1

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999 TOWN AND COUNTRY (DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE) (No2) ORDER 2013

Agenda for a meeting of the Planning Committee, 12th August 2019, 10.00am, in

the Ground Floor Meeting Room of Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas

1. Introduction by the Chairman 2. Apologies for absence 3. Minutes To give consideration to the minutes of a meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 29th July 2019. 4. Any matters arising 5. To consider and determine Planning Applications Schedule attached as Appendix One. 6. Site Visits To agree dates for site visits if necessary. 7. Section 13 Agreements To note those applications where Section 13 Agreements have been concluded in the period 22nd July to 6th August 2019. 8. Any other business 9. Next meeting of the Planning Committee Set for 27th August 2019.

2

Appendix One PLANNING COMMITTEE Meeting, 12th August 2019

Schedule of planning applications

Item 5.1 Car Showroom Empire Garages Marine Parade Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1PA PA19/00199/B Recommendation : Refused

Demolition of showroom and related structures and erection of a three storey building to provide ground floor commercial / retail units (Use Class 1, 2 and 3) with seven apartments above with associated parking and facilities (in association with PA 19/00200/CON)

Item 5.2 Car Showroom Empire Garages Marine Parade Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1PA PA19/00200/CON Recommendation : Refused

Registered Building consent for the demolition elements relating the application 19/00199/B

Item 5.3 Garage And Premises Stanley Road Peel Isle Of Man PA19/00201/B Recommendation : Refused

Demolition of garages and related structures and erection of three storey building to provide ground floor commercial/retail unit (classes 1, 2, and 3) with seven apartments above with associated parking and facilities (in association with PA 19/00202/CON)

Item 5.4 Garage And Premises Stanley Road Peel Isle Of Man PA19/00202/CON Recommendation : Refused

Registered Building consent for the demolition elements relating the application 19/00201/B

Item 5.5 4 Garages And Car Compound Stanley Road Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1NY PA19/00203/B Recommendation : Refused

Demolition of commercial garages and related buildings and erection of 5No three storey town houses and apartment block containing twelve apartments, all with associated parking (in association with PA 19/00204/CON)

Item 5.6 4 Garages And Car Compound Stanley Road Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1NY PA19/00204/CON Recommendation : Permitted

Registered Building consent for the demolition elements relating the application 19/00203/B

Item 5.7 The Bungalow Ard Jerkyll East Foxdale Road Eairy Isle Of Man IM4 3HL PA18/01224/B Recommendation : Permitted

Creation of overflow car park for occasional use by staff and visitors

Item 5.8 Ballachrink Farm Ballanicholas Garth Crosby

Additional use of agricultural building to include plant repair business

3

Isle Of Man IM4 2HD PA19/00248/C Recommendation : Permitted

(retrospective)

Item 5.9 Church Farmhouse Great Meadow Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 4EB PA19/00658/B Recommendation : Permitted

Window / door alterations to premises and erection of side extension to provide tourist living accommodation

Item 5.10 Poylldooey House Gardeners Lane Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 2TF PA19/00661/C Recommendation : Permitted

Additional use of residential dwelling for teaching yoga/mindfulness classes with associated parking (retrospective)

4

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 12th August 2019

Item 5.1 Proposal : Demolition of showroom and related structures and erection

of a three storey building to provide ground floor commercial / retail units (Use Class 1, 2 and 3) with seven apartments above with associated parking and facilities (in association with PA 19/00200/CON)

Site Address : Car Showroom Empire Garages Marine Parade Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1PA

Applicant : Empire Garages Ltd Application No. : Principal Planner :

19/00199/B- click to view Miss S E Corlett

RECOMMENDATION: To REFUSE the application

______________________________________ Reasons and Notes for Refusal R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes (if any) attached to the reasons R 1. The building, by virtue of its height, mass and design, would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Gib Lane for the benefit of users thereof and whereby the height of the building would remove certain public views of the Castle and the sea. The development would therefore be contrary to Environment Policy 35 and General Policy 2e of the Strategic Plan. R 2. The proposed development would not make adequate provision for car parking spaces within the building in accordance with the standards of the Strategic Plan (Appendix Seven) and there is insufficient information to demonstrate that this would not have an unacceptable impact on on-street parking and highway safety in the area. The development is therefore contrary to Transport Policy 7 and General Policy 2h of the Strategic Plan. R 3. The development does not demonstrate that it would have an acceptable impact on highway safety, through the inclusion of features within or above the public highway which are not acceptable to the highway authority and by the absence of correctly drawn visibility splays at junctions. It has not been demonstrated that there is sufficient visibility for users of the proposed garaged parking spaces for them to be used safely. The proposal is therefore contrary to Transport Policy 4 and General Policy 2h and i of the Strategic Plan. R 4. The proposal makes no provision for public open space or affordable housing. Given that the adjacent site is also owned by the applicant and is being proposed for development at the same time, and particularly as the development of site A relies upon the demolition of the buildings on site A, or at least some of them, to provide the bin store and the widening of Gib Lane, it is considered appropriate to consider the cumulative impact of the developments which would together result in sufficient housing numbers to warrant requiring both affordable housing and public open space. No provision is being made for affordable housing and whilst a commuted sum has been referred to in respect of public open space, there is nothing definitive in the application to demonstrate the impact of this. It cannot be concluded that there is sufficient provision for affordable housing or public open space. The

5

development is therefore contrary to Housing Policy 5 and Recreation Policies 3 and 4 of the Strategic Plan. R 5. The development of this site is inextricably linked to the demolition of buildings on the site on the other side of Gib Lane as the widening of the lane and the provision of bin storage is on that site where there are currently buildings. This demolition is not part of the current application and as such, the application is deficient and incapable of being implemented on its own. The demolition of the other buildings is the subject of 19/00202/CON which is recommended for refusal and the redevelopment of that site is proposed in 19/00201/B is also recommended for refusal. As such, were this current application to be approved and the buildings demolished on the other side of the lane with no redevelopment, the rear of the proposed building would be publicly visible and it is not considered that the functional design and appearance of the rear elevation would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area at this point, nor provide an acceptable visual impact, contrary to Environment Policy 35 and General Policy 2b, c and g of the Strategic Plan.

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons 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 6(4): 31, Shore Road as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). 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 6(4): 18, Castle Street 4, Duke Street 15, Circular Road (owner of a garage on Gib Lane) 30, Stanley Road 6, Stanley Mount 24, Circular Road 7, Victoria Terrace 31, Stanley Terrace 3, Stanley Road 11, Stanley Road 37, Stanley Terrace 20, Stanley Road 10, Gib Lane 5, Stanley Mount Westholme, Cannan Avenue, Kirk Michael 8, Gib Lane 13, Rockmount Road 18, Stanley Mount 5, Stanley Road 1, Victoria Terrace 22, Circular Road 21, Queen's Drive 23, Bridge Street

6

60, Patrick Street 26, Stanley Road 17, Stanley Road 22, Stanley Road 32, Stanley Road 17, Circular Road 39, Stanley Terrace 8, Stanley Road 40, Stanley Road 24, Bridge Street 5, Circular Road Thie ny Scoill, Derby Road 6, Circular Road 16, Queen's Terrace, Douglas 12, Stanley Road 14, Stanley Road 9A, Stanley Road 19, Stanley Road 14, Bridge Street 14, Stanley Mount 7, Stanley Mount The Old Chapel, Patrick Corner who rents an office in Gib Lane 16, Stanley Road 24, Stanley Road 6, Stanley Road 11, Church Street 4, Stanley Road 13, Stanley Road 9, Stanley Road Reayrt ny Keylley 25, Bridge Street 6. Oak Road Garden flat, 4, Marine Parade as these properties are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy. Many of these parties have not met the other requirements of the Operational Policy but it has not been considered necessary to further assess their submissions against these other criteria. The following parties or owners of the following properties 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. 4, Gib Lane and Tim Crookall MLC In respect of Manx National Heritage and Peel Heritage Trust, neither party owns property which is within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy. Finally, in respect of the Peel Residents' Association, as they have not provided an address, they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy.

_____________________________________________________________

7

Planning Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT THE SITE 1.1 The application site is an area of land which sits at the junction of Stanley Road and Marine Parade. The site accommodates two buildings: one a single storey car showroom and the other a single storey warehouse whose gable fronts onto Marine Parade as well as a small part of the adjacent site across Gib Lane which is Site B, the subject of concurrent applications 19/00201/B and 19/00202/CON. The car showroom is formed from a pitched roofed building which has been extended westwards with a flat roofed annex and the elevational treatment of this section, with a thick, metal, profiled cladding at the upper part of the elevation, continues along the remainder of the building with brick below. The windows and doors are framed in blue and the roof is finished in corrugated sheeting. 1.2 The other building has a rendered gable to Marine Parade but otherwise sandstone walls to eaves level underneath a corrugated sheeted roof whose ridge is taller than that of the car showroom. The gable has a vehicle sized door and similarly sized window alongside and three small windows at the upper level. 1.3 Both buildings sit on the northern side of Gib Lane which is a vehicular access to the various properties which back onto the lane and there are no restrictions to traffic travelling in both directions to and from Walpole Road and Stanley Road. 1.4 Elsewhere along Marine Parade there are dwellings, some with projecting square bays, some with plain frontages, some three storey, some with only two, some finished in painted render with others to the east of Walpole Drive in sandstone and facing brick. The character of the area is of a mix of building types, heights and materials with predominantly residential land use. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a three storey building accommodating three commercial units on the ground floor and two floors of residential accommodation above in the form of three two bedroom units on each floor and one duplex split between on the first and second floors. The residential accommodation will be served by two stairwells, each also accommodating a lift shaft. 2.2 Eight parking spaces are accommodated at the rear off Gib Lane (although the supporting statement refers to only seven). A commercial bin store is shown on the plans but is across the lane, within the area defined as site B. As such, if site B is not developed, this facility will not be available to the current application development. A condition could address this which requires the provision of the bin store prior to the commencement of work on the rest of the scheme to ensure that it is available to the proposed development. 2.3 Access to the apartments isto be from Marine Parade in through a lobby which also serves the commercial units and there is access also from Gib Lane to this lobby, the easternmost access incorporating stairs down to the lobby, recognising the difference in level between Gib lane and Marine Parade. 2.4 The building takes the form of a terrace of four three storey buildings from the front, each with a projecting bay with a pitched roofed dormer on the second floor projecting into the roof plane. The first and second floors will be served on the front by a balcony with patio doors and a glazed screen in front. Each element is shown in a different colour taken from the Sea Scape spectrum from the Colours of Mann pallete.

8

2.5 The building will be finished in a slated roof with painted rendered walling. 2.6 At the rear the building is very plain with horizontally proportioned windows, garages doors at ground floor level and four small single lights at the western end. The rear pitch accommodates the top of the lift shafts. 2.7 The elevation facing down Shore Road is a pitched roofed gable with a symmetrical appearance of two long vertically proportioned windows with two smaller fixed lights within the first and second floors and a wider commercial frontage at ground floor level with similar fixed lights either side. 2.8 Between the proposed building and that on site B to the rear is a decorative archway with "Gib Lane" within it, materials unspecified. Gib Lane is to be widened as part of the application although this requires the demolition of the buildings on the other side of the lane which are not within the defined site. Supporting Planning Statement 2.9 The supporting Planning and Design Statement explains that each of the three applications proposed concurrently on the applicant's land are to be treated separately and each form separate applications. It suggests that evidence shows there having been buildings here since the early 1880s with its current use as a commercial garage and car showroom coming along in the 1950s. 2.10 It refers to the adjacent town houses of Thie ny Treisht, Bay Vista, Castle View, Rock View and Ballaquane House. The Statement describes the main workshop as of masonry construction with fibre cement sheeting on the roof and a rendered frontage to Marine Parade. No reference is made to the Peel sandstone side and rear elevations. It describes the showroom as also being of masonry construction with sheeted and flat roofing, cladding panels and with a reduced width pedestrian pavement and vehicular access to Gib Lane which is acknowledged as a public right of way and which serves a number of private garages and residential properties, culminating in a junction with, it is suggested, Christian Street and Walpole Road although in reality it joins Walpole Road, not Christian Street. 2.11 It suggests that there is no on-site parking for customers and staff at the premises with both using either Marine Parade of the car park thereon. 2.12 In its historical and conservation appraisal, it suggests that there is very little if any of the original or historical structures still on the site and neither the workshop or the garage are considered to have any architectural, civic or conservation value, going so far as to suggest that the buildings are now out of context with Marine Parade and the promenade as a whole. Use of the site 2.13 It is suggested that the motor trade in recent years has changed and new main dealers with purpose built premises located in the Douglas area has contributed to the demise of smaller and independent garages across the Island resulting in the closure of some. As such, the commercial challenges of maintaining a profitable motor trade business within Peel has influenced the present owners of Empire Garage to consider alternative uses of the site and whilst there will be a loss of employment through the closure of the garage, there could be mitigation through the inclusion of commercial units within the proposed development. Architectural treatment 2.14 It describes the transition between the existing three storey houses in the streetscene with the rest of the promenade as pronounced and disjointed with the building line and floor levels contrasting with those of the adjacent properties. Whilst they considered terraced housing for the site, "the constraints of this site rendered it unsuitable for current housing

9

spatial standards as confirmed by DoI Housing Division" although the relevant appendix does not appear to provide any evidence of this confirmation. As the units are not intended to be made available as affordable units, due to there being fewer than 8 as is required by the Strategic Plan as the threshold for when affordable units would be required as part of the scheme, it is unclear what spatial standards are referred to and why a site of this size could not have provided acceptable residential units which comply with whatever spatial standards are applicable. 2.15 They suggest that they have considered the relationship with Ballaquane House and the amenities of those in that property, particularly the light to the ground and first floor windows as well as maintaining a 1200mm wide footway in front of the building, noting that this could be increased to 2m if necessary. They suggest that the proposed building integrates more successfully into the streetscape than the existing. The incorporation of string courses at the upper levels help associate the building with its neighbours along with a consistent eaves and ridge line and the western end has been design to have an acceptable impact from the approach further along the promenade. It refers to the proposed building on site B being set back to provide greater manoeuvring space within Gib Lane. Conservation importance 2.16 It refers to a study of the local site context to identify conservation interest and potential contextual references of merit which would influence the design of the new building on the site. It identifies two long barns having been on the site in the 1880s with their gables fronting onto Marine Parade with a two storey cottage at the junction of Stanley Road, Marine Parade and Shore Road. The cottage appears to have been demolished some time in the early 1990s and replaced with a single storey masonry building with its gable facing towards the junction. The two barns were replaced in the 1930s with a single gable fronted unit which they believe is the structure that is there today. They suggest that there is no historical, architectural, civic or conservation value of the buildings on site. 2.17 The report refers to the Cullen study of Peel in 1971 which makes no specific reference to this site but refers to the organic development of the town and its very different architectural styles and they suggest that a modern interpretation of the existing architecture is likely to create an interesting addition to the townscape whilst preserving and enhancing the Conservation Area. They make references to the Castle View hotel, Waldick Hotel and Creg Malin Hotel in their architectural references with their formers and balconies as well as the simpler properties closer to the site and they suggest that it is important to make a clear distinction between these and the proposed development. They also refer to other properties in the immediate vicinity of the site as well as some on East Quay which, in pre-application discussions, it was suggested would not be relevant given the very different functional and architectural treatment of these buildings. Access and parking 2.18 The application refers to the widening of the existing pavement and the potential for providing a pedestrian crossing from the site to the other side of Stanley Road/Shore Road with conservation approved surface finishes to the new areas of footway and the shared surface entrance to Gib Lane. They refer to the widening of the lane as part of the redevelopment of site B from 3m to 4.2m-6m. It refers to the availability of public transport in the area thus satisfying the various Strategic Plan policies on sustainable transport. 2.19 It refers to the Strategic Plan parking standards which require spaces for service vehicles for town centre shops and the requirement for two spaces for each apartment of two bedrooms or more. It also refers to the potential for relaxation of these standards where the development would secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building or architectural or historic interest, where it would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscene or is otherwise of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area and where the site is within

