1 The application seeks approval in principle for proposed residential development, addressing means of access and number of plots. - 2.2 The application comprises an indicative site plan which shows the building footprint of the four detached dwellings proposed for the site, including hardstanding areas for parking of vehicles and driveway serving the properties and existing dwelling at 'The Auburns'. It is also indicated that all the new dwellings would be two storey dwellings (no height or window positions indicated). - 2.3 This plan shows that each of the dwellings would have an indicative footprint measuring

• 6.5m x 9m (58.5sqm), with driveway and parking areas within the proposed garden area measuring about 288.6sqm.

2.4 It is indicated on the plan that the trees on the western and eastern boundaries would be retained to serve as natural screens between the proposed dwellings and the neighbouring properties. It is also indicated on the plans that there would be 8 off street parking spaces (two serving each dwelling), with turning areas also provided. As well, the indicative layout shows areas that would serve as private gardens for each of the dwellings and the position of hedges that would serve to define the garden boundaries. - 2.5 The indicative site layout shows the proposed changes to increase the width of the vehicular access serving the existing and proposed dwellings and the position of bin storage areas by the vehicular access for collection days. - 2.6 It has been indicated that the existing stone barn/outbuilding is to be demolished. - 2.7 The application is supported by a Planning Statement which details approaches to manage surface water and foul water discharge including discharging into soakaway or into adjacent water body. This statement refers to the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and details how flood risk for occupants of the proposed dwellings would be managed. The statement also addresses acceptability of the principle of the proposed development, access issues, biodiversity concerns, and tree protection. - 2.8 The Flood Risk Assessment prepared by Structural Engineering Services Ltd and dated September 2022, submitted in support of the application concludes by stating the following:

• 2.8.1 Current Flood Information

• o A predicted flood level to AOD (above ordnance datum) for this site has been requested from the Isle of Man Government, Flood Management Division. At the date of issuing the report a response to the request was still outstanding.

• o An AOD flood level would enable the depth of water across the site to be assessed and a ground floor level of the property to be set in order to minimise any flood risk.
• o It is anticipated that the ground floor would be set with a 600mm freeboard above a predicted flood level.

• 2.8.2 Proposed Property Construction

• o The finished ground floor level will be constructed 600mm above the predicted flood level.
• o Assuming the flood level is 600mm or less then the following will be adopted to exclude the water from the property:-

• - The foundations and ground floor of the property will be constructed in a robust material, such as ground bearing reinforced concrete. Other construction materials such as insulation or metal products will be of a type suitable for prolonged ground water contact. This type of floor does not require airbricks for ventilation eliminating a water entry route.
• - The ground floor walls will be built from masonry, with a low absorption rate, of a type suitable for immersion under water. An example would be an engineering brick commonly used in the construction of infrastructure. Wall insulation will be a closed cell type which is not impacted by water.
• - The door openings from ground floor to the outside will be protected with flood resilient doors specifically designed to resist the predicted flood height.
• - Services entering the property, such as Telecom, Electricity, Oil, Gas and Water will be terminated above the proposed ground floor level to agreed details with each of the providers. Each service entry will be detailed as a waterproof entry and distributed from 1st floor level down to the ground floor.

• Should the risk of the flood water level be higher than 600mm then the following additional precautions will be adopted assuming that water may enter the properties:-

• - Ground floor finishes would be tiled, with wash down drain points installed.
• - Kitchen floor cabinets and furniture would not be the fitted type.
• - The use of wood and plaster finishes would be substituted and the use of flood resilient alternatives would be used.
• - Electrical sockets would be located above flood water level.

2.9 The scheme is accompanied by Percolation test results prepared by Structural Engineering Services Ltd and dated 21 January 2023, which details the following:

• o With a calculated site Vp of less than 100 and no standing or infiltrating water in the test holes the site is considered suitable for surface water soakaways to be installed.
• o The area of test hole 4 drained slower than the other three test holes and it is therefore recommended that the area of test hole 4 is not utilised for soakaways.

2.10 Following the deferment of the Planning Committee determination on 22nd May 2023, the applicants have provided an updated Flood Risk Assessment prepared by Structural Engineering Services Ltd, and revised July 2023. The report has a section on conclusions which was not in the previous report.

• 2.10.1 Important elements include the following:

• a. The Auburns house will retain approximately 945sqm, while the development site will utilize the remaining 1910m2 of the site (entire site area is approximately 2855sqm).
• b. The proposal is for four 59sqm detached two storey properties with associated paths, car parking, an access road, and areas for gardens.
• c. The total developed area will be approximately 853sqm, and of that area 236sqm is for the footprint of the impermeable roofs. The proposed total roof area is equal to the previously approved roof area of the detached dwelling.

• d. River & Tidal Flooding Risk: The flood risk map indicates that for river and tidal flooding the area is classified as at high risk of flooding. The annual risk used for the model is 1 in 100 year river flooding, with 20% of peak flow added to account for climate change.
• e. Surface Water Flooding Risk: The flood risk map indicates that for surface water flooding the area is classified as having a high likelihood of flooding during one of a 3%, 1% and less than 1% annual events.