10

reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated that a reduced level of parking would not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality. 2.20 They describe commercial deliveries continuing to be made from Marine Parade but with the widening of Gib Lane potentially making deliveries there a possibility. It is proposed that the car parking standards for the apartments are relaxed due to the achievement of the preservation of a sensitive streetscene, is otherwise of benefit to a Conservation Area and as it s within reasonable distance of public transport and would not result in unacceptable on street parking. They refer to the scheme providing seven spaces where the plans show eight. They also refer to the Creg Malin public car park nearby and the proximity of local bus services. Public open space and recreation 2.21 As the scheme proposes fewer than ten units, the provision of public open space is not required. However, they refer to the many areas of public open space within walking distance of the site and within the town, the swimming pool, camp site, golf course, school recreational facilities. However, they suggest that their client would be prepared to provide a commuted sum to address no open space being provided on the site. Planning policy 2.22 They believe that the proposal satisfies Strategic Policies 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11 and 12, Spatial Policy 2, General Policy 2, Housing Policies, 3, 5 and 7, Business Policies 1 and 9, Community Policies 7, 10 and 11, Infrastructure Policies 1, 4 and 5. 2.23 They believe that the development will help to address the identified shortfall of 770 dwellings in the west of the Island and the retail units will contribute to the local economy. 2.24 Additional information has been provided from the applicant, following the raising of issues in the submitted representations. The agent explains that aside from the remains of a sandstone wall the existing buildings either side of Gib Lane are relatively modern sheds of not particular interest and in contrast, the proposed buildings will make a positive architectural contribution to the area. He suggests that the existing use is commercial and the proposed development will make a positive contribution to the vibrancy of the town by the provision of commercial units. The use of colour and massing and design, whilst contemporary in nature in some respect, reflects the evolution of the promenade. The proposed car parking and impact thereof is dealt with in the application which does not appear to have been considered by Highway Services as yet. PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within a wider area of Mixed Use on the Peel Local Plan of 1989, reflecting the variety of uses in the area - industrial retail, residential and tourism. The site is also within the town's Conservation Area which was adopted in 1990. 3.2 The Peel Local Plan identifies that the town has "special characteristics" (paragraph 1.1) and the town plan aims to satisfy these characteristics and to meet its changing needs, stimulating and encouraging development where appropriate and to give a clear locational reference to national policies on development, change of use and conservation. The Plan includes reference to the need to closely control changes to existing retail units to ensure that original features which contribute significantly to the character of the old town are not lost (paragraph 2.5) and that no fixed guidelines on the retail zoning should be adopted given the sensitive nature and originality of the old town's fabric and its status as a Conservation Area (paragraph 2.3). 3.3 The plan refers to additional residential accommodation in the town as being a priority (paragraph 5.1).

11

3.4 The plan encourages "positive schemes of action" to enhance the character of the area (paragraphs 9.2 and 9.15) and identifies the importance of vacant and derelict buildings and what future they have to the town (9.4v), but noting that "demolition of even a single building which in itself may not be of architectural or historic significance and therefore not registered, and its replacement by a new building could prejudice the character or appearance of a Conservation Area" (paragraph 9.5). It continues, "If the development of a site following demolition were to be approved, the prospective developer should be aware that close attention would be paid to the design, location and massing of a replacement building" (paragraph 9.6). It states that, "Any new building will only be encouraged if it conforms to high standards of design and it respects the scale and character of its surroundings" (paragraph 9.17). Strategic Plan 2016 3.5 As the site lies within a Conservation Area, Environment Policies 30 and 35 are applicable EP30 deaLs with the demolition of existing buildings and that element of the scheme is dealt with under 19/00204/CON. Environment Policy 35 states "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development." This echoes the provisions of PPS1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man: POLICY CA/2 SPECIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS When considering proposals for the possible development of any land or buildings which fall within the conservation area, the impact of such proposals upon the special character of the area, will be a material consideration when assessing the application. Where a development is proposed for land which, although not within the boundaries of the conservation area, would affect its context or setting, or views into or out of the area; such issues should be given special consideration where the character or appearance of a conservation area may be affected. 3.6 There are other policies within the Strategic Plan which are applicable to this planning application. 3.6.1 Its Strategic Aim, Strategic Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 and 12, Transport Policy 1 all promote sustainable development which preserves the important character of the Island and promotes improvement of its environment. 3.6.2 Peel is a Service Centre within the Spatial Strategy where "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" (Spatial Policy 2). Spatial Policy 5 directs new development to within defined settlements as does Housing Policy 4. 3.6.3 General Policy 2 sets out standards of development to be achieved where development accords with the land use designation of the site and states: General Policy 2: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (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;

12

(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; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption." 3.6.4 Environment Policy 42: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality". 3.6.5 Environment Policy 43: The Department will generally support proposals which seek to regenerate run-down urban and rural areas. Such proposals will normally be set in the context of regeneration strategies identified in the associated Area Plans The Department will encourage the re-use of sound built fabric rather than its demolition." 3.6.6 Housing Policy 5 requires that in developments of 8 of more residential units, a contribution towards affordable housing equivalent to 25% of the total number of units should be provided, affordable housing defined as that directly provided by the Department or local authority or which meets the criteria of the Department's House Purchase Assistance Scheme 2004 or any successive scheme approved by Tynwald. 3.6.7 Housing Policy 17 provides advice about the development of apartments. Whilst this applies to the conversion of existing buildings, which this is not, it provides guidance on the standards expected in this type of development: Housing Policy 17: The conversion of buildings into flats will generally be permitted in residential areas provided that: (a) adequate space can be provided for clothes-drying, refuse storage, general amenity, and, if practical, car-parking; (b) the flats created will have a pleasant clear outlook, particularly from the principal rooms and (c) if possible, this involves the creation of parking on site or as part of an overall traffic management strategy for the area. 3.6.8 Chapter 10 of the Plan sets out the need for and benefit from the provision of Public Open Space, establishing standards of different types of POS to be provided - formal recreation, children's play and amenity space. Where this cannot be provided on site, which is the preferred method of delivery, commuted sums can be acceptable (Recreation Policies 3 and 4 and paragraph 10.3.9). 3.6.9 Transport policy 4 requires that new development must be supported by a satisfactory highway network in a safe and appropriate manner and Transport Policy 7 requires that new development accords with the Department's standards on car parking which are set out in Appendix 7. This requires that new residential dwellings, whether apartments or houses, are generally provided with 1 parking space where there is only one bedroom per apartment and otherwise 2 parking spaces at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling. These standards may be relaxed where the development would otherwise secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building or architectural or historic interest, where it would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscene or would otherwise be of benefit to a Conservation Area and where it is within a reasonable distance of

13

an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrate that a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality. A.7.1 specifically states that in the case of town centre and previously developed sites, the Department will consider reducing the requirement to provide on site parking having regard to the location of the site relative to public transport, employment and public amenities, the size of the dwellings, any restriction on the nature of occupancy (such as sheltered housing) and the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Town centre shops are required to provide space for service vehicle use. 3.6.10 It should be noted that as the proposal is for seven apartments, there is no requirement for the provision of affordable housing or public open space. It should also be noted, however, that the adjacent site, part of which is required for the servicing of this development, is also within the applicant's ownership and is simultaneously proposed for development. Cumulatively, the developments amount to fourteen apartments and together, these developments would result in enough units to require both affordable housing and public open space under Housing Policy 5 and Recreation Policies 3 and 4. The applications suggest that as each is proposing fewer than 8 or 10 units, these policies are not applicable but they would be prepared to offer a commuted sum to the local authority, but noting that there is significant public open space already in place in the vicinity. 3.7 The Department has an Operational Policy on Section 13 Agreements which set out why and how such agreements should be entered into and also provides guidance on how this is done. It states: "It is important that the Planning Committee has sufficient information to understand the Case Officer's recommendation. Therefore applications will not be presented to the planning committee without at least a draft Heads of Terms for the agreement." 3.8 The Department has also recently adopted guidance on the design of residential development - new dwellings and extensions thereto and this provides advice on design as well as how the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in nearby dwellings, may be assessed. PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The site has been the subject of a number of applications for alterations of the existing garage buildings, none of which is considered relevant to the consideration of the current application. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1.1 Peel Town Commissioners object to the application (16.04.19). They note that the applications cumulatively result in the loss of 6 public on street car parking spaces in a location where demand currently exceeds the availability of spaces and whilst they understand that this may be necessary to enable the development, it should not be ignored. Whilst the Strategic Plan enables a relaxation of the standards which require two parking spaces per dwelling and two for every apartment with two bedrooms or more, this is only where it can be demonstrated that there will not be an unacceptable impact on on-street parking in the vicinity and this has not been demonstrated in the application. Furthermore, the car park operated by the Commissioners on Marine Parade is intended for users of the beach and for coach parking and any spare capacity must include provision for manoeuvring of these larger vehicles. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Commissioners believe that the developments will result in an exacerbation of parking issues in the area. They are of the view that the applicant has not considered a less intensive form of development which would reduce the amount of car parking required. 5.1.2 They also believe that the height of the development, seeking its reference from the tallest buildings in the area, fails to conform with paragraph 9.17 of the Peel Local Plan and will result in an overbearing presence in the streetscene and removing the random nature of

14

building heights which contributes to the character of the area and will be particularly noticeable when using Gib Lane and when viewing the promenade from the breakwater and Peel Castle. They refer to the East Quay Design Guide and consider that the advice which restricts new buildings to 2/3 storeys should equally apply to the promenade and these sites. 5.1.3 They believe that the development will adversely affect the living conditions of nearby residents through the height and mass of the buildings and their being built right up to the roadside and footways. The properties at the bottom of Stanley Road which face north and Christian Street will have an oppressive view of the development although this does not include the development proposed in this particular application. Finally, they note that there are a number of sandstone buildings on the sits and this material adds to the character and historic nature of Peel and is not incorporated into any of the new buildings. Additionally, one of the warehouse buildings appears to be in sound condition and the development could seek to reuse the materials from or refurbish this building. 5.2.1 Manx National Heritage submit an objection to all six of the applications on the basis that there the proposals would result in the loss of fabric of historical importance for the town due to their former association as a warehouse and a net loft for Peel's fishing industry and are rare examples of this type of building. They consider that the historical assessment of the site includes a number of errors and wrongly dismisses these as of no historical significance. They recommend that permission is not granted for the demolition of these buildings unless and until a detailed, professional assessment of significance of these historic structures has been undertaken and which demonstrates that they are not of sufficient interest and value to justify their removal. A sensitive renovation and conversion scheme which re-uses the historic buildings would be preferable. 5.2.2 They consider that the size and scale of the development is inappropriate and the considerable continuation of the ridgeline, unbroken, would be inappropriate as the character of this part of the town is marked by differences in height and character and it would also block out glimpses along Gib Lane through to the castle and beach, ignoring conservation importance of views and vistas, the sense of open space and the role played by the sea. They consider that the architectural detail is an austere expression of the local Victorian vernacular lacking the architectural embellishments and proportions that might be expected within the fenestration - the strong courses, doorways and cornices. They consider it falls short of the warehouse types of buildings which were common in this part of Peel which would have run at right angles to the road facilitating views in and out and breaking up the long ridge of the building. They also note that there is no ecological assessment and bats have been known to be present here. (05.04.19) 5.3 Highway Services object to the application (31.05.19). They are concerned that the application fails to demonstrate that the proposed development and highway changes would be safe and in addition, there is inadequate car parking. The applicant should have provided a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit in respect of the proposed highway changes and additional design work needs to be undertaken to support this. In addition, a Transport Statement needs to be provided to address the proposed total amount of commercial floorspace. The visibility splays should be shown on the drawing as they have been drawn incorrectly. The proposed garages would have no visibility in either direction and would therefore be unsafe. The proposed block paving and the arch above the adopted highway of Gib Lane are unacceptable and the proposed building would encroach onto the public highway, which is also not acceptable. Swept path drawings are required to demonstrate how vehicles will be able to exit and enter the garage/parking spaces along with how a refuse vehicle would use and exit Gib Lane. Finally, there are no parking surveys of the surrounding area which demonstrate that there is sufficient car parking in the surrounding area to accommodate the lack of the full complement of parking being provided on site and there is no bicycle parking being provided on site. They advise that doors may not open out over the highway.