• 2.10.2 The report suggest that the risk of water entering the property will be low, and recommends the following measures as mitigation for potential flood impacts:

• a. Ground floor finishes and skirting should be tiled.
• b. Discrete drain gully for washing down should be installed, again with none return valves fitted.
• c. Kitchen floor cabinets and furniture should be the loose none fitted type.
• d. The use of wood and plaster finishes in the ground floor areas below 1m should be substituted with flood resilient alternatives.
• e. Electrical sockets, boilers etc. should be located above flood water level.

• 2.10.3 The Report concludes by stating the following:

"5.1 This report has been amended from the original September 2022 to incorporate the estimated 1:100 year plus climate change flood level of 5.37m (AOD) provided by the Flood Management Division.

5.2 Flood Management Division flood risk mapping indicated the site is High Risk of river and tidal flooding. - 5.3 The development is a brownfield site due to buildings located on the site and has therefore been considered as suitable for redevelopment. - 5.4 The development proposal is for four two storey houses and associated parking, with a building footprint larger than the existing stone barn but similar to the footprint of a bungalow with a previous planning approval for the site. - 5.5 The ground has been tested for percolation values and was found to comply with the requirements of the Building Regulations, reducing the proposed surface water discharge from the site. - 5.6 Foul water mains drainage is available to the site. - 5.7 Ground floor levels of 5.97m (AOD) plus 600mm above the highest estimate flood level has been considered as impractical due to the raised building high impacting on planning, neighbouring properties and the requirements for disability access. - 5.8 The report recommends a compromise of setting the ground floor levels at the estimated maximum flood depth of 5.37m (AOD). The design of the buildings will be to mitigate for the reduced risk that water may possibly enter the buildings. This design option minimises the height of the building, reduces the impact on neighbours and enables reasonable access ramp lengths to be achieved. - 5.9 By building at the maximum estimated flood depth and utilising flood resilient construction and warning measures, there is a low risk of flood water entering the building or a need for evacuation. We have discussed further measures that could be utilised to reduce risk further."

- 3.0 PLANNING POLICY

5.1 The site is located within an area designated as 'Predominantly Residential Use' under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Ramsey Local Plan) (No. 2) Order 1998, and the site is not within a Conservation Area. There is a registered tree on site, although the site is not within a Registered tree Area. The site is prone to high surface, river and tidal flood risk, with the proposed development area completely enveloped in the high flood risk zone.

3.2 The Ramsey Local Plan Written Statement (Planning Circular 2/99), has the following policies that are specifically relevant to the current site:

• 3.2.1 "Policy R/R/P3: Infill/Backland Sites

• Within areas zoned for Predominantly Residential Use there will be a general presumption against the development of those sites which provide attractive natural "breathing" spaces between established residential buildings. These sites will often include trees, mature landscaping, or simply green space. Any possible development of such sites should form the subject of consultation with the Office of Planning prior to submission of any application".
• 3.2.2 "Policy R/E/P3 Backland Development and Development in Grounds of Houses

7.20 There shall be a general presumption against backland development and development within grounds of large houses on those sites which are well landscaped within ample tree coverage".

3.3 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan contains the policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:

• 3.3.1 Strategic Policy 1 states: "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 re-using scarce indigenous building materials;
• (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards; and
• (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."

• 3.3.2 General Policy 2 states: "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:

• (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;

• 3.3.3 Housing Policy 4 states: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:

• (a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10;
• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and
• (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14."

• 3.3.4 Housing Policy 6 states:

• "Development of land which is zoned for residential development must be undertaken in accordance with the brief in the relevant area plan, or, in the absence of a brief, in accordance with the criteria in paragraph 6.2 of this Plan. Briefs will encourage good and innovative design, and will not be needlessly prescriptive."
• 3.3.5 "Environment Policy 42 states: 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."
• 3.3.6 Strategic Policy 3 (In part): Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by:

• (b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character.

• 3.3.7 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.

• 3.3.8 Transport Policy 7: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. Typical Residential:

2 spaces per unit, at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling."

• 3.3.9 Transport Policy 1: New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes.
• 3.3.10 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

• 3.3.11 Environment Policy 10: "Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission. The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4."

• 3.3.11.1 Paragraph A.4.3 "The following plans must be included with the assessment:

• (a) A location plan at an appropriate scale that includes geographical features, and identifies all watercourses or other bodies of water in the vicinity, including drainage outfalls.
• (b) An appropriately scaled contoured plan indicating existing levels and levels following development.

• (c) A plan showing existing flood alleviation measures in the vicinity of the site together with details of their condition and performance.
• (d) A plan of the site showing any existing information on extent and depth of flood events or on flood predictions. Additional information provided can be anecdotal or photographic, and can include survey results or model estimates. Any changes which have taken place since the last event should be identified.
• (e) A plan of any structures which may influence local hydraulics, including bridges, pipes/ducts crossing the water course, culverts, screens, embankments or walls, overgrown or collapsing channels and the likelihood of their becoming blocked by debris.
• (f) A cross-section of the site indicating finished floor levels or road levels or other relevant levels relative to the source of flooding and to anticipated water levels and associated probabilities.