15

Private representations 5.4.1 There have been a number of representations on all six of the current applications for the Empire Garage premises, many of which have applied the same comments and submitted the same letter or e-mail to all six proposals. It is clear that some of the submissions relate to one of the applications not all, but all have been included for completeness. 5.4.2 Representations have been made from a number of local residents, some of whom consider the proposed development to be a positive contribution but others who consider the development too high and over-intensive and of a character which will adversely affect the appearance and character of the town. Some express concern at the loss of the sandstone walling. Many express concern at the lack of car parking on site given that the area is congested already and it is difficult to find a car parking space for their existing dwelling. Concern is also expressed for the presence of bats which have been seen in the vicinity and the safety of users of Gib Lane. Some comments have been received referring to the impact of loss of a view and the negative impact on the value of property, neither of which is a relevant planning consideration. 5.4.3 Some express concern at the even-ness of the roofline which is uncharacteristic of the area and the design does not incorporate the detail or quirky nature, variety of heights and materials of the existing buildings in the vicinity. Some express concern at the widening of Gib Lane which will adversely affect its character and that the buildings will result in the loss of a public view of the sea from the higher part of Gib Lane. Some suggest that the building could be anywhere, not even on the Isle of Man. 5.4.4 Some of the residents who live close by suggest that they will be affected by loss of light and that the narrow and historic highway network will not be able to safely accommodate the proposed developments. 5.4.5 One submission includes a car parking survey which reports that between Christian Street, Church Street, Circular Road, Creg Malin car park, Cross Street, Derby Drive, Gib Lane, Philip Christian Centre, Police Station car park, Stanley Mount, Stanley Road, the town hall car park and Walpole Road, there were at most times between none and 3 parking spaces available in all of these areas (exact figures are provided). 5.4.6 Many point out that owners of properties in Peel are required to install sliding sash windows and retain all historic elements of their properties whilst the proposed building has none of these features. Some suggest that there is no need for commercial units here when some are lying empty elsewhere in the town. 5.4.7 One submission suggests that the sandstone building behind the car wash is at least 120 years old and is part of the fishing heritage of Peel, formerly known as The Bark House and was where fishermen spent a lot of time barking and drying their nets until the introduction of synthetic fibres in the 1950s. They suggest that the pit in which they immersed their nets was still visible until Farghers took over the warehouse. Whilst some redevelopment could occur, efforts could be made to retain the sandstone buildings on site. There is a concern that the plans neither preserve nor enhance the Area. 5.4.8 It is noted that there is no provision for renewable energy in the scheme and some properties would have their outlook and privacy adversely affected by so tall a building so close to their property. 5.4.9 Finally, many express concern about the impact of the development whilst it is being undertaken, on traffic safety, car parking and pedestrian and private residential amenity. 5.4.10 These representations have been received from the owners of the following properties:

16

18, Castle Street (23.03.19 and 31.03.19) 4, Duke Street (20.03.19) 15, Circular Road (owner of a garage on Gib Lane) (22.03.19) 30, Stanley Road (22.03.19) 4, Gib Lane (26.03.19) 6, Stanley Mount (undated but received on 26.03.19) 24, Circular Road (25.03.19) 7, Victoria Terrace (27.03.19) 31, Stanley Terrace (undated but received 27.03.19)) 3, Stanley Road (27.03.19) 11, Stanley Road (28.03.19) 37, Stanley Terrace (30.03.19 and 05.04.19) 20, Stanley Road (28.03.19) 10, Gib Lane (29.03l.19) 31, Shore Road (30.03.19) 5, Stanley Mount (28.03.19 and 29.03.19) Westholme, Cannan Avenue, Kirk Michael (29.03.19) 8, Gib Lane (30.03.19) 13, Rockmount Road (29.03.19) 18, Stanley Mount (undated but received 02.04.19) 5, Stanley Road (31.03.19) 1, Victoria Terrace (01.04.19) 22, Circular Road (22.03.19) 21, Queen's Drive (29.03.19) 23, Bridge Street (02.04.19) 60, Patrick Street (01.04.19) 26, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 17, Stanley Road (30.03.19) 22, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 32, Stanley Road (28.03.19) 17, Circular Road (31.03.19) 39, Stanley Terrace (03.04.19, 05.06.19 and 16.04.19) 8, Stanley Road (undated but received on 03.04.19) 40, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 24, Bridge Street (02.04.19) 5, Circular Road (undated but received on 03.04.19) Thie ny Scoill, Derby Road (03.04.19) 6, Circular Road (06.04.19) 16, Queen's Terrace, Douglas (05.04.19) 12, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 14, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 9A, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 19, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 14, Bridge Street (06.04.19) 14, Stanley Mount (05.04.19) 7, Stanley Mount (02.04.19) The Old Chapel, Patrick Corner who rents an office in Gib Lane (05.04.19) 16, Stanley Road (03.04.19) 24, Stanley Road (04.04.19) 6, Stanley Road (undated but received on 04.04.19) 11, Church Street (04.04.19) 4, Stanley Road (03.04.19) 13, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 9, Stanley Road (04.04.19) Reayrt ny Keylley (05.04.19) 25, Bridge Street (21.03.19)

17

6, Oak Road, (28.07.19) Garden flat, 4, Marine Parade (09.04.19) 5.4.10 Tim Crookall MLC reiterates a number of the above views, commenting on the lack of the re-use of existing sandstone, the parking, highways and traffic issues, loss of light to existing residents.. He also notes that in his time as representative of the people of Peel, he has very, very rarely seen such local opposition to a development scheme and whilst he believes that there is generally no opposition to the redevelopment of the sites, what is proposed is not acceptable (13.04.19). 5.4.11 Peel Residents' Association, established following the submission of the six applications and representing the owners of unspecified properties on Christian Street and Stanley Terrace (05.04.19) submit the same parking study as was submitted by the resident of 37, Stanley Terrace and reiterate the concerns of others regarding the height, design and impact of the development on traffic and car parking. They suggest that the members all share boundaries with the site and should be given Interested Person Status although each member has written in separately. No addresses have been provided, only names. 5.5 Peel Heritage Trust (28.03.19) comment on all of the applications but in respect of this current proposal, they suggest that "this is of less concern for us apart from the general traffic issues" which relate to already congested roads where it is difficult to find a parking space. ASSESSMENT 6.1 The principle of the development of residential and commercial development on this site is considered acceptable on the basis that both uses are presently found in the area, they are included in the definition of Mixed Use and are compatible with the adjacent area. The issues in this case are: i) whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Environment Policy 35 ii) whether the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area in general in accordance with EP42 and GP2 iii) whether the proposal would satisfy the requirements of General Policy 2 in terms of impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property iv) whether the development would make adequate provision for car parking in accordance with Transport Policy 7 and Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan v) whether the proposed apartments and commercial units would have sufficient amenity and service provision in accordance with Housing Policy 17 and Transport Policy 7 and Appendix 7 vi) whether the proposal would have any adverse effect on highway safety in accordance with General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 4 and vii) whether the proposal makes adequate provision for affordable housing and public open space in accordance with Housing Policy 5 ad Recreation Policies 3 and 4. 6.2 whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Environment Policy 35 6.2.1 The existing buildings on the site will need to be demolished in order to facilitate the redevelopment of the site and the acceptability of this is dealt with in 19/00200/CON. The development also requires the demolition of the buildings on the other side of Gib Lane which are not part of the application and the application is deficient in this respect. It is relevant that the demolition of these other buildings are the subject of another application, 19/00202/CON which is subject to objections and which is recommended for refusal. The existing buildings on the site are varied in terms of their architectural treatment, age and appearance but it is safe to say that the modern showroom building contributes little to the historic interest and the character of the Conservation Area. Its redevelopment in the form of something more sympathetic is not considered objectionable.

18

6.2.3 The proposed building does not follow the varied roofline of the rest of the adjoining terrace but mirrors the more regimented terrace of the properties which sit between Walpole Road and the bowling green, albeit that it is finished in sandstone and has a generally more subdued impact on the streetscene. There are other buildings of size whose individual or cumulative impact on the streetscene result in more sizeable buildings occupying their place alongside the promenade but none so long as would be proposed here. Simply because there is nothing of a similar mass would not be a reason for refusing the application, particularly as the building is no higher than the buildings further along in the terrace and the building has been visually broken into different elements through the use of projecting bays and colour. That is not to say that it would not have been a more welcome approach to adopt the mixed roofline and components of more modest scale within the site. However, the test is not whether there would be a better way of developing the site but whether the development represents a preservation or enhancement of the CA. In this case, it cannot be considered a preservation as nothing the existing is being retained. However, setting aside any concern about the loss of fabric of historical importance or interest which is dealt with in the RB application, what is proposed is considered overall to result in a better appearance of buildings on this prominent site and the development is considered to satisfy EP35 of the Strategic Plan and the corresponding parts of the Planning Policy Statement 1/01. It is not accepted that comparisons with East Quay, whether by the applicant or the Commissioners are appropriate given the very different architectural and functional qualities of the buildings in that part of the town. 6.2.4 The much taller building will have an impact on the vistas available within the Conservation Area, particularly Gib Lane and will change the character of the lane from one with lower, mixed finish industrial style buildings to the rear of an apartment block with a row garages fronting onto the lane. This may not be a concern were the lane not a public highway used by property owners and the public generally, but it is and this would be a significant change for those users of the lane. Whilst the mass of the front can be absorbed into a much wider landscape where there are other, taller buildings, Gib Lane is much shorter and with a much more varied streetscene with some much smaller scale buildings. The impact on the character and appearance of Gib Lane is not considered to be acceptable as the development would neither preserve or enhance the character of appearance of it. It is also relevant that this development necessitates the demolition of buildings on the other side of the lane and as the proposal for the redevelopment of that is recommended for refusal, it cannot be accepted that the development proposed here will be development in association with a development on the other plot. It may be the case therefore, that site A is developed and site B is cleared of its buildings with the rear elevation of the building hereby proposed on full view for anyone travelling down Stanley Road. The rear elevation is clearly functional in design and would not preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area. 6.2.5 It is also relevant to consider what would result if the development proposed here were implemented but that on the adjacent site were not. The proposed building is higher than the existing building on site B and as such, if it were retained the proposed building would be visible over the top and from Stanley Road. The building is clearly intended to have a principal, well designed front elevation whilst its rear elevation appearance follows its function, with horizontally proportioned windows and the lift shaft tops. If this were clearly visible, it would not have a positive impact on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. 6.3 whether the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area in general in accordance with EP42 and GP2 6.3.1 The conclusion of this is that set out in the preceding paragraphs. 6.4 whether the proposal would satisfy the requirements of General Policy 2 in terms of impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property

19

6.4.1 Little information has been provided to assess the impact of the scheme on the living conditions of those in properties close to the site. The proposed building would be 3.3m higher than the highest part of the existing buildings on the site but this is unlikely to have a significant impact on any residential properties in Gib Lane or Marine Parade given the distance between them and the orientation of the existing buildings. The building would have an impact on the residents of the lower part of Stanley Road, however, if the proposed development on Site B were not to go ahead as the proposed building will be higher than the existing buildings on that site. However, given the distance of almost 30m between the proposed building and those properties and the intervening other site, it is not considered that the development would have an adverse impact on the living conditions of those, or any other nearby residential properties. 6.5 whether the development would make adequate provision for car parking in accordance with Transport Policy 7 and Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan 6.5.1 The proposed development comprises seven apartments which each accommodate two bedrooms. This equates to a requirement for fourteen car parking spaces in accordance with the Strategic Plan. The Plan does not require any parking spaces for users of the commercial units - and indeed there is none serving the existing showroom if site B is considered a separate entity - only space for service and deliveries. 6.5.2 The applicant seeks to rely upon the relaxation provision within the Strategic Plan without demonstrating that the failure to provide the full complement of spaces will not result in unacceptable on-street parking in the area. The applicant instead seeks to point out that there are alternative parking spaces, including the Commissioners' car park next to the Creg Malin which the Commissioners indicate is intended for coach parking and use by visitors to the town and the beach, particularly in the summer months. Of note is that on Saturday 4th May, a Bank Holiday weekend and a sunny day, the coach park had one spare parking space and the promenade had two free spaces at the western end, one of which was about to be occupied by a vehicle when the officer passed it. On another day, not a public holiday in June, and during the late morning, there were four spaces free. 6.5.3 Stanley Road and the promenade are often busy and finding a space is difficult at all hours of the day. There is nothing in the application which would suggest that the additional six spaces which are required for the apartment occupants could be found in the surrounding area without any adverse impact. Whilst a relaxation has been applied in other parts of the town, such as on East Quay (16/00839/B) where the inspector was content to accept one space per apartment, noting the applicant's evidence that it was relatively easy to find a space close to the site and also that the nearby apartments car parking spaces were not always fully utilised which suggested that apartments in this part of the town could be occupied by persons who only had one vehicle per apartment, there is no such evidence here, quite the contrary where parking spaces are difficult to find and where the surrounding area is residential rather than commercial, when parking spaces are likely to be required all at the same time. 6.5.4 The development would not preserve a sensitive streetscape to justify this: the development does not have to be so large or contain so many apartments to result in something which would preserve the streetscape and the proposal does not re-use any existing buildings. Whilst redevelopment of some or all of the site may be of benefit to the Conservation Area, it does not have to be of this size. The lack of car parking cannot therefore be justified by parts a, b or c of Appendix Seven. 6.6 whether the proposed apartments and commercial units would have sufficient amenity and service provision in accordance with Housing Policy 17 and Transport Policy 7 and Appendix 7 6.6.1 The apartments have good principal outlook and light from the windows which look out to the bay. They are of a size as to be able to accommodate washing and drying facilities

20

without needing external space for these functions. The proposal does not provide sufficient car parking to satisfy the Strategic Plan standards. No space is provided for the servicing of the commercial units which are proposed to be serviced as existing from either Marine Parade or Gib Lane. However, the lane is being widened by around 1.2m which will assist not only the servicing of the proposed units but also the general users of the lane. Given the existing situation regarding the servicing of the garage, it is not considered that the provisions for the new commercial units is unacceptable. 6.7 whether the proposal would have any adverse effect on highway safety in accordance with General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 4 6.7.1 There is clearly inadequate car parking to be provided which will have an impact on the surrounding area and the safety of the highway network in this respect. No information has been provided by the applicant to demonstrate that this is not the case. Highway Services recommend that the application does not demonstrate that the scheme would be acceptable and certain elements - access to the garaging and the archway for example, and the treatment of the new areas of public highway in Gib Lane. The application cannot therefore be said to comply with GP2 or TP4 in this respect. 6.8 whether the proposal makes adequate provision for affordable housing and public open space in accordance with Housing Policy 5 ad Recreation Policies 3 and 4. 6.8.1 The proposal makes no provision for public open space or affordable housing. Given that the adjacent site is also owned by the applicant and is being proposed for development at the same time, and particularly as the development of site A relies upon the demolition of the buildings on site A, or at least some of them, to provide the bin store, it is considered appropriate to consider the cumulative impact of the developments which would together result in sufficient housing numbers to warrant requiring both affordable housing and public open space. No provision is being made for affordable housing and whilst a commuted sum has been referred to in respect of public open space, there is nothing definitive in the application to demonstrate the impact of this. It cannot be concluded that there is sufficient provision for affordable housing or public open space. CONCLUSION 7.1 The principle of the redevelopment of the modern, commercial building in this prominent position is welcomed and whilst the scheme has elements to commend it, the size, height and layout of the building would result in an adverse impact on the surrounding area in terms of the public enjoyment of Gib Lane, highway safety, inadequate car parking. In addition, it is not considered that adequate information has been provided which would justify the loss of the sandstone buildings which back onto Gib Lane. The absence details of the provision of affordable housing and public open space are also considered sufficient to refuse the application. For these reasons, the application is recommended for refusal. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 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

21

o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

22

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 12th August 2019

Item 5.2 Proposal : Registered Building consent for the demolition elements

relating the application 19/00199/B Site Address : Car Showroom

Empire Garages Marine Parade Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1PA

Applicant : Empire Garages Ltd Application No. : Principal Planner :

19/00200/CON- click to view Miss S E Corlett

RECOMMENDATION: To REFUSE the application

______________________________________ Reasons and Notes for Refusal R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes (if any) attached to the reasons R 1. In the absence of a detailed, professional appraisal of the historical importance of the sandstone warehouse on the site, is considered that the removal of this building could have an adverse impact on the historical importance of the Conservation Area and the application fails to accord with Environment Policies 30, 35 and 39 of the Strategic Plan and CA/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01.