• 3.3.11.2 Paragraph A.4.4: Other information "The following additional information may also be required:

• (a) The probabilities and any observed trends and the extent and depth of floods for the location and, if appropriate, routes and speed of water flow. The effect of climate change on such probabilities should be examined.
• (b) The likely rate or speed with which flooding might occur, the order in which various parts of the location or site might flood, the likely duration of flood events and the economic, social and environmental consequences of flooding.
• (c) The hydraulics of any drain or sewers existing or proposed on the site (during flood events).
• (d) An estimate of the volume of water which would be displaced from the site for various flood level following development of the site.
• (e) The potential impact of any displaced water on neighbouring or other locations which might be affected subsequent to development.
• (f) The potential impact of any development on fluvial or coastal morphology and the likely longer-term stability and sustainability.

• 3.3.11.3 Paragraph A.4.5: Mitigation Measures Details of flood defence arrangements proposed must be provided and also an assessment of their behaviour in extreme events.

A.4.5.1 Any work on a watercourse, stream or a designated main river (and normally including the banks for a distance of 9m either side) requires the permission of the Department of Transport's Land Drainage Engineer in accordance with the Land Drainage Acts 1934."

• 3.3.12 Environment Policy 13: Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted.
• 3.3.13 Section 7.12: Areas Subject to Flooding and Erosion "7.12.2 The Isle of Man does not have a full survey identifying all areas which may be at risk from flooding. However, there are areas which are at potential risk from flooding and this includes areas which have flooded in the past. The Strategic Plan seeks to prevent the loss of natural flood plain and to guide development away from areas at risk of flooding. Where development is permitted for special or exceptional reasons, then appropriate flood protection and mitigation measures must be taken to safeguard life and property."
• 3.3.14 Environment Policies 4 and 5 seek to protect the ecology of sites and important habitats.
• 3.3.15 Strategic Policy 4: Proposals for development must:

• (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.

3.4 Other policies within the Strategic Plan which are considered relevant in the assessment of the proposal are;

• 3.4.1 Community Policy 10: Proposals for the layout and development of land will be permitted only where there is provided proper access for fire-fighting vehicles and adequate supplies of water for fire-fighting purposes.

• 3.4.2 Community Policy 11: The design and use of all new buildings and of extensions to existing buildings must, as far as is reasonable and practicable, pay due regard to best practice such as to prevent the outbreak and spread of fire.
• 3.4.3 Infrastructure Policy 5: Development proposals should incorporate methods for water conservation and management measures to conserve the Island's water resources.
• 3.4.4 "Backland development" (which is development on the land at the back of properties) may also be acceptable in some circumstances, but only if satisfactory access can be achieved and if there is sufficient space to provide adequate amenity for both new and existing adjoining dwellings.

- 4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

- 4.1 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDE (2021)

• 4.1.1 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." Section 3.1 refers to local distinctiveness, 6.3 relates specifically to driveways and front gardens, and 7.0 deals with Impact on neighbouring properties are particularly relevant.

- 4.2 IOM BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY 2015 TO 2025

4.2.1 The strategic aims (In part):

• o Managing biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats.
• o Maintaining, restoring and enhancing native biodiversity, where necessary.

• 4.2.2 Habitat loss actions "21. DEFA will continue 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."
• 5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications and it is considered that the following are specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:

5.2 PA 03/00669/A for Approval in principle for erection of dwelling and garage. This was approved in August 2003. A 12 month extension of time period was approved under PCM11.1/27/5/05.

5.3 PA 06/01369/REM for Reserved matters application for the erection of a detached dwelling with garage and alterations to existing vehicular access. This was approved on 30 October 2006 but has now lapsed. It proposed a detached single storey dwelling with footprint measuring about 258sqm. Also, the existing barn was to be retained on site.

5.4 PA 07/01058/B for Alterations to and conversion of outbuilding to a dwelling. This application was approved by the Planning Committee in September 2007. The application proposed alterations to and conversion of outbuilding to a dwelling. The existing two storey aspect of the barn was to be retained and converted to a dwelling house, while the single

storey garage extension was proposed to be demolished and replaced with a single/two storey extension.

5.5 PA 19/00778/B for conversion and extension to building to create a residential dwelling. This was approved in October 2019 and will lapse in October this year (2023). The proposal is a resubmission of similar scheme approved in 2007 under PA 07/01058/B, which has now lapsed. - 5.6 There is an extant application for proposed variation of condition of approval No 1 to P.A. 19/00778/B, for an extension of time, proposed conversion and extension to outbuilding to create a residential dwelling. This application has not yet been determined, although its outcome would serve to determine the potential retention or removal of the existing barn on the current application site.

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

6.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that the proposal raises no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues. Accordingly, Highway Services Development Control raises no opposition to the proposal subject to all access arrangements, including visibility splays, according with drawing No. 22 1631 02 Rev A and 22 1631 04 Rev A (13 December 2022).