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons 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 6(4): 25, Bridge Street (21.03.19) 30, Stanley Road (22.03.19) 4, Gib Lane (26.03.19) 6, Stanley Mount (undated but received on 26.03.19) 18, Castle Street (24.03.19 and 31.03.19) 24, Circular Road (25.03.19) 31, Stanley Terrace (undated but received (28.03.19) 3, Stanley Road (27.03.19) 37, Stanley Terrace (30.03.19 and 05.04.19) 20, Stanley Road (28.03.19) 10, Gib Lane (29.03l.19) 5, Stanley Mount (28.03.19 and 29.03.19) Westholme, Cannan Avenue, Kirk Michael (29.03.19) 8, Gib Lane (30.03.19) 18, Stanley Mount (undated but received on 02.04.19) 5, Stanley Road (31.03.19) 1, Victoria Terrace (01.04.19)

23

21, Queen's Drive (29.03.19) 17, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 60, Patrick Street (01.04.19) 26, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 22, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 32, Stanley Road (28.03.19) 17, Circular Road (31.03.19) 39, Stanley Terrace (03.04.19) 6, Stanley Road (03.04.19) 40, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 24, Bridge Street (02.04.19) 5, Circular Road (undated but received on 03.04.19) Thie ny Scoill, Derby Road (03.04.19) 6, Circular Road (06.04.19) 12, Stanley Road (05.04.19) Reayrt ny Keylley (05.04.19) 14, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 9A, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 19, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 14, Bridge Street (06.04.19) 14, Stanley Mount (05.04.19) The Old Chapel, Patrick Corner, rents an office in Gib Lane (05.04.19) 16, Stanley Road (03.04.19) 24, Stanley Road (04.04.19) 6, Stanley Road (undated but received on 04.04.19) 4, Stanley Road (03.04.19) 13, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 9, Stanley Road (04.04.19) Garden Flat, 4, Marine Parade (owners of The Old Stables on Gib Lane (03.04.19) Peel Heritage Trust 6. Oak Road as these properties are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy. Many of these submissions also fail to demonstrate how the proposed works (the demolition of the existing buildings) would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy but further assessment of IPS in this respect is not considered necessary. 31, Shore Road 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. Tim Crookall MLC as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy. Peel Residents' Association do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy.

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report

24

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT THE SITE 1.1 The application site is an area of land which sits at the junction of Stanley Road and Marine Parade. The site accommodates two buildings: one a single storey car showroom and the other a single storey warehouse whose gable fronts onto Marine Parade. The car showroom is formed from a pitched roofed building which has been extended westwards with a flat roofed annex and the elevational treatment of this section, with a thick, metal, profiled cladding at the upper part of the elevation, continues along the remainder of the building with brick below. The windows and doors are framed in blue and the roof is finished in corrugated sheeting. 1.2 The other building has a rendered gable to Marine Parade but otherwise sandstone walls to eaves level underneath a corrugated sheeted roof whose ridge is taller than that of the car showroom. The gable has a vehicle sized door and similarly sized window alongside and three small windows at the upper level. 1.3 Both buildings sit on the northern side of Gib Lane. 1.4 Elsewhere along Marine Parade there are dwellings, some with projecting square bays, some with plain frontages, some three storey, some with only two, some finished in painted render with others to the east of Walpole Drive in sandstone and facing brick. The character of the area is of a mix of building types, heights and materials with predominantly residential land use. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 There are current applications which propose the redevelopment of this site together with other land at the lower end of Stanley Road - 10/00199/B, 19/00201/B and 19/00203/B together with the associated applications for Registered Building consent for the elements of demolition - 19/00202/CON and 19/00204/CON. Registered Building consent is required for demolition within a Conservation Area under Section 19(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999. The applications for RB consent are therefore concerned only with the impact of the demolition works on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and not with any aspect of the redevelopment proposals. 2.2 Proposed here is the demolition of all of the structures within the site listed in paragraphs 1.1 - 1.3 above. PLANNING POLICY Peel Local Plan 1989 3.1 The site lies within an area of Mixed Use, reflecting the variety of uses in the area - industrial retail, residential and tourism. The site is also within the town's Conservation Area which was adopted in 1990. 3.2 The Peel Local Plan identifies that the town has "special characteristics" (paragraph 1.1) and the town plan aims to satisfy these characteristics and to meet its changing needs, stimulating and encouraging development where appropriate and to give a clear locational reference to national policies on development, change of use and conservation. The Plan includes reference to the need to closely control changes to existing retail units to ensure that original features which contribute significantly to the character of the old town are not lost (paragraph 2.5) and that no fixed guidelines on the retail zoning should be adopted given the sensitive nature and originality of the old town's fabric and its status as a Conservation Area (paragraph 2.3).

25

3.3 The plan refers to additional residential accommodation in the town as being a priority (paragraph 5.1). 3.4 The plan encourages "positive schemes of action" to enhance the character of the area (paragraphs 9.2 and 9.15) and identifies the importance of vacant and derelict buildings and what future they have to the town (9.4v), but noting that "demolition of even a single building which in itself may not be of architectural or historic significance and therefore not registered, and its replacement by a new building could prejudice the character or appearance of a Conservation Area" (paragraph 9.5). It continues, "If the development of a site following demolition were to be approved, the prospective developer should be aware that close attention would be paid to the design, location and massing of a replacement building" (paragraph 9.6). It states that, "Any new building will only be encouraged if it conforms to high standards of design and it respects the scale and character of its surroundings" (paragraph 9.17). Strategic Plan 2016 3.5 As the site lies within a Conservation Area, Environment Policies 30, 35 and 39 are applicable: Environment Policy 30: There will be a general presumption against demolition of a Registered Building. In considering proposals for demolition or proposed works which would result in substantial demolition of a Registered Building, consideration will be given to: o the condition of the building; o the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the value derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions); o the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; and o the merits of alternative proposals for the site. Environment Policy 35: Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development. Environment Policy 39: "The general presumption will in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area." Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man 3.6 Unlike the Strategic Plan, this document has specific guidance on demolition in Conservation Areas as follows: POLICY CA/6 DEMOLITION Any building which is located within a conservation area and which is not an exception as provided above, may not be demolished without the consent of the Department. In practice, a planning application for consent to demolish must be lodged with the Department. When considering an application for demolition of a building in a conservation area, the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area. Similar criteria will be applied as those outlined in RB/6 above, when assessing the application to demolish the building, but in less clear cut cases, for example, where a building could be said to detract from the special character of the area, it will be essential for the Department to be able to consider the merits of any proposed new development when determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unregistered building in a conservation area. Account will be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed,

26

and in particular of the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole. PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 Alterations to the existing buildings have been proposed, none of which is relevant to the consideration of the current application. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services have no highway interest in this application (19.03.19). 5.2 Peel Town Commissioners note that one of the buildings on the site appears to be sound and could be re-used or the materials in it re-used within the scheme (15.04.19). 5.3 Manx National Heritage submit an objection to all six of the applications on the basis that there the proposals would result in the loss of fabric of historical importance for the town due to their former association as a warehouse and a net loft for Peel's fishing industry and are rare examples of this type of building. They consider that the historical assessment of the site includes a number of errors and wrongly dismisses these as of no historical significance. They recommend that permission is not granted for the demolition of these buildings unless and until a detailed, professional assessment of significance of these historic structures has been undertaken and which demonstrates that they are not of sufficient interest and value to justify their removal. A sensitive renovation and conversion scheme which re-uses the historic buildings would be preferable (05.04.19). 5.4 Private representations 5.4.1 There have been a number of representations on all six of the current applications for the Empire Garage premises, many of which have applied the same comments and submitted the same letter or e-mail to all six proposals. It is clear that some of the submissions relate to one of the applications not all, but all have been included for completeness but only the comments relating to the loss of the existing buildings have been noted here as this reflects what the application actually proposes. 5.4.2 Concern is expressed at the loss of the sandstone walls on Gib Lane and one submission suggests that the sandstone building behind the car wash is at least 120 years old and is part of the fishing heritage of Peel, formerly known as The Bark House and was where fishermen spent a lot of time barking and drying their nets until the introduction of synthetic fibres in the 1950s. They suggest that the pit in which they immersed their nets was still visible until Farghers took over the warehouse. Whilst some redevelopment could occur, efforts could be made to retain the sandstone buildings on site. There is a concern that the plans neither preserve nor enhance the Area. 25, Bridge Street (21.03.19) 30, Stanley Road (22.03.19) 4, Gib Lane (26.03.19) 6, Stanley Mount (undated but received on 26.03.19) 18, Castle Street (24.03.19 and 31.03.19) 24, Circular Road (25.03.19) 31, Stanley Terrace (undated but received (28.03.19) 3, Stanley Road (27.03.19) 37, Stanley Terrace (30.03.19 and 05.04.19) 20, Stanley Road (28.03.19) 10, Gib Lane (29.03l.19) 31, Shore Road (30.03.19) 5, Stanley Mount (28.03.19 and 29.03.19) Westholme, Cannan Avenue, Kirk Michael (29.03.19) 8, Gib Lane (30.03.19)

27

18, Stanley Mount (undated but received on 02.04.19) 5, Stanley Road (31.03.19) 1, Victoria Terrace (01.04.19) 21, Queen's Drive (29.03.19) 17, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 60, Patrick Street (01.04.19) 26, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 22, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 32, Stanley Road (28.03.19) 17, Circular Road (31.03.19) 39, Stanley Terrace (03.04.19, 05.04.10 and 16.04.19) 6, Stanley Road (03.04.19) 40, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 24, Bridge Street (02.04.19) 5, Circular Road (undated but received on 03.04.19) Thie ny Scoill, Derby Road (03.04.19) 6, Circular Road (06.04.19) 12, Stanley Road (05.04.19) Reayrt ny Keylley (05.04.19) 14, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 9A, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 19, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 14, Bridge Street (06.04.19) 14, Stanley Mount (05.04.19) The Old Chapel, Patrick Corner, rents an office in Gib Lane (05.04.19) 16, Stanley Road (03.04.19) 24, Stanley Road (04.04.19) 6, Stanley Road (undated but received on 04.04.19) 4, Stanley Road (03.04.19) 13, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 9, Stanley Road (04.04.19) Garden Flat, 4, Marine Parade (owners of The Old Stables on Gib Lane (03.04.19) 6. Oak Road (28.07.19) 5.4.3 Tim Crookall MLC refers to the old sandstone buildings on the site and their loss as part of the application. 5.4.4 Peel Residents' Association, established following the submission of the six applications (05.04.19) submit the same parking study as was submitted by the resident of 37, Stanley Terrace and reiterate the concerns of others regarding the height, design and impact of the development on traffic and car parking. They suggest that the members all share boundaries with the site and should be given Interested Person Status although each member has written in separately. No addresses have been provided, only names. 5.4.5 Peel Heritage Trust (28.03.19) make no comment on the demolition of the existing buildings. ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issue in this case is whether the demolition of the buildings on site would have an adverse impact on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. Whilst there are concurrent proposals for redevelopment of this and the adjacent site, this is not relevant to the consideration of this application, although it is relevant to consider whether it is acceptable for these buildings to be demolished without the assurance of immediate redevelopment and if so, whether any conditions need to be attached to control the appearance of the site in the mean time.

28

6.2 It is clear from the policies that where existing buildings do not contribute positively to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, it may be acceptable for those buildings to be demolished. The existing car showroom is a modern building which contributes little to the otherwise historic and attractive seaside setting of the immediate vicinity. Whilst the building alongside is more interesting, possessing elements of sandstone walling, this building has been significantly changed and appears to contribute little as it stands, to the Conservation Area as viewed from Marine Parade. The building is more interesting as viewed from Gib Lane. 6.3 However, Manx National Heritage suggest that the application has been too quick to dismiss the historical importance of the existing sandstone building on the site and in the absence of a detailed historical appraisal, it is not accepted that RB consent should be granted for the removal of this building. 6.4 If the buildings were demolished and the site levelled and finished with a consistent material, it is considered that this, if the adjacent building proposed for demolition under 19/00202/CON were also removed, would open up a public view of the sea and provide more light and open outlook for numbers 9-19 (odd only), Stanley Road. If the existing buildings on Site A were demolished, notwithstanding the concerns expressed in 6.3 above, what remains of the buildings on Site B are interesting, if not in particularly good repair and the public view of this would not be objectionable. It is also relevant that should open sites become unsightly, the local authority has powers under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1984 (Section 14) to take action to remediate the situation. CONCLUSION 7.1 In the absence of a detailed, professional appraisal of the historical importance of the sandstone warehouse on the site, is considered that the removal of this building could have an adverse impact on the historical importance of the Conservation Area and the application is not supported. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Registered Buildings) Regulations 2013, the following are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application; (c) Manx National Heritage; and (d) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

29

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 12th August 2019

Item 5.3 Proposal : Demolition of garages and related structures and erection of

three storey building to provide ground floor commercial/retail unit (classes 1, 2, and 3) with seven apartments above with associated parking and facilities (in association with PA 19/00202/CON)

Site Address : Garage And Premises Stanley Road Peel Isle Of Man

Applicant : Empire Garages Ltd Application No. : Principal Planner :

19/00201/B- click to view Miss S E Corlett

RECOMMENDATION: To REFUSE the application

______________________________________ Reasons and Notes for Refusal R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes (if any) attached to the reasons R 1. The proposed development would neither preserve nor enhance the Conservation Area by virtue of the presentation of the rear elevation to Gib Lane. In addition, were the development of Site A not to be undertaken, the rear elevation of the proposed building would be visible above the existing car showroom with a resultant deleterious effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, contrary to General Policy 2b, c and g and Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan. R 2. The proposed development would not make adequate provision for car parking spaces within the building in accordance with the standards of the Strategic Plan (Appendix Seven) and there is insufficient information to demonstrate that this would not have an unacceptable impact on on-street parking and highway safety in the area. The development is therefore contrary to Transport Policy 7 and General Policy 2h of the Strategic Plan. R 3. The development does not demonstrate that it would have an acceptable impact on highway safety, through the inclusion of features within or above the public highway which are not acceptable to the highway authority and by the absence of correctly drawn visibility splays at junctions. It has not been demonstrated that there is sufficient visibility for users of the proposed garaged parking spaces for them to be used safely. The proposal is therefore contrary to Transport Policy 4 and General Policy 2h and i of the Strategic Plan. R 4. The proposal makes no provision for public open space or affordable housing. Given that the adjacent site is also owned by the applicant and is being proposed for development at the same time, and particularly as the development of site A relies upon the demolition of the buildings on site A, or at least some of them, to provide the bin store and the widening of Gib Lane, it is considered appropriate to consider the cumulative impact of the developments which would together result in sufficient housing numbers to warrant requiring both affordable housing and public open space. No provision is being made for affordable housing and whilst a commuted sum has been referred to in respect of public open space, there is nothing definitive in the application to demonstrate the impact of this. It cannot be concluded that there is sufficient provision for affordable housing or public open space. The

30

development is therefore contrary to Housing Policy 5 and Recreation Policies 3 and 4 of the Strategic Plan.

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons 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 6(4): 31, Shore Road and 9, 9A, 11, 13, 17, 19, Stanley Road as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). 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 6(4): Peel Residents' Association as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy 25, Bridge Street 30, Stanley Road 6, Stanley Mount 31, Stanley Terrace 3, Stanley Road 24, Circular Road 37, Stanley Terrace 20, Stanley Road 10, Gib Lane 5, Stanley Mount Westholme, Cannan Avenue, Kirk Michael 8, Gib Lane 13, Rockmount Road 18, Stanley Mount 5, Stanley Road 18, Castle Street 21, Queen's Drive 17, Circular Road 60, Patrick Street 26, Stanley Road 22, Stanley Road 32, Stanley Road 39, Stanley Terrace 6, Stanley Road 8, Stanley Road 40, Stanley Road 24, Bridge Street 4, Stanley Road 11, Church Street,

31

6, Stanley Road 24, Stanley Road 16, Stanley Road The Old Chapel, Patrick who rents an office on Gib Lane 7, Stanley Mount 14, Stanley Mount 14, Bridge Street 14, Stanley Road 12, Stanley Road Reayrt ny Keylley 6, Circular Road Thie ny Scoill, Derby Road 5, Circular Road 6, Oak Road Garden Flat, 4, Marine Parade (owner of the Old Stables on Gib Lane) as these properties are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy Tim Crookall as he has 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. Neither Peel Heritage Trust nor Manx National Heritage own property within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy.

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT THE SITE 1.1 The application site is an area of land which sits at the lower end of Stanley Road just before it reaches Shore Road and Marine Parade, bounded by Stanley Road and Gib Lane, a two way lane which runs westwards from the higher end of Walpole Road to meet Stanley Road. 1.2 The site contains a two storey warehouse building which has attached at its eastern end, two single storey garages all arranged in an L shape. The site is bounded to Stanley Road by a sandstone wall of varying heights, part of which has a concrete capping and part of which looks like it may at one time in the past, have been the front of a cottage, the apertures of two windows and a central door having been blocked up in brick. 1.3 The two storey building has a sandstone wall to Gib Lane with high level windows in this elevation which sits right alongside the lane. The elevation facing towards Stanley Road is finished in dashed render and has ground floor vehicular sized openings with timber doors and a similar sized window with a row of windows above, all within a brown pea dashed wall. The elevation facing west is also finished in brown pea dash and has a pedestrian door, two windows and a door sized opening fitted with a fixed pane. 1.4 The single storey buildings sit below the level of the sandstone wall. One is built of sandstone with part brick on the upper part of the rear elevation, the other in front in brick,

32

both having a monopitch corrugated sheeted roof. The brick structure has a vehicle sized opening within it, the sandstone building a pedestrian door. 1.5 The site was most recently used as parking and workshops associated with the Empire Garage operation which sits on the other side of Gib Lane. 1.6 The property sits opposite a terrace of three storey, plain fronted, rendered houses whose frontages sit flush with the footway. On the other side of the road the terraced housing stops at the Masonic Hall, a much wider two storey building with a dashed finish and with its gable to the road. There is a footway along this side of Stanley Road until the access into the site where it stops and recommences in front of the existing two storey building on the site. There is currently between 16m and 25m between the existing two storey building and the frontages of 11-19, Stanley Road. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 This is one of six current applications which propose the redevelopment of this site together with the site on the other side of Gib Lane and other land at the higher end of Stanley Road - 10/00199/B, 19/00201/B and 19/00203/B together with the associated applications for Registered Building consent for the elements of demolition - 19/00200/CON and 19/00204/CON. Registered Building consent is required for demolition within a Conservation Area under Section 19(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999. The applications for RB consent are therefore concerned only with the impact of the demolition works on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and not with any aspect of the redevelopment proposals. 2.2 Proposed here is the demolition of all of the structures within the site listed in paragraphs 1.1 - 1.4 above including the sandstone boundary wall adjacent to Stanley Road, which would not require planning approval but also proposed is the redevelopment of the site to create a commercial unit on the ground floor at the western end of the building together with bin storage areas adjacent to the land, two lift shafts and associated stairwell and eight parking spaces. On the upper ground floor there are to be four apartments, two single bed units, one two bed unit and a three bed unit split between the second and first floors. On the first floor are to be two one bed units and a two bed unit. All of the units will have their bedrooms and bathrooms facing into Gib Lane. 2.3 The building will be set back from Stanley Road by between 1.4m and 3m where it appears there will be a footpath which will continue to Gib Lane. The building line to Gib Lane is to be set back to widen the lane by 1.2m but which also relies upon the demolition of the building to the north on the site of 19/00199/B and 19/00200/CON to provide the wider lane and improvements to the junction with Stanley Road: these works are all outside the application site of 19/00201/B It should be noted that unlike 19/00199/B, the implementation of the current application does not rely upon the demolition of the buildings on the site of 19/00199/B across the lane, although the existing low stone wall there would need to be demolished in order to provide the full 6m distance between parking spaces into which emerging vehicles could travel to exit the spaces on both sides. Bin stores are to be provided in a further recess into the site including bins associated with the unit proposed on site A. The re-paving works on Gib Lane cannot be considered as part of the current application as the site does not include this area. 2.4 The proposed building will be 10m from the frontages of numbers 11 to 19, Stanley Road with a frontage which is between 9m and 7m to the eaves. The building will have a stepped frontage but a consistent eaves level which is 1.5m higher than the ridge of the existing building (which is set back further on the site). It will have a rendered main facade with a sandstone plinth to accommodate the upper part of the lower ground floor level, one single glazed pedestrian door in the eastern side of the front elevation and uniform windows across

33

the first and upper ground floor levels separated by a decorative string course. The pitched roof will be finished in slate. 2.5 The rear of the building is functional with a mix of small, single lights and the lift shaft tops protruding out of the rear roof plane. The ground floor will feature bin stores with a row of doors to the lane, a roller shutter door with warning light to provide access to the eight internal parking spaces and a cycle store. PLANNING POLICY Peel Local Plan 1989 3.1 The site lies within an area of Mixed Use, reflecting the variety of uses in the area - industrial retail, residential and tourism. The site is also within the town's Conservation Area which was adopted in 1990. 3.2 The Peel Local Plan identifies that the town has "special characteristics" (paragraph 1.1) and the town plan aims to satisfy these characteristics and to meet its changing needs, stimulating and encouraging development where appropriate and to give a clear locational reference to national policies on development, change of use and conservation. The Plan includes reference to the need to closely control changes to existing retail units to ensure that original features which contribute significantly to the character of the old town are not lost (paragraph 2.5) and that no fixed guidelines on the retail zoning should be adopted given the sensitive nature and originality of the old town's fabric and its status as a Conservation Area (paragraph 2.3). 3.3 The plan refers to additional residential accommodation in the town as being a priority (paragraph 5.1). 3.4 The plan encourages "positive schemes of action" to enhance the character of the area (paragraphs 9.2 and 9.15) and identifies the importance of vacant and derelict buildings and what future they have to the town (9.4v), but noting that "demolition of even a single building which in itself may not be of architectural or historic significance and therefore not registered, and its replacement by a new building could prejudice the character or appearance of a Conservation Area" (paragraph 9.5). It continues, "If the development of a site following demolition were to be approved, the prospective developer should be aware that close attention would be paid to the design, location and massing of a replacement building" (paragraph 9.6). It states that, "Any new building will only be encouraged if it conforms to high standards of design and it respects the scale and character of its surroundings" (paragraph 9.17). Strategic Plan 2016 3.5 As the site lies within a Conservation Area, Environment Policies 30, 35 and 39 are applicable: Environment Policy 30: There will be a general presumption against demolition of a Registered Building. In considering proposals for demolition or proposed works which would result in substantial demolition of a Registered Building, consideration will be given to: o the condition of the building; o the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the value derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions); o the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; and o the merits of alternative proposals for the site. Environment Policy 35: Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or

34

appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development. Environment Policy 39: "The general presumption will in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area." Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man 3.6 Unlike the Strategic Plan, this document has specific guidance on demolition in Conservation Areas as follows: POLICY CA/6 DEMOLITION Any building which is located within a conservation area and which is not an exception as provided above, may not be demolished without the consent of the Department. In practice, a planning application for consent to demolish must be lodged with the Department. When considering an application for demolition of a building in a conservation area, the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area. Similar criteria will be applied as those outlined in RB/6 above, when assessing the application to demolish the building, but in less clear cut cases, for example, where a building could be said to detract from the special character of the area, it will be essential for the Department to be able to consider the merits of any proposed new development when determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unregistered building in a conservation area. Account will be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed, and in particular of the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole. 3.7 General Policy 2 is also applicable as follows: 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; (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; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption. 3.8 Transport Policy 7 requires that development is carried out in accordance with the Department's parking standards which are set out in Appendix Seven of the Plan and is applicable as follows: Residential A.7.1 High levels of car ownership have led to an increase in the level of parking expected for new residential development, and outside of town centre locations these standards should not

35

be relaxed. New-built residential development should be provided with two parking spaces per dwelling, at least one of which should be within the curtilage of the dwelling and behind the front of the dwelling, although the amount and location of parking will vary in respect of development such as terracing, apartments, and sheltered housing. In the case of town centre and previously developed sites, the Department will consider reducing this requirement having regard to: (a) the location of the housing relative to public transport, employment, and public amenities; (b) the size of the dwelling; (c) any restriction on the nature of the occupancy (such as sheltered housing); and (d) the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Where new dwellings are created by the conversion of existing buildings, parking space should be formed by the clearance of outbuildings and low-grade annexes or "outlets" if it is reasonable and practicable so to do; however, in general, the need to find a use for redundant buildings which are in sound condition will outweigh the drawback of any shortfall in parking provision. Retail A.7.4 Most shopping facilities in established centres do not have on site parking provided due to the intensive form of development and their location off the main highway, often in pedestrianised streets (Peel, Castletown, Douglas and Ramsey in particular). In most of these cases, provision is made for servicing outside trading hours from relaxation of the access regulations and the use of de-mountable bollards and rear access lanes. It is impracticable to require on site car parking for either staff or customers in such locations although it must be feasible for retail developments to be serviced. It is equally essential that there are available sufficient areas of public car parking either in car parks or on street, and that adequate controls are in place for these spaces to be available to those who need them. Standards required are as follows: Apartments - 1 space for 1 bedroom; 2 spaces for 2 or more bedrooms Town centre shops - space for service vehicle use Appendix Seven notes: These standards may be relaxed where development: (a) would secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building of architectural or historic interest; or (b) would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscape; or (c) is otherwise of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area. (d) is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality. 3.9 It should be noted that as the proposal is for seven apartments, there is no requirement for the provision of affordable housing or public open space. It should also be noted, however, that the adjacent site, part of which is required for the servicing of this development, is also within the applicant's ownership and is simultaneously proposed for development. Cumulatively, the developments amount to fourteen apartments and together, these developments would result in enough units to require both affordable housing and public open space under Housing Policy 5 and Recreation Policies 3 and 4. The applications suggest that as each is proposing fewer than 8 or 10 units, these policies are not applicable but they would be prepared to offer a commuted sum to the local authority, but noting that there is significant public open space already in place in the vicinity.

36

3.10 The Department has an Operational Policy on Section 13 Agreements which set out why and how such agreements should be entered into and also provides guidance on how this is done. It states: "It is important that the Planning Committee has sufficient information to understand the Case Officer's recommendation. Therefore applications will not be presented to the planning committee without at least a draft Heads of Terms for the agreement." 3.11 The Department has also recently adopted guidance on the design of residential development - new dwellings and extensions thereto and this provides advice on design as well as how the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in nearby dwellings, may be assessed (Residential Design Guidance March 2019). PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 Alterations to the existing buildings have been submitted in the past, none of which is relevant to the consideration of the current proposal. There are concurrent applications for the redevelopment of the buildings on the northern side of Gib Lane (19/00199/B and 19/00200/CON) which are relevant to the consideration of the current application, together with two applications for the redevelopment of other garage premises owned by the same applicant, further up Stanley Road (19/00203/B and 19/00204/CON). 4.2 Most recently planning approval was granted on appeal for the demolition of the building at the front of the site and the erection of five lock up garages for residents in the locality (13/90930/B). The inspector made a number of comments about the lack of importance of the building to be demolished, the low profile of the building to be erected and the character of the site formed by the commercial activities on the site. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1.1 Peel Town Commissioners object to the application (15.04.19). They note that the applications cumulatively result in the loss of 6 public on street car parking spaces in a location where demand currently exceeds the availability of spaces and whilst they understand that this may be necessary to enable the development, it should not be ignored. Whilst the Strategic Plan enables a relaxation of the standards which require two parking spaces per dwelling and two for every apartment with two bedrooms or more, this is only where it can be demonstrated that there will not be an unacceptable impact on on-street parking in the vicinity and this has not been demonstrated in the application. Furthermore, the car park operated by the Commissioners on Marine Parade is intended for users of the beach and for coach parking and any spare capacity must include provision for manoeuvring of these larger vehicles. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Commissioners believe that the developments will result in an exacerbation of parking issues in the area. They are of the view that the applicant has not considered a less intensive form of development which would reduce the amount of car parking required. 5.1.2 They also believe that the height of the development, seeking its reference from the tallest buildings in the area, fails to conform with paragraph 9.17 of the Peel Local Plan and will result in an overbearing presence in the streetscene and removing the random nature of building heights which contributes to the character of the area and will be particularly noticeable when using Gib Lane and when viewing the promenade from the breakwater and Peel Castle. They refer to the East Quay Design Guide and consider that the advice which restricts new buildings to 2/3 storeys should equally apply to the promenade and these sites. 5.1.3 They believe that the development will adversely affect the living conditions of nearby residents through the height and mass of the buildings and their being built right up to the roadside and footways. The properties at the bottom of Stanley Road which face north and Christian Street will have an oppressive view of the development although this does not include the development proposed in this particular application. Finally, they note that there are a number of sandstone buildings on the sits and this material adds to the character and

37

historic nature of Peel and is not incorporated into any of the new buildings. Additionally, one of the warehouse buildings appears to be in sound condition and the development could seek to reuse the materials from or refurbish this building. 5.2.1 Manx National Heritage submit an objection to all six of the applications on the basis that there the proposals would result in the loss of fabric of historical importance for the town due to their former association as a warehouse and a net loft for Peel's fishing industry and are rare examples of this type of building. They consider that the historical assessment of the site includes a number of errors and wrongly dismisses these as of no historical significance. They recommend that permission is not granted for the demolition of these buildings unless and until a detailed, professional assessment of significance of these historic structures has been undertaken and which demonstrates that they are not of sufficient interest and value to justify their removal. A sensitive renovation and conversion scheme which re-uses the historic buildings would be preferable. 5.2.2 They consider that the size and scale of the development is inappropriate and the considerable continuation of the ridgeline, unbroken, would be inappropriate as the character of this part of the town is marked by differences in height and character and it would also block out glimpses along Gib Lane through to the castle and beach, ignoring conservation importance of views and vistas, the sense of open space and the role played by the sea. They consider that the architectural details is an austere expression of the local Victorian vernacular lacking the architectural embellishments and proportions that might be expected within the fenestration - the string courses, doorways and cornices. They consider it falls short of the warehouse types of buildings which were common in this part of Peel which would have run at right angles to the road facilitating views in and out and breaking up the long ridge of the building. They also note that there is no ecological assessment and bats have been known to be present here. (05.04.19) 5.3 Highway Services object to the application (31.05.19). They are concerned that the application fails to demonstrate that the proposed development and highway changes would be safe and in addition, there is inadequate car parking. The applicant should have provided a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit in respect of the proposed highway changes and additional design work needs to be undertaken to support this. In addition, a Transport Statement needs to be provided to address the proposed total amount of commercial floorspace. The visibility splays should be shown on the drawing as they have been drawn incorrectly. A continuous footpath should be provided along the length of Stanley Road across the site. The proposed block paving and the arch above the adopted highway of Gib Lane are unacceptable and the proposed building would encroach onto the public highway, which is also not acceptable. Swept path drawings are required to demonstrate how vehicles will be able to exit and enter the garage/parking spaces along with how a refuse vehicle would use and exit Gib Lane. The proposed roller shutter door access to the car park is unacceptable as vehicles would have to wait in the lane until the door opens. Finally, there are no parking surveys of the surrounding area which demonstrate that there is sufficient car parking in the surrounding area to accommodate the lack of the full complement of parking being provided on site and there is no bicycle parking being provided on site. They advise that doors may not open out over the highway. Private representations 5.4.1 There have been a number of representations on all six of the current applications for the Empire Garage premises, many of which have applied the same comments and submitted the same letter or e-mail to all six proposals. It is clear that some of the submissions relate to one of the applications not all, but all have been included for completeness. 5.4.2 Representations have been made from a number of local residents, some of whom consider the proposed development to be a positive contribution but others who consider the development too high and over-intensive and of a character which will adversely affect the