6.2 DOI Flood Risk Management have made the following comments regarding the application (31 October 2022):

• o The proposed building is in a tidal and fluvial flooding zone.
• o The Litney Stream which runs along the edge of the property can suffer from hydraulic block during high tides which caused flooding over this property.

• 6.2.1 Following review of the Revised Flood Risk Assessment, the DOI Flood Risk Management Team have made the following comments in their correspondence with the applicant dated 1 September 2023:

• i. The FMD of the DOI only make comments to the Planning Department but the decision is made through the planning process. The Planners consider our comments and this must be weighed up with all other comments they receive.
• ii. They note that some of the applications they have objected to get approval and give an example of such approvals such as the barn conversion at the application site.
• iii. They note other applications that have been referred to by the applicants previously and provide an overview of the site conditions (in terms of flood vulnerability), and refer to planning decisions on these applications.
• iv. They state that in the case of the current application, they are objecting to the development because it is new development on previously un-development land in high risk tidal and fluvial flood zone.
• v. They state that they want to reduce further development in highly vulnerable flood areas especially those where there has been no development, whilst stating that they however have to balance this where they have had existing development in a flood zone.
• vi. They note that there are warning systems for tidal flooding which can give up to two days' notice before a flood, but that there is no warning system for fluvial flooding and it is unlikely that they will have these due to the quick response of our fluvial systems.
• vii. They state that for development in tidal flood zones you do not have to accommodate loss of flood plain where you do for fluvial as well looking at how the proposed property will affect flows paths and whether it would increase risk of flooding to others, and state that the only way to do this is to model the area.
• viii. They state that this has not been undertaken for the application site.

• ix. They note that currently there is Flood Planning Policy and state that we must rely on the current strategic plan, whilst referring to General Policy 2, Environment Policies 10,11 and 13, and Paragraph 7.12.2 of the strategic plan.

6.3 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team have made the following comments regarding the application (18 November 2022):

• o They note that a lot of work has already taken place with the interior of the site almost entirely denuded of vegetation, and as such believe that ecological consideration is currently lacking with this application.
• o They note that although the trees marked within the tree survey plan to be removed are category U ash trees suffering from dieback, they do not necessarily all have to be removed and recommend that some are retained as standing dead wood or removed in stages.
• o They state that these urban trees will be supporting a wide variety of biodiversity including roosting, feeding and commuting bats, breeding and feeding birds, invertebrates and
• other wildlife and note that the loss of even a few could be particularly important in this built-up environment.
• o They note that no mitigation proposals, including plans for replacement planting, have been provided and therefore request that a condition is secured for a landscaping plan to be provided at the detailed application stage.
• o They highlight the potential for legally protected roosting bats and nesting birds in the barn to be demolished and the potential for bats and their roost spaces and birds and their nest spaces, to be destroyed by the demolition, and recommend that a survey for bats and birds is undertaken by a suitable qualified ecological consultancy prior to the detailed application stage, so that, if bats or birds are found, suitable mitigation measures can be incorporated into the new buildings.
• o They state that although they have no previous records of bats in this location, there is still potential for them to be present, as the age and construction of the building makes this more likely.
• o They note that there could be nesting birds within the ivy on the outside of the
• outbuildings and recommend that this should be retained in place for the bat and bird assessment, but state that if it is to be removed then it should not be undertaken in the bird nesting season (March - August inclusive).

6.4 DEFA Fisheries have made the following comments regarding the application (23 November 2022):

• o They note that the proposed works are in close proximity to a watercourse with known fish populations including trout and eels, and advise that precautions will be needed to reduce the possibility of harmful materials such as concrete or washings entering the river.
• o They state that they no objection to this proposal providing the following conditions are met;

• - Any works to the watercourse bank and channel are restricted to the period July to September (inclusive).
• - Works are conducted according to written method statements agreed in advance with the Inland Fisheries Section of the Fisheries Directorate, DEFA.
• - Efforts towards ensuring that either a soakaway or an interceptor is connected to the surface water drain (just before entering the water course) would be advantageous in the protection of this fishery.

• o The applicant is advised to contact DEFA Fisheries (tel. 685857, or email [email protected]) to discuss method statements and arrange an initial advisory site visit, should the proposal be granted planning approval.

6.5 Manx National Heritage have made the following comments on the application (17 November 2022):

• o They note that there are a number of records of pipistrelle bats in the vicinity of the property and recommend that a bat survey be carried out before works are undertaken to the barn in order to avoid disturbing roosting bats.
• o They state that the results of such a survey should be based on The Bat Conservation Trusts (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists-3rd Edition.

6.6 Manx Utilities Drainage have confirmed that the percolation test submitted by the applicant is acceptable, which indicates support for the proposal (09 February 2023). - 6.7 Ramsey Commissioners object to the application on the following grounds (17 November 2022/23 January 2023):

• o The proposal, by reason of its siting, layout, scale, form, design and the space around the buildings adversely affects the character of the site and surroundings and the local townscape in general, contrary to General Policy 2(b) and 2(c), of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• o The proposed building does not take account of particular character and identity, in terms of buildings of the immediate locality. Inappropriate back land 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.
• o Whilst the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 takes precedence over the Local Plan 1998, the Local Plan is still valid and therefore Policy R/R/P3 of the Ramsey Local Plan still applies. This states 'Within areas zoned for predominantly residential use there will be a general presumption against development of those sites which provide attractive, natural 'breathing' spaces between established residential buildings. These sites will often include trees, mature landscaping or simply green space'.

• 6.7.1 In response to the comments made by the Ramsey Commissioners, the applicants have stated the following in their statement dated 23 November 2022:

• o They support the position that the Ramsey Local Plan remains a material consideration and note that the Strategic Plan clarifies the status of various statements of planning policy at paragraph 1.4.3.
• o They state that Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan addresses the issue of backland development which has been raised by the Commissioners.
• o They submit that there is no inconsistency in R/R/P3 of the Local Plan and EP42 of the Strategic Plan and that they are both trying to achieve the same thing: the protection of undeveloped urban areas which contribute positively in visual or ecological terms.
• o They note that the site is not identified in the Ramsey Local Plan or the emerging draft Area Plan for the North and West as a site where development should be precluded although
• other sites have been so identified including some which are part of the gardens of existing residential properties.
• o They note that the local plan the Local Plan Policy presumes against the loss of "those sites which provide attractive, natural "breathing" spaces between established residential buildings" and that it also suggests that "these sites will often include trees, mature landscaping
• or simply green space". However, they submit that the site does not represent a space which is any of these things and that it is an unused back garden area which is not publicly visible and has no particular ecological value other than part of a wider area used by pipistrelle bats and whose potential interest in the site is, acknowledged in the comments made on this application by Manx National Heritage, due to the existing stone outbuilding whose demolition is not controlled by the planning process, not by any inherent value of the site itself.
• o They state that the site is not viewed by anyone other than those within the site or adjacent to in in private dwellings with existing vegetation along the boundaries preventing a

• clear view into the site other than from adjacent buildings which are higher. It is also relevant, as shown on the submitted plans, that historical planning approvals have accepted the development of this site with significant areas of the site being built upon or occupied by existing and former buildings. The approval of these applications did not consider the site to be
• of such value as to presume against their approval and the Ramsey Local Plan was adopted at those times.

• o They state that the retention of The Auburns together with the large tree at the front of the site will almost completely screen any view of the rear of The Auburns with almost no visual impact from any development there, on the character or appearance of the area.
• o They state that since the adoption of the Strategic Plan, after the adoption of the Ramsey Local Plan, there has been a greater emphasis on sustainable development and the
• optimisation of sites within existing settlements, and submit that the proposed development supports the sustainable principles encapsulated in the Strategic Plan and should not be rejected on the basis that it conflicts with either R/R/P3 or EP 42.

6.8 The owners/occupiers of the following properties have written in to object to the application:

• a. The Oaks, Lezayre Road, Ramsey (18 November 2022): o They request that they be included as interested party to proceedings as their garden is adjacent to the proposed development.
• b. Clairmont, 17 Lezayre Road, Ramsey (23 November 2022): o They refer to potential impacts of vibrations from vehicular traffic on their property. o They refer to structural impacts of construction traffic on their property.
• c. Abbeystead, 2 Auburn Place, Lezayre Road, Ramsey (7 December 2022): o They wish to be registered as an interested person in relation to the proposed development due to the fact that they live directly across the road from the application site.

- 7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The fundamental issues to be considered in the assessment of the current application are:

• a. Principle of developing the site for the proposed use;
• b. The potential visual impact on the site and street scene;
• c. Impacts on Parking and Highway Safety;
• d. The potential impact on neighbouring properties;
• e. Ecological Impacts; and
• f. Flooding concerns

7.2 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT (STP 1, SP2, HP4, HP 6, & Policies R/R/P3 & Policy R/E/P3 of the Ramsey Local Plan)

• 7.2.1 In assessing the principle of the proposed residential use of the site, it is considered that the site is zoned for residential use which implies that the use of the site for residential purposes would be compatible with adjoining uses and conform to the general use of the area. This, however, does not in any way denote automatic approval for residential use of the site, given that the development of the site would have to be appropriate for the existing site character, character of locality and not result in adverse impacts on other attributes of the site, such as biodiversity, access and highway issues, drainage, flood potential and/or neighbouring amenity.

• 7.2.2 Whilst the planning application seeks approval in principle, it does include details of access and siting of the buildings, as well as details to determine potential flood impacts, which are to be considered at this stage. Additionally, the application does include an indicative site plan showing parking and landscaping, which is taken to reasonably represent the form of

• development that would be required to achieve the proposed level of residential development. As such, the assessment of the planning application would be made using the indicative site plan as a reasonable reference point.
• 7.2.3 It is vital to note that the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 stipulates that a total of 770 new dwellings are required to be provided between the years of 2011 to 2026 in the North of the Island. Ramsey is also regarded as one of the service centres to provide regeneration and choice of location for housing under Spatial Policy 2; and this is supported by Spatial Policy 3 which states that "Housing should be provided to meet local needs and in appropriate cases to broaden the choice of location of housing". While this does not signify a presumption in favour for all forms of housing development, it points to the fact the proposal would generally accord with the Strategic Plan goals for new housing in the north. Therefore, in terms of the acceptability of the use of the site for residential development it is concluded that the proposal basically accords with the goals of Strategic Policy 1 and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• 7.2.4 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that as the application aligns with the zoning of the area within the Ramsey Local Plan, the development of the site for residential purposes would be 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 4 dwellings proposed for the site is appropriate, and if the extant site conditions would allow the proposed development. Therefore, it still remains necessary to assess the proposed development against other relevant planning policies and the physical constraints of the application site.