38

appearance and character of the town. Some express concern at the loss of the sandstone walling. Many express concern at the lack of car parking on site given that the area is congested already and it is difficult to find a car parking space for their existing dwelling. Concern is also expressed for the presence of bats which have been seen in the vicinity and the safety of users of Gib Lane. Some comments have been received referring to the impact of loss of a view and the negative impact on the value of property, neither of which is a relevant planning consideration. 5.4.3 Some express concern at the even-ness of the roofline which is uncharacteristic of the area and the design does not incorporate the detail or quirky nature, variety of heights and materials of the existing buildings in the vicinity. Some express concern at the widening of Gib Lane which will adversely affect its character and that the buildings will result in the loss of a public view of the sea from the higher part of Gib Lane. Some suggest that the building could be anywhere, not even on the Isle of Man. 5.4.4 Some of the residents who live close by suggest that they will be affected by loss of light and that the narrow and historic highway network will not be able to safely accommodate the proposed developments. 5.4.5 One submission includes a car parking survey which reports that between Christian Street, Church Street, Circular Road, Creg Malin car park, Cross Street, Derby Drive, Gib Lane, Philip Christian Centre, Police Station car park, Stanley Mount, Stanley Road, the town hall car park and Walpole Road, there were at most times between none and 3 parking spaces available in all of these areas (exact figures are provided). 5.4.6 Many point out that owners of properties in Peel are required to install sliding sash windows and retain all historic elements of their properties whilst the proposed building has none of these features. Some suggest that there is no need for commercial units here when some are lying empty elsewhere in the town. 5.4.7 One submission suggests that the sandstone building behind the car wash is at least 120 years old and is part of the fishing heritage of Peel, formerly known as The Bark House and was where fishermen spent a lot of time barking and drying their nets until the introduction of synthetic fibres in the 1950s. They suggest that the pit in which they immersed their nets was still visible until Farghers took over the warehouse. Whilst some redevelopment could occur, efforts could be made to retain the sandstone buildings on site. There is a concern that the plans neither preserve nor enhance the Area. 5.4.8 It is noted that there is no provision for renewable energy in the scheme and some properties would have their outlook and privacy adversely affected by so tall a building so close to their property. 5.4.9 Finally, many express concern about the impact of the development whilst it is being undertaken, on traffic safety, car parking and pedestrian and private residential amenity. 5.4.10 These representations have been received from the owners of the following properties: Reference is also made to the recent approval for garages on Site B which are not taken into account in the car parking calculations and the loss of the sandstone walls on Gib Lane 25, Bridge Street (21.03.19) 30, Stanley Road (22.03.19) 6, Stanley Mount (undated but received on 26.03.19) 31, Stanley Terrace (undated but received on 28.03.19) 3, Stanley Road (27.03.19) 11, Stanley Road (28.03.19)

39

24, Circular Road (25.03.19) 37, Stanley Terrace (30.03.19 and 05.04.19) 20, Stanley Road (28.03.19) 10, Gib Lane (29.03.19) 5, Stanley Mount (28.03.19 and 29, 03.19) 31, Shore Road (30.03.19) Westholme, Cannan Avenue, Kirk Michael (29.03.19) 8, Gib Lane (30.03.19) 13, Rockmount Road (29.03.19) 18, Stanley Mount (undated but received on 02.04.19) 5, Stanley Road (31.03.19) 18, Castle Street (23.03.19 and 31.03.19) 21, Queen's Drive (29.03.19) 17, Circular Road (31.03.19) 60, Patrick Street (01.04.19) 26, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 17, Stanley Road (30.03.19) 22, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 32, Stanley Road (28.03.19) 39, Stanley Terrace (03.04.19, 05.04.19 and 16.04.19) 6, Stanley Road (03.04.19) 8, Stanley Road (undated but received on 03.04.19) 40, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 24, Bridge Street (02.04.19) 9, Stanley Road (04.04.19) 13, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 4, Stanley Road (03.04.19) 11, Church Street, (04.04.19) 6, Stanley Road (undated but received on 04.04.19) 24, Stanley Road (04.04.19) 16, Stanley Road (03.04.19) The Old Chapel, Patrick who rents an office on Gib Lane (05.04.19) 7, Stanley Mount (02.04.19) 14, Stanley Mount (05.04.19) 14, Bridge Street (06.04.19) 19, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 40, Stanley Road, (02.04.19) 9A, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 14, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 12, Stanley Road (05.04.19) Reayrt ny Keylley (05.04.19) 6, Circular Road (06.04.19) Thie ny Scoill, Derby Road (03.04.19) 5, Circular Road (undated but received on 03.04.19) Garden Flat, 4, Marine Parade (owner of the Old Stables on Gib Lane) (03.04.19) 6. Oak Road (28.07.19) 5.4.11 Tim Crookall MLC reiterates a number of the above views, commenting on the lack of the re-use of existing sandstone, the parking, highways and traffic issues, loss of light to existing residents. He also notes that in his time as representative of the people of Peel, he has very, very rarely seen such local opposition to a development scheme and whilst he believes that there is generally no opposition to the redevelopment of the sites, what is proposed is not acceptable (13.04.19). 5.4.12 Peel Residents' Association, established following the submission of the six applications and representing the owners of unspecified properties on Christian Street and Stanley Terrace

40

(05.04.19) submit the same parking study as was submitted by the resident of 37, Stanley Terrace and reiterate the concerns of others regarding the height, design and impact of the development on traffic and car parking. They suggest that the members all share boundaries with the site and should be given Interested Person Status although each member has written in separately. No addresses have been provided, only names. 5.5 Peel Heritage Trust (28.03.19) comment on all of the applications but in respect of this current proposal, they suggest that "this is of less concern for us apart from the general traffic issues" which relate to already congested roads where it is difficult to find a parking space. ASSESSMENT 6.1 The principle of the development of residential and commercial development on this site is considered acceptable on the basis that both uses are presently found in the area, they are included in the definition of Mixed Use and are compatible with the adjacent area. The issues in this case are: i) whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Environment Policy 35 ii) whether the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area in general in accordance with EP42 and GP2 iii) whether the proposal would satisfy the requirements of General Policy 2 in terms of impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property iv) whether the development would make adequate provision for car parking in accordance with Transport Policy 7 and Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan v) whether the proposed apartments and commercial units would have sufficient amenity and service provision in accordance with Housing Policy 17 and Transport Policy 7 and Appendix 7 vi) whether the proposal would have any adverse effect on highway safety in accordance with General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 4 and vii) whether the proposal makes adequate provision for affordable housing and public open space in accordance with Housing Policy 5 ad Recreation Policies 3 and 4. 6.2 whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Environment Policy 35 6.2.1 The existing buildings on the site will need to be demolished in order to facilitate the redevelopment of the site and the acceptability of this is dealt with in 19/00202/CON. The existing buildings on the site are varied in terms of their architectural treatment, age and appearance. The main two storey building contributes little from the front and side, but from the rear, the building appears completely differently with a sandstone elevation to Gib Lane. 6.2.2 The proposed building does not follow the varied roofline of the rest of the terraces on Stanley Road but mirrors the more regimented terrace of the properties which elsewhere and mainly on the main promenade frontage. Simply because there is nothing of a similar mass would not be a reason for refusing the application, particularly given the Masonic Hall which is out of scale with the rest of Stanley Road albeit with its ridge running at right angles to those on the rest of the street. That is not to say that it would not have been a more welcome approach to adopt the mixed roofline and components of more modest scale within the site. However, the test is not whether there would be a better way of developing the site but whether the development represents a preservation or enhancement of the CA. In this case, it cannot be considered a preservation as nothing the existing is being retained. However, what is proposed is considered overall to result in a better appearance of buildings as viewed from Stanley Road, on this prominent site and the development is considered to satisfy EP35 of the Strategic Plan and the corresponding parts of the Planning Policy Statement 1/01. It is not accepted that comparisons with East Quay, whether by the applicant or the Commissioners are appropriate given the very different architectural and functional qualities of the buildings in that part of the town.

41

6.2.3 The much taller building will have an impact on the vistas available within the Conservation Area, particularly Gib Lane and will change the character of the lane from one with lower, mixed finish industrial style buildings to the rear of an apartment block with a row garages, gated bin stores and a roller shutter door fronting onto the lane. This may not be a concern were the lane not a public highway used by property owners and the public generally, but it is and this would be a significant change for those users of the lane. Whilst the mass of the front can be absorbed into a much wider landscape where there are other, taller buildings, Gib Lane is much shorter and with a much more varied streetscene with some much smaller scale buildings. The impact on the character and appearance of Gib Lane is not considered to be acceptable as the development would neither preserve or enhance the character of appearance of it. 6.2.4 It is also relevant to consider what would result if the development proposed here were implemented but that on the adjacent site were not. The proposed building is higher than the existing building on site A and as such, if it were retained the proposed building would be visible over the top and from Gib Lane and the promenade. The building is clearly intended to have a principal, well designed front elevation whilst its rear elevation appearance follows its function, with horizontally proportioned windows and the lift shaft tops. If this were clearly visible, it would not have a positive impact on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. 6.3 whether the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area in general in accordance with EP42 and GP2 6.3.1 The conclusion of this is that set out in the preceding paragraphs. 6.4 whether the proposal would satisfy the requirements of General Policy 2 in terms of impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property 6.4.1 Little information has been provided to assess the impact of the scheme on the living conditions of those in properties close to the site, particularly 11-10, Stanley Road. The proposed building would be 1.5m higher than the highest part of the existing buildings on the site and not only that, the building will be closer, built onto the back of the footpath. Guidance is provided in the Department's new Residential Design Guidance, March 2019 where neighbourliness is discussed in Section 7. This talks about overbearing development and building which can have an adverse impact on light and outlook. It recommends that we consider taking a dimension which is measured from 2m on the frontage of an affected property, looking 25 degrees across towards the proposed building. If the building appears above this point, there is likely to be an adverse impact on outlook and light. Whilst the applicant has not provided an illustration of this, a simple consideration of this calculation appears to show that the building would extend beyond this height and would therefore have an adverse impact on the outlook and light from 11-19, Stanley Road. 6.4.2 The Design Guidance looks at areas where there is a tight-knit building layout and street pattern and suggests that in such cases it may be acceptable to allow closer distances. In this case, there could be an argument for replicating the existing street pattern in a similar form to the Stanley Road properties and the submitted drawing 1712-B-006 suggest that such a replication would result in a building of a similar height. 6.5 whether the development would make adequate provision for car parking in accordance with Transport Policy 7 and Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan 6.5.1 The proposed development comprises seven apartments three of which have a single bedroom. This equates to a requirement for eleven car parking spaces in accordance with the Strategic Plan. The Plan does not require any parking spaces for users of the commercial units - and indeed there is none serving the existing showroom if site B is considered a separate entity - only space for service and deliveries.

42

6.5.2 The applicant seeks to rely upon the relaxation provision within the Strategic Plan without demonstrating that the failure to provide the full complement of spaces will not result in unacceptable on-street parking in the area. The applicant instead seeks to point out that there are alternative parking spaces, including the Commissioners' car park next to the Creg Malin which the Commissioners indicate is intended for coach parking and use by visitors to the town and the beach, particularly in the summer months. Of note is that on Saturday 4th May, a Bank Holiday weekend and a sunny day, the coach park had one spare parking space and the promenade had two free spaces at the western end, one of which was about to be occupied by a vehicle when the officer passed it. 6.5.3 Stanley Road and the promenade are often busy and finding a space is difficult at all hours of the day. There is nothing in the application which would suggest that the additional three spaces which are required for the apartment occupants could be found in the surrounding area without any adverse impact. Whilst a relaxation has been applied in other parts of the town, such as on East Quay (16/00839/B) where the inspector was content to accept one space per apartment, noting the applicant's evidence that it was relatively easy to find a space close to the site and also that the nearby apartments car parking spaces were not always fully utilised which suggested that apartments in this part of the town could be occupied by persons who only had one vehicle per apartment. There is no such evidence here, quite the contrary where parking spaces are difficult to find and where the surrounding area is residential rather than commercial, when parking spaces are likely to be required all at the same time. 6.5.4 The development would not preserve a sensitive streetscape to justify this: the development does not have to be so large or contain so may apartments to result in something which would preserve the streetscape and the proposal does not re-use any existing buildings. Whilst redevelopment of some or all of the site may be of benefit to the Conservation Area, it does not have to be of this size, particular the full depth of the site from Stanley Road to Gib Lane where the existing building is less wide. The lack of car parking cannot therefore be justified by parts a, b or c of Appendix Seven. 6.6 whether the proposed apartments and commercial units would have sufficient amenity and service provision in accordance with Housing Policy 17 and Transport Policy 7 and Appendix 7 6.6.1 The apartments have reasonable principal outlook and light from the windows which look south towards 11-19, Stanley Road. The rear outlook is poor, being only 4m-11m from the rear of the building proposed on site A although if this was not implemented, the upper floor would have a view out over the top of the garage. They are of a size as to be able to accommodate washing and drying facilities without needing external space for these functions. The proposal does not provide sufficient car parking to satisfy the Strategic Plan standards. No space is provided for the servicing of the commercial unit which is proposed to be serviced as existing from either Marine Parade or Gib Lane although the existing layout includes a space between the building and Stanley Road in which parking and deliveries could occur. However, the lane is being widened by around 1.2m which will assist not only the servicing of the proposed unit but also the general users of the lane. Given the existing situation regarding the servicing of the garage and workshops, it is not considered that the provisions for the new commercial unit are unacceptable. 6.7 whether the proposal would have any adverse effect on highway safety in accordance with General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 4 6.7.1 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services are not satisfied that the development has been demonstrated to have a safe impact on the highway network and have identified certain elements of the scheme which are unacceptable or which require amending. They also comment that there is inadequate parking proposed and no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that this will not have an unacceptable impact on on-street parking in the vicinity.