- 7.3 VISUAL IMPACT ON THE SITE AND STREET SCENE (GP 2, STP 3, EP 42 & RDG 2021)

• 7.3.1 In terms of the size (footprint) of the dwellings and relationship with the spaces between the buildings which serve to define the character of the area, it is considered that the density of the development would be within acceptable limits for the immediate vicinity given the varied levels of site density and site coverage in the locality.
• 7.3.2 Notwithstanding the above, the plot coverage for the entire site area, which gives an indication of the relationship between the built form and site area is set at 35.6% which is considerably higher than the existing situation with the barn on site. This however, does not factor in distances between buildings or the landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them. Additionally, the development would remove a significant portions of a vital garden area which contributes to the character of the area and serves to define the sense of place for the area. Although the definition of the sense of place is relative (as it is intricately liked to the inherent values and perceptions individuals hold about a spatial setting), although the garden area forms a continuation of the green corridor at the rear of the buildings on Lezayre Road, Brookfield Avenue, and Fairfield Avenue and as such serve to define the character of the area even though it is not publicly viewable from the adjoining highways. It should be noted that the rear garden and the neighbouring rear gardens which adjoin the stream, as well as the biota on them, contribute to the identity of the area and serve to provide ecosystem services; such as carbon sequestration, serving as soil binders, controlling flood spread in the area, and as habitat for species in the area. As such, the removal of a large section of the garden area and its replacement with about 526sqm of hardstanding area (impermeable parking areas and dwellings) would considerably deplete the amount of green space resulting in some loss of sense of place for the site, given the context of this part of the locality and the extant services the garden offers the locality.
• 7.3.3 In assessing potential impacts on the character of the street scene, it is considered that there are existing buildings and walls around the site boundary; with the proposed development area set back further into the site such that large sections of the site area would be screened from public views, particularly along Brookfield Avenue and Lezayre Road. Whilst the siting of the buildings is a matter to be considered at this stage, without details elevations, it would be

• difficult to fully assess the potential visual impacts of the development at this stage. As such, that would be a matter for consideration at the Reserved Matters stage.
• 7.3.4 Overall, it is considered that the scheme has the potential to alter considerably this part of the locality with potential for positive or detrimental impacts. However, the extent of any impacts would be better assessed under a reserved matters application where the quantum of built development would be fully assessed with impacts on site character and character of locality (which includes the benefits existing biota offer) would be fully considered and judged.

7.4 IMPACT ON HIGHWAY SAFETY (General Policy 2h & I, TP's 1, & 7, & SP 10)

• 7.4.1 In terms of impacts on highway safety, it is considered that the access alterations including visibility would be appropriate for the site and number of dwellings proposed for the site, and offer a safe access onto the existing highway and as such is acceptable.

• 7.7.2 With regard to off road parking, the dwellings would have at least 2 spaces provided within the site for each dwelling, which would meet the requirements of Transport Policy 7 as stipulated within Appendix 7 of the IOMSP. Additionally, the site is within walking distance to public transport corridors and the Ramsey Tram Station which increases the public transport options available to future occupants.
• 7.7.3 In addition, Highway Services have assessed the proposal and find it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking.
• 7.7.4 Therefore, it is considered that this element of the scheme complies with the requirements of the aforementioned policies.
• 7.5 THE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES (GP 2 & RDG 2021)

7.5.1 In terms of the potential impact upon neighbouring properties it is considered that the site directly adjoins three neighbouring properties; Clairmont 17 Lezayre Road to the east, The Oaks, Lezayre Road to the west, and Cheshire Mews, Fairfield Avenue to the west and southwest, with the some of the proposed dwellings situated within 14m of some of the neighbours. However, given that the building heights, nature of built form or quantum of built development, and the position of fenestrations are not included in the current scheme, it would be difficult to ascertain true impacts on neighbours. As such, impacts on neighbours would be better assessed under a reserve matters application.

- 7.6 IMPACTS OF BIODIVERSITY (GP2, EP4 & EP5)

7.6.1 In terms of potential impacts on site ecology and protected species resulting from the proposed development, it is considered that the demolition of the existing barn on site to facilitate the new development holds potential to result in impacts on site biodiversity. Whilst the applicants have noted that planning approval is not required to remove the barn, it is being removed to enable the erection of the proposed dwellings. As such, the impacts on protected species and biodiversity within the site, particularly in/on the barn which holds potential to house protected species and rare biota on site, given the prominence of overgrown shrubs on most of its external elevations must be carefully considered in decisions that relate to the impacts on the site ecology.

• 7.6.2 It should be noted that the Isle of Man Biodiversity Strategy seeks 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. In this case, the scheme would result in the removal of habitats within the site, with the proposal not detailing measures that would serve to reintegrate the displaced biota on site. As such, it is not considered that there is sufficient information to ascertain the real impacts, extent or severity of any impacts resulting from the proposal on biodiversity within the site and area.

- 7.7 FLOOD CONCERNS (EP 10, EP 13 & GP 2)

• 7.7.1 With regard to flood impacts, it is considered that the site is in a high flood risk area for surface, river and tidal flooding which increases the flood vulnerabilities for future occupants of the proposed dwellings. The proposed site area is also the lowest part of the application site and serves as the main collector of flood water that discharges onto the site, and as such is more susceptible to flood impact for both regular and severe flood occurrences. Furthermore, this part of the site being undeveloped and largely existing as a garden area holds the potential to serve as flow paths for flood water and the proposed dwellings and associated hardstanding areas, and the future ancillary residential structures hold the potential to adversely affect these flows paths on site.

• 7.7.2 Granting the site is served by an embankment on the southern boundary which should serve to mitigate flood water ingress from the adjoining stream, this embankment is only 1.28m higher than the normal stream level. Thus, it is not considered that the embankment would offer sufficient protection if floods occur during high tides or if the river is over recharged by flash floods from the surrounding area or river overflows, given that the embankment would be set lower than the predicted maximum flood level of 5.37m (AOD) for the site.

• 7.7.3 It is also considered that the scheme proposes to install a soakaway to manage surface water runoff on site. Whilst this is a welcomed addition to the proposal, the Flood Risk Assessment provided with the scheme does not include details on extent of flood events or possible flood predictions for the site, changes which have taken place along the stream course since the last flood event, details of any structures which may influence local hydraulics (resulting in the stream being blocked during severed floods or facilitating flow of flood waters). Besides, the percolation test results indicate that part of the site area does not drain properly, which indicates that there is potential for waterlogging (on parts of the application site) if heavy rainfall or flash floods occur, and if the stream overflows its banks. As such, it is not considered from the information available that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the installation of a soakaway would be sufficient to manage surface water runoff on site, considering there are three main sources of flood concerns for the site - surface, river (fluvial) and tidal.
• 7.7.4 Additionally, it is clear from the Flood Risk Assessment that the ground floor levels of the proposed dwellings cannot be set at 5.97m (AOD) plus 600mm above the highest estimate flood level, as this has been considered to be impractical since raising the height of the building will adversely impact on neighbouring properties, and the requirements for disability access. As such, it is not considered that the existing site situations in terms of flood vulnerabilities, and the relationship with neighbours, as well as the need to provide appropriate facilities for future occupants would allow for appropriate mitigation that would serve to diminish vulnerabilities to be achievable. As such, it is not considered that appropriate flood mitigation measures would can be achieved at the site.
• 7.7.5 Whilst the submission of a Revised Flood Risk Assessment which provides updates on the predicted flood level for Ramsey is acknowledged, the Flood Risk Assessment is almost identical to the previously submitted FRA as it still lacks relevant details which are detailed within Appendix 4 of the Strategic Plan, and would be relevant in the current case given the significantly high potential for flood occurrence and increased vulnerabilities for the site, such as: "Paragraph A.4.3 (Must be included)

• (c) A plan showing existing flood alleviation measures in the vicinity of the site together with details of their condition and performance.
• (d) A plan of the site showing any existing information on extent and depth of flood events or on flood predictions.
• (e) A plan of any structures which may influence local hydraulics, including bridges, pipes/ducts crossing the water course, culverts, screens, embankments or walls, overgrown or collapsing channels and the likelihood of their becoming blocked by debris.

• (f) A cross-section of the site indicating finished floor levels or road levels or other relevant levels relative to the source of flooding and to anticipated water levels and associated probabilities. Paragraph A.4.4: Other information

• (a) The probabilities and any observed trends and the extent and depth of floods for the location and, if appropriate, routes and speed of water flow. The effect of climate change on such probabilities should be examined.
• (b) The likely rate or speed with which flooding might occur, the order in which various parts of the location or site might flood, the likely duration of flood events and the economic, social and environmental consequences of flooding.
• (c) The hydraulics of any drain or sewers existing or proposed on the site (during flood events).
• (d) An estimate of the volume of water which would be displaced from the site for various flood level following development of the site.
• (e) The potential impact of any displaced water on neighbouring or other locations which might be affected subsequent to development.
• (f) The potential impact of any development on fluvial or coastal morphology and the likely longer-term stability and sustainability." As such, it is considered that there is still a dearth of flood information within the submitted flood risk assessment to effectively assess the potential impacts and risks to future occupiers of the dwellings proposed for the site and neighbouring properties.