43

6.8 whether the proposal makes adequate provision for affordable housing and public open space in accordance with Housing Policy 5 ad Recreation Policies 3 and 4. 6.8.1 The proposal makes no provision for public open space or affordable housing. Given that the adjacent site is also owned by the applicant and is being proposed for development at the same time, and particularly as the development of site A relies upon the demolition of the buildings on site A, or at least some of them, to provide the bin store, it is considered appropriate to consider the cumulative impact of the developments which would together result in sufficient housing numbers to warrant requiring both affordable housing and public open space. No provision is being made for affordable housing and whilst a commuted sum has been referred to in respect of public open space, there is nothing definitive in the application to demonstrate the impact of this. It cannot be concluded that there is sufficient provision for affordable housing or public open space. CONCLUSION 7.1 The development is considered to neither completely preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area by virtue of the exposure of part of the rear elevation to views from the north in the event that Site A is not also developed at the same time or before. In addition, there would be insufficient car parking provided with no evidence that this would not have an adverse impact on on-street parking in the vicinity. Finally the development fails to make adequate provision for affordable housing or public open space. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

44

45

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 12th August 2019

Item 5.4 Proposal : Registered Building consent for the demolition elements

relating the application 19/00201/B Site Address : Garage And Premises

Stanley Road Peel Isle Of Man

Applicant : Empire Garages Ltd Application No. : Principal Planner :

19/00202/CON- click to view Miss S E Corlett

RECOMMENDATION: To REFUSE the application

______________________________________ Reasons and Notes for Refusal R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes (if any) attached to the reasons R 1. In the absence of a detailed, professional appraisal of the historical importance of the sandstone warehouse on the site, is considered that the removal of this building could have an adverse impact on the historical importance of the Conservation Area and the application would therefore be contrary to Environment Policies 30, 35 and 39 of the Strategic Plan and CA/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01.

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons 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 6(4): Tim Crookall MLC as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy The owners of 25, Bridge Street 30, Stanley Road 6, Stanley Mount 18, Castle Street 7, Victoria Terrace 24, Circular Road 31, Stanley Terrace 3, Stanley Road 37, Stanley Terrace 20, Stanley Road 10, Gib Lane 31, Shore Road 5, Stanley Mount

46

Westholme, Cannan Avenue, Kirk Michael 8, Gib Lane 18, Stanley Mount 13, Rockmount Road 5, Stanley Road 21, Queen's Drive 17, Stanley Road 60, Patrick Street 26, Stanley Road 22, Stanley Road 32, Stanley Road 17, Circular Road 39, Stanley Terrace 6, Stanley Road 40, Stanley Road 24, Bridge Street 5, Circular Road Thie ny Scoill, Derby Road 6, Circular Road 12, Stanley Road Reayrt ny Keylley 14, Stanley Mount 9A, Stanley Road 14, Bridge Street 14, Stanley Road The Old Chapel, Patrick Corner, rents an office in Gib Lane 16, Stanley Road 24, Stanley Road 4, Stanley Road 13, Stanley road 9, Stanley Road 19, Stanley Road Garden Flat, 4, Marine Parade, owner of the Old Stables, Gib Lane 5, Oak Road as these properties are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy or 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. Peel Residents' Association as as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy Peel Heritage Trust 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.

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

47

THE SITE 1.1 The application site is an area of land which sits at the lower end of Stanley Road just before it reaches Shore Road and Marine Parade, bounded by Stanley Road and Gib Lane, a two way lane which runs westwards from the higher end of Walpole Drive to meet Stanley Road. 1.2 The site contains a two storey warehouse building which has attached at its eastern end, two single storey garages all arranged in an L shape. The site is bounded to Stanley Road by a sandstone wall of varying heights, part of which has a concrete capping and part of which looks like it may at one time in the past, have been the front of a cottage, the apertures of two windows and a central door having been blocked up in brick. 1.3 The two storey building has a sandstone wall to Gib Lane with high level windows in this elevation which sits right alongside the lane. The elevation facing towards Stanley Road is finished in dashed render and has ground floor vehicular sized openings with timber doors and a similar sized window with a row of windows above, all within a brown pea dashed wall. The elevation facing west is also finished in brown pea dash and has a pedestrian door, two windows and a door sized opening fitted with a fixed pane. 1.4 The single storey buildings sit below the level of the sandstone wall. One is built of sandstone, the other in front in brick, both having a monopitch corrugated sheeted roof. The brick structure has a vehicle sized opening within it, the sandstone building a pedestrian door. 1.5 The site was most recently used as parking and workshops associated with the Empire Garage operation which sits on the other side of Gib Lane. 1.6 The property sits opposite a terrace of three storey, plain fronted, rendered houses whose frontages sit flush with the footway. On the other side of the road the terraced housing stops at the Masonic Hall, a much wider two storey building with a dashed finish and with its gable to the road. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 There are current applications which propose the redevelopment of this site together with the site on the other side of Gib Lane and other land at the higher end of Stanley Road - 10/00199/B, 19/00201/B and 19/00203/B together with the associated applications for Registered Building consent for the elements of demolition - 19/00200/CON and 19/00204/CON. Registered Building consent is required for demolition within a Conservation Area under Section 19(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999. The applications for RB consent are therefore concerned only with the impact of the demolition works on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and not with any aspect of the redevelopment proposals. 2.2 Proposed here is the demolition of all of the structures within the site listed in paragraphs 1.1 - 1.4 above including the sandstone boundary wall adjacent to Stanley Road. PLANNING POLICY Peel Local Plan 1989 3.1 The site lies within an area of Mixed Use, reflecting the variety of uses in the area - industrial retail, residential and tourism. The site is also within the town's Conservation Area which was adopted in 1990. 3.2 The Peel Local Plan identifies that the town has "special characteristics" (paragraph 1.1) and the town plan aims to satisfy these characteristics and to meet its changing needs, stimulating and encouraging development where appropriate and to give a clear locational reference to national policies on development, change of use and conservation. The Plan

48

includes reference to the need to closely control changes to existing retail units to ensure that original features which contribute significantly to the character of the old town are not lost (paragraph 2.5) and that no fixed guidelines on the retail zoning should be adopted given the sensitive nature and originality of the old town's fabric and its status as a Conservation Area (paragraph 2.3). 3.3 The plan refers to additional residential accommodation in the town as being a priority (paragraph 5.1). 3.4 The plan encourages "positive schemes of action" to enhance the character of the area (paragraphs 9.2 and 9.15) and identifies the importance of vacant and derelict buildings and what future they have to the town (9.4v), but noting that "demolition of even a single building which in itself may not be of architectural or historic significance and therefore not registered, and its replacement by a new building could prejudice the character or appearance of a Conservation Area" (paragraph 9.5). It continues, "If the development of a site following demolition were to be approved, the prospective developer should be aware that close attention would be paid to the design, location and massing of a replacement building" (paragraph 9.6). It states that, "Any new building will only be encouraged if it conforms to high standards of design and it respects the scale and character of its surroundings" (paragraph 9.17). Strategic Plan 2016 3.5 As the site lies within a Conservation Area, Environment Policies 30, 35 and 39 are applicable: Environment Policy 30: There will be a general presumption against demolition of a Registered Building. In considering proposals for demolition or proposed works which would result in substantial demolition of a Registered Building, consideration will be given to: o the condition of the building; o the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the value derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions); o the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; and o the merits of alternative proposals for the site. Environment Policy 35: Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development. Environment Policy 39: "The general presumption will in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area." Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man 3.6 Unlike the Strategic Plan, this document has specific guidance on demolition in Conservation Areas as follows: POLICY CA/6 DEMOLITION Any building which is located within a conservation area and which is not an exception as provided above, may not be demolished without the consent of the Department. In practice, a planning application for consent to demolish must be lodged with the Department. When considering an application for demolition of a building in a conservation area, the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area. Similar criteria will be applied as those outlined in RB/6 above,

49

when assessing the application to demolish the building, but in less clear cut cases, for example, where a building could be said to detract from the special character of the area, it will be essential for the Department to be able to consider the merits of any proposed new development when determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unregistered building in a conservation area. Account will be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed, and in particular of the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole. PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 Alterations to the existing buildings have been submitted in the past, none of which is relevant to the consideration of the current proposal. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services have no highway interest in this application (19.03.19). 5.2 Peel Town Commissioners object to this application, noting that the existing sandstone walls and buildings add to the historic nature of Peel and this material is not being re-used in the redevelopment, suggesting also that one of the warehouse buildings seems to be in sound condition and could be re-used or refurbished (15.04.19). 5.3 Manx National Heritage submit an objection to all six of the applications on the basis that there the proposals would result in the loss of fabric of historical importance for the town due to their former association as a warehouse and a net loft for Peel's fishing industry and are rare examples of this type of building. They consider that the historical assessment of the site includes a number of errors and wrongly dismisses these as of no historical significance. They recommend that permission is not granted for the demolition of these buildings unless and until a detailed, professional assessment of significance of these historic structures has been undertaken and which demonstrates that they are not of sufficient interest and value to justify their removal. A sensitive renovation and conversion scheme which re-uses the historic buildings would be preferable (05.04.19). 5.4 Private representations 5.4.1 There have been a number of representations on all six of the current applications for the Empire Garage premises, many of which have applied the same comments and submitted the same letter or e-mail to all six proposals. It is clear that some of the submissions relate to one of the applications not all, but all have been included for completeness but only the comments relating to the loss of the existing buildings have been noted here as this reflects what the application actually proposes. 5.4.2 Concern is expressed at the loss of the sandstone walls on Gib Lane and some submissions suggest that the sandstone building behind the car wash is at least 120 years old and is part of the fishing heritage of Peel, formerly known as The Bark House and was where fishermen spent a lot of time barking and drying their nets until the introduction of synthetic fibres in the 1950s. They suggest that the pit in which they immersed their nets was still visible until Farghers took over the warehouse. Whilst some redevelopment could occur, efforts could be made to retain the sandstone buildings on site. There is a concern that the plans neither preserve nor enhance the Area. 25, Bridge Street (21.03.19) 30, Stanley Road (22.03.19) 6, Stanley Mount (undated but received on 26.03.19) 18, Castle Street (31.03.19) 7, Victoria Terrace (27.03.19) 24, Circular Road (25.03.19) 31, Stanley Terrace (undated but received ??)

50

3, Stanley Road (27.03.19) 37, Stanley Terrace (30.03.19 and 05.04.19) 20, Stanley Road (28.03.19) 10, Gib Lane (29.03l.19) 31, Shore Road (30.03.19) 5, Stanley Mount (28.03.19 and 29.03.19) Westholme, Cannan Avenue, Kirk Michael (29.03.19) 8, Gib Lane (30.03.19) 18, Stanley Mount (undated but received on 02.04.19) 13, Rockmount Road (29.03.19) 5, Stanley Road (31.03.19) 21, Queen's Drive (29.03.19) 17, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 60, Patrick Street (01.04.19) 26, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 22, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 32, Stanley Road (28.03.19) 17, Circular Road (31.03.19) 39, Stanley Terrace (03.04.19) 6, Stanley Road (03.04.19 and undated but received on 04.04.19) 40, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 24, Bridge Street (02.04.19) 5, Circular Road (undated but received on 03.04.19) Thie ny Scoill, Derby Road (03.04.19) 6, Circular Road (06.04.19) 12, Stanley Road (05.04.19) Reayrt ny Keylley (05.04.19) 14, Stanley Mount (05.04.19) 9A, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 14, Bridge Street (06.04.19) 14, Stanley Road (05.04.19) The Old Chapel, Patrick Corner, rents an office in Gib Lane (05.04.19) 16, Stanley Road (03.04.19) 24, Stanley Road (04.04.19) 4, Stanley Road (03.04.19) 13, Stanley road (02.04.19) 9, Stanley Road (04.04.19) 19, Stanley Road (05.04.19) Garden Flat, 4, Marine Parade, owner of the Old Stables, Gib Lane (03.04.19) 6, Oak Road (28.07.19) 5.4.3 Peel Residents' Association, established following the submission of the six applications (05.04.19) submit the same parking study as was submitted by the resident of 37, Stanley Terrace and reiterate the concerns of others regarding the height, design and impact of the development on traffic and car parking. They suggest that the members all share boundaries with the site and should be given Interested Person Status although each member has written in separately. No addresses have been provided, only names. 5.4.4 Peel Heritage Trust (28.03.19) make no comment on the demolition of the existing buildings. 5.4.5 Tim Crookall MLC reiterates a number of the above views, commenting on the lack of the re-use of existing sandstone, the parking, highways and traffic issues, loss of light to existing residents. He also notes that in his time as representative of the people of Peel, he has very, very rarely seen such local opposition to a development scheme and whilst he

51

believes that there is generally no opposition to the redevelopment of the sites, what is proposed is not acceptable (13.04.19). ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issue in this case is whether the demolition of the buildings on site would have an adverse impact on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. Whilst there are concurrent proposals for redevelopment of this and the adjacent site, this is not relevant to the consideration of this application, although it is relevant to consider whether it is acceptable for these buildings to be demolished without the assurance of immediate redevelopment and if so, whether any conditions need to be attached to control the appearance of the site in the mean time. 6.2 It is clear from the policies that where existing buildings do not contribute positively to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, it may be acceptable for those buildings to be demolished. The existing car showroom on Site A is a modern building which contributes little to the otherwise historic and attractive seaside setting of the immediate vicinity. Whilst the building alongside on Site A is more interesting, possessing elements of sandstone walling, this building has been significantly changed and contributes little as it stands, to the Conservation Area. The buildings on Site B have been similarly altered but as is clear from Gib Lane, their composition of Peel sandstone, even if this has been compromised by patching and additional fabric being added on top, adds to the character of the town, particularly given the historic use associated with the fishing industry. 6.3 However, Manx National Heritage suggest that the application has been too quick to dismiss the historical importance of the existing sandstone building on the site and in the absence of a detailed historical appraisal, it is not accepted that RB consent should be granted for the removal of this building. 6.4 If the buildings were demolished and the site levelled and finished with a consistent material, it is considered that this, if the adjacent building proposed for demolition under 19/00202/CON were also removed, would open up a public view of the sea and provide more light and open outlook for numbers 9-19 (odd only), Stanley Road. If the existing buildings on Site b were demolished, notwithstanding the concerns expressed in 6.3 above, some of what remains of the buildings on Site A are interesting, if not in particularly good repair and the public view of this would not be objectionable. Whilst the showroom is not particularly attractive, its rear elevation is little different from its others which are already visible from Stanley Road and Marine Parade. It is also relevant that should open sites become unsightly, the local authority has powers under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1984 (Section 14) to take action to remediate the situation. CONCLUSION 7.1 In the absence of a detailed, professional appraisal of the historical importance of the sandstone warehouse on the site, is considered that the removal of this building could have an adverse impact on the historical importance of the Conservation Area and the application is not supported. CONCLUSION 7.1 In the absence of a detailed, professional appraisal of the historical importance of the sandstone warehouse on the site, is considered that the removal of this building could have an adverse impact on the historical importance of the Conservation Area and the application is not supported. The single issue in this case is whether the demolition of the buildings, including the boundary sandstone wall, would have an adverse impact on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. Whilst there may be concerns about what will replace the buildings, this is not an issue for the current application which relates solely to the demolition of the existing structures.