• 7.7.6 Furthermore, Paragraph 7.12.2 is clear that the Strategic Plan seeks to prevent the loss of natural flood plain and to guide development away from areas at risk of flooding, and notes that development in areas that have high vulnerability to flood risks would only be permitted for special or exceptional reasons, whilst stating that appropriate flood protection and mitigation measures must be taken to safeguard life and property. In the case of the current application, it would be difficult to argue that this scheme represents a special or exceptional development which should be allowed under special circumstances. Equally, the argument for the development as a representation of brownfield sites would not pass for the application site which is essentially a large functional residential property with an unused barn situated within its large garden. Moreover, the site has not been identified as a brownfield site which are to be the subject of phased release for future housing in the Area Plans, as detailed within Paragraphs 13.1 to 13.3 of the Strategic Plan, which should afford it the status of a strategic site or site with exceptional potential for residential development. In fact, the current flood vulnerabilities for the site are clear pointers to why the site would not be suitable for the proposed scale and volume of residential development.
• 7.7.7 The comments made by DOI Flood Risk Management are also vital for consideration as they note that the Litney Stream which runs along the edge of the property can suffer from hydraulic block during high tides; a condition that would serve to exacerbate any impacts from flooding and require intricate flood mitigation measures, which the prevailing site characteristics and nature of immediate vicinity would greatly impede. For clarity, Hydraulic block is a commonly occurring phenomenon during floods which often results in a reduced hydraulic capacity of the structure (or channel to carry more water), increased damages to property, diversion of flow, downstream scour, failure of structures (such as embankments, sluice gates, flood barriers etc.), and risk to life.
• 7.7.8 Likewise, the DOI Flood Risk Management Comments which border on site specific and area modelling to ascertain risk to other properties also weighs against the proposal. This is hinged on the fact that the site is within a fluvial flood risk area where modelling would be required to clearly establish possible effects on flow paths and whether the new development would increase risk of flooding to others properties, as the only way to effectively assess these elements of the proposal is to model the area. As the scheme has not provided any modelling of the site, and as there is currently no modelling for the area, it is considered that there is

• insufficient information to ascertain potential flood impacts on neighbouring properties and surrounding areas, as a result of the development.
• 7.7.9 The applicants argue that the floor area of the proposed dwelling would be similar to that for the detached dwelling approved under PA 06/01369/REM in October 2006, and which had an impermeable area footprint of approximately 240sqm, which appears to imply that the impacts would be similar. However, it must be noted that the approval under PA 06/01369/REM was for a single dwelling which had a considerably smaller hard standing area when compared to that associated with the current proposal. Besides, the potential for other associated future developments within individual curtilages for the current scheme would be considerably higher than for a single dwelling. In addition, the rates of development and increase in hardstanding areas within Ramsey, which can impact flood rates and actual flood levels have considerably increased over that which was obtainable in 2006 (a period of development spanning 17 years). Moreover, the current scheme would increase the number of families within a highly vulnerable location, whilst also bringing vulnerable residents to the area (as the scheme proposes to include building disability ramps). As such, it is not considered that there are satisfactory bases to compare both schemes.
• 7.7.10 Given the factors noted above, it is not considered that the proposal would comply with the requirements of Environment Policy 10 as the submitted flood risk assessment does not meet all the requirements set out in Appendix 4 of the Strategic Plan. Also, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not result in unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or offsite, for future occupants and neighbouring properties, with the scheme considered to fail the requirements of Environment Policy 13, General Policy 2 and Paragraph 7.12.2 of the Strategic Plan.

- 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 On balance, the application is recommended for refusal as the Department is not satisfied that there is sufficient information to effectively determine the potential impacts of the development on the site and area, and future occupants of the proposed dwellings. Furthermore, it is not considered that it has been adequately demonstrated that the development would not result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, or that adequate mitigation can be provided in accordance with the requirements set out in Appendix 4 of the Strategic Plan and as required by Environment Policy 10. - 9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

9.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status

9.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

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

Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 16.10.2023

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 16.10.2023

Application No

22/01212/A

Applicant Mr & Mrs David Pearce Proposal Approval in principle for proposed residential development, addressing means of access and number of plots Site Address The Auburns 19 Lezayre Road Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 2LP Planning Officer Presenting Officer Mr Paul Visigah

As above

Addendum to the Officer Report The planning application was originally presented to Planning Committee at its meeting held on 22nd May 2023. Determination was deferred by the members in order to allow the applicants provide additional flood information.

The Planning Committee considered the application at its meeting on 2nd October 2023, and agreed with the recommendation to refuse the application on the basis of the three reasons stipulated in the Officer Report.

The Committee also accepted the officer recommendation for the review of the Interested Person Status to include The Oaks, Lezayre Road, Ramsey, as they meet the requirements stipulated in the Operational Policy on Interested Person Status.

The revised Interested Person Status would be as follows: 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: DOI Flood Risk Management Manx Utilities Authority Drainage Manx National Heritage

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

Clairmont, 17 Lezayre Road, Ramsey; The Oaks, Lezayre Road, Ramsey;

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

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):

Abbeystead, 2 Auburn Place, Lezayre Road, Ramsey, as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.