52

INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Registered Buildings) Regulations 2013, the following are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application; (c) Manx National Heritage; and (d) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

53

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 12th August 2019

Item 5.5 Proposal : Demolition of commercial garages and related buildings and

erection of 5No three storey town houses and apartment block containing twelve apartments, all with associated parking (in association with PA 19/00204/CON)

Site Address : 4 Garages And Car Compound Stanley Road Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1NY

Applicant : Empire Garages Ltd Application No. : Principal Planner :

19/00203/B- click to view Miss S E Corlett

RECOMMENDATION: To REFUSE the application

______________________________________ Reasons and Notes for Refusal R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes (if any) attached to the reasons R 1. The height and mass of the apartment building and the northern elevation with its bulk and general absence of interesting features would have an adverse impact on the Conservation Area and streetscene generally, whether the viewer is close by on Cross Street or Stanley Road or further afield, contrary to Environment Policy 35 and General Policy 2b, c and g of the Strategic Plan. R 2. The height and mass of the proposed apartment building would have an adverse impact on the light and outlook available from 21, 23, 25 Christian Street, 27 and 29, Stanley Terrace, 21 and 26, Circular Road and Octagon House, Cross Street contrary to General Policy 2g of the Strategic Plan. R 3. The height and mass of the terraced building closest to 3, Stanley Road would have an adverse impact on the light and outlook from the only windows which serve the bathroom and bedroom of this property and as such the development would fail to accord with General Policy 2g of the Strategic Plan. R 4. The proposed development would not make adequate provision for car parking spaces within the building in accordance with the standards of the Strategic Plan (Appendix Seven) and there is insufficient information to demonstrate that this would not have an unacceptable impact on on-street parking and highway safety in the area. The development is therefore contrary to Transport Policy 7 and General Policy 2h of the Strategic Plan. R 5. The development does not demonstrate that it would have an acceptable impact on highway safety, through the inclusion of features within or above the public highway which are not acceptable to the highway authority and by the absence of correctly drawn visibility splays at junctions. It has not been demonstrated that there is sufficient visibility for users of the proposed garaged parking spaces for them to be used safely. The proposal is therefore contrary to Transport Policy 4 and General Policy 2h and i of the Strategic Plan. R 6. The proposal fails to make appropriate provision for affordable housing or public open space. Whilst a commuted sum towards the provision of public open space may be acceptable in this

54

case, no details of this are provided in the application. Given the nature and location of the site, the provision of affordable housing should be made on site. It is not accepted that there are sufficient grounds not to provide this on site and as such the application fails to accord with Housing Policy 5 and Recreation Policies 3 and 4 of the Strategic Plan.

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons 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 6(4): 3, Stanley Road 30, Stanley Road Mullen Beg, Patrick, owners of 22 Stanley Mount 33, Stanley Terrace 24, Circular Road 5, Stanley Road 37, Stanley Terrace 20, Stanley Road 18, Stanley Mount 5, Stanley Road 32, Stanley Road 34, Stanley Road 29, Stanley Terrace 17, Circular Road 26, Stanley Road 39, Stanley Terrace 35, Stanley Terrace 22, Stanley Road 40, Stanley Road 23, Christian Street 24, Stanley Road 16, Stanley Road 27, Stanley Terrace 9A, Stanley Road 31, Stanley Terrace 22, Circular Road as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). It is recommended that the following parties and 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 6(4): Tim Crookall as he does not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy 15, Circular Road 25, Bridge Street

55

6, Stanley Mount 7, Victoria Terrace 7, Stanley Mount 11, Stanley Road 8, Gib Lane 31, Shore Road 5, Stanley Mount Westholme, Cannan Avenue 13, Rockmount Road 21, Queen's Drive 60, Patrick Street 17, Stanley Road 6, Stanley Road 8, Stanley Road 24, Bridge Street 5, Circular Road Thie ny Scoill, Derby Road 9, Stanley Road 13, Stanley Road 4, Stanley Road 11, Church Street Albany House, Albany Road The Old Chapel, Patrick, owner of an office in Gib Lane 14, Stanley Mount 14, Bridge Street 19, Stanley Road 14, Stanley Road 12, Stanley Road Reayrt ny Keylley 6, Oak Road 6, Circular Road and Garden Flat. Marine Parade, owners of The Old Stables, Gib Lane as these properties are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy Manx National Heritage and Peel Heritage Trust 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.

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT THE SITE 1.1 The application site is an area of land which sits to the rear of Stanley Road and to the east of Cross Street in the heart of Peel and within its Conservation Area. The site accommodates a number of buildings, three garage buildings which front onto Stanley Road and further garaging within the site. 1.2 The building on the corner of Cross Street and Stanley Road is a pitched roofed industrial style building with a rendered frontage onto Stanley Road, incorporating a large vehicular

56

opening and doors and a pedestrian door and window alongside. This building extends along the side of Cross Street in brick and sandstone. The roof is finished in corrugated sheeting. 1.2 The next building up is a brick, pitched roofed garage whose ridge runs parallel with Stanley Road, at right angles to that of the building alongside. This too has a vehicular entrance with timber sliding doors fronting onto Stanley Road. 1.3 The highest building within the site fronting onto Stanley Road is a two storey office building associated with the garages alongside. This is part dashed render and part brick finish with a pedestrian door and windows. 1.4 The Cross Street frontage is formed by the gable of the lowest garage building and a sandstone wall with fencing above. The land within the site rises considerably above the height of the roadside wall. Vehicular access is available through an opening at the higher end of Cross Street, to the rear of 21 and 23, Christian Street. There is a single garage set back from Cross Street, between the rear of these properties and the site. There is a patch of Japanese Knotweed to the left of the entrance into the site. This is a Schedule 8 Species in the Wildlife Act 1990. 1.5 The rear of the site at this point is bounded by the garage and the rear of numbers 21-33 (odd numbers only), Christian Street/Stanley Terrace with a pedestrian lane separating them from the site. 21-25 are two storey as is 33 but 27, 29 and 31 are taller two storey dwellings. The eastern side of the site backs onto 35-39, Stanley Terrace. Further along Stanley Road are two storey houses set above the level of the road with small, walled front gardens. Further down Stanley Road is a terrace of three storey cottages, all stepped in height to reflect the falling level of the road. These do not have front gardens. The houses in Stanley Road have a combination of finishes, some dashed render, some stone and some plain, painted render. 1.6 21-25, Christian Street have their frontages flush with the public footway whilst 27-41, Stanley Terrace have small front gardens. All the properties have kitchen, bedroom and bathroom windows in the rear elevation as well as large landing windows all of which look out over and up to the application site. All of these properties have at least a small rear yard, some having longer areas of rear amenity space, particularly 39, Stanley Terrace whose rear garden runs back to the rear of 3, Stanley Road and the proposed new town houses. The rear of some of the Stanley Road properties is formed by an old sandstone wall and supports the higher level garden area. 1.7 3, Stanley Road has a flat roofed annex which abuts the application site where the eastern end of the terrace will sit. Currently the annex sits alongside the flat roof of one of the existing garage buildings which is only slightly higher than the flat roof. The flat roof and the lantern light within it, of number 3 serves a bathroom which provides the only light to that room and together with a bedroom window/door, provide the only apertures in this elevation. There are no windows in the rear elevation and no rear amenity space as the higher land associated with the rear garden of 39, Stanley Terrace abuts the rear boundary of 1 and 3, Stanley Road. PLANNING HISTORY 2.1 There are concurrent applications for Registered Building consent for the demolition of the buildings on the site including the sandstone wall (19/00204/CON), and for RB consent and planning approval for the redevelopment of other land owned by the applicant and used in association with the car sales and repair operation, at the northern end of Stanley Road (19/00199/B, 19/00200/CON, 19/00201/B and 19/00202/CON). 2.2 There are previous applications on this site for the alterations to the existing buildings, which are not relevant to the current proposal.

57

2.3 Within the vicinity of the site there have been applications to redevelop the buildings on the corner of Cross Street and Stanley Mount (14/00421/B and 05/01016/B granted approval to redevelopment of these plots for residential purposes). THE PROPOSAL 3.1 Proposed is the redevelopment of the site, removing all existing structures on the site, remodelling the level of the site to reduce some of it to Cross Street level and the erection of five terraced dwellings fronting onto Stanley Road and the erection of twelve apartments which front onto Cross Street. 3.2 Terraced houses 3.2.1 The terraced houses will follow the character and appearance of other residential dwellings in the streetscene other than unit 5 which has a n angled section which steps back to join the gable of 3, Stanley Road which at this point is a single storey flat roofed annex which provides a bathroom and flat roofed area accessed from the bedroom through a large window. The buildings will extend no further, and in some parts, less further back than are the existing buildings and will be generally set slightly further forward. They will have small, walled front gardens like some of the properties in the streetscene. The buildings will be taller than both the existing buildings and the existing pair or semi detached dwellings to the north and with the ground floor level established lower than the two dwellings to the north whose ground floor is raised between 1.3m and 2m from road level. 3, Stanley Road has a building depth (front to back) of 7m, number 5 on the other side of Cross Street is almost 8m deep and the properties on the other side of Stanley Road are just under 8m deep. The proposed dwellings will be over 9.5m deep other than that which joins the terrace to number 3 which is slightly further back and is 8.5m deep. The proposed terrace will be 5m higher than the existing building on site and 1m higher than 3, Stanley Road in the case of the unit immediately alongside. 3.2.2 The dwellings will be three storey like many in the streetscene, particularly those directly opposite and immediately north (downhill) of Cross Street but unlike 1 and 3, Stanley Road. They will be finished in coloured smooth render with each property finished in a different colour using the Colours of Mann pallete and slated roof. The front wall will be rendered also and up to a height above the ground floor window cill levels: those elsewhere in the streetscene differ in that some have low walls with railings above, cappings and all are lower than those proposed. 3.2.3 All of the properties will have horizontal banding which mimics those on the rendered properties in the streetscene, sliding sash windows which are slightly shorter and less vertically proportioned than those elsewhere in the streetscene although the pattern of reducing the height of the windows in the second floor is included here with these windows being square in shape. Chimneys are included on the gable of each property other than the northern unit which has a chimney offset from its gable and the frontage angled at the point it meets the boundary with number 3, Stanley Road. The layout includes a pedestrian access through to the rear parking area as the dwellings will not have direct access to this due to differing ground levels and a preference not to have pedestrian access onto the access ramp o the proposed car parking spaces. 3.2.4 The sectional drawing CC, 1712-C-004 shows the chimneys on the proposed terraced houses considerably less wide (just over 1m) than in the elevational drawing (1712-C-006) (2.5m wide) and wider still (3m) on the elevations from Cross Street (1712-C-007). The applicant has confirmed that they would wish to install the widest depiction of the chimneys and would also accept conditions to control a lowering of the front boundary wall, the enlargement of the windows, the balconies in the apartments would be Juliet-style, not projecting ones, that the sandstone feature will be sawn cut sandstone. They estimate that

58

the wall to be removed dated from very early twentieth century and a portion of it is to be retained although this does not appear to be shown in any of the proposed drawings. 3.2.5 The dwellings will have four bedrooms although the drawings annotate both the first and second floors as having bedrooms 1 and 2 and rear gardens with a set of steps up to a slightly higher level. 3.3 Apartments 3.3.1 There is proposed to be an apartment building accommodating 12 apartments: there will be six 2 bed units, three 3 bed units and three 1 bed units. The building will have three full elevations with a partial elevation to Cross Street which, taking into account the sloping nature of the ground down towards Stanley Road, incorporates an aperture which provides vehicular access to the lower ground level parking spaces (10), cycle (24) and bin stores, motorcycle parking spaces (5), lift and stairwell. Each car parking space is 2.5m by 5m with 6.3m separating the fronts of each space. 3.3.2 The pedestrian level walling which abuts the lower ground level car park comprises a rendered wall between 0m and 2.3m in height. A pedestrian footway is provided across the frontage with a width of 1.2m.. The carriageway of Cross Street will remain at 6m, the footway being provided on land owned by the applicant. 3.3.3 The elevational treatment is of a relatively modern style of building with verticality provided by vertically proportioned windows which are positioned each directly above the other, three projecting full height bays. The building has a heavy parapet with recessed, hipped roof finished in slates. The two smaller projecting bays contain three glazed balconies each with patio doors behind. 3.3.4 The rear elevation is plainer without any projecting gables but a series of symmetrically arranged windows and patio doors. All of the windows have a top opening top two thirds, fixed bottom one third style. 3.3.5 The building will be 17m to the nearest residential boundary to the east (the rear of 35, Stanley Terrace. The building is closer to the rear of 23-31, Terrace and there will be only high level windows in this elevation. The side of the building will be 1.5m lower than the height of 27, Stanley Terrace and the eaves around 0.7m lower where the distance between these properties is just over 11m. 3.4 The overall site 3.4.1 The development will provide ten spaces above ground to the rear of the apartment building and thirteen spaces beneath the building. The ten outside spaces are intended to serve the five terraced houses with the remaining thirteen serving the twelve apartments. 3.4.2 The applicant describes the site historically as having been open field/grass since the early 1800s after which the street arrangement evolved around it. They describe the existing industrial use of the site for car sales and repair as more suitably located elsewhere and with new dealers having purpose built premises located in the Douglas area, this has resulted in the closure of some of the smaller businesses. Whilst the development, in conjunction with 19/00199/B and 19/00201/B, will result in the loss of employment, the inclusion in the other applications of commercial floorspace will assist in the mitigation of this. They consider the inclusion of these industrial premises as out of place within a residential street scene and thus, the introduction of replacement commercial activity was considered similarly inappropriate. They consider that the development of the terraced houses continue the existing form found in Stanley Road. The setting back of the terraced houses maximises the distance from the houses opposite and creates a small front garden in which the bin could be stored on collection days. They also allow for level entry into the properties.

59

3.4.3 They suggest that the apartment building also picks up on local architectural details - the string courses and window proportions and the inclusion of a sandstone projecting gable incorporating the stairwell and entrance. 3.5 Conservation 3.5.1 The applicant has undertaken a study of the local site to identify conservation interest and potential contextual references of merit that would influence the redevelopment of the site. They do not believe that the existing buildings to be removed have any historical, architectural or other interest and their removal is not contrary to Strategic Plan or Planning Policy Statement 1/01 policies. 3.5.2 They refer to the Cullen report and the historical development of the town, acknowledging that there are perhaps limits to the architectural styles that can be introduced and absorbed on to the town's skyline but a modern interpretation, rooted in the existing character of the area is likely to create an interesting addition to Peel's cityscape. They note the predominantly residential character of Stanley Road interrupted only by the commercial garages with the predominance of two and three storey town houses with tiered roof lines parallel with the road and the wide chimney stacks. Most have rendered facades and sliding sash windows although some have stone frontages and walled gardens. They note the narrow street frontage with properties opposite each other with a separating distance of around 9-10m. 3.5.3 It describes Cross Street as "more anonymous than Stanley Road" with what are considered several historical commercial units adjacent to Cross Street having been converted to residential specifically 18 and 20, Stanley Mount. They describe the sandstone retaining wall having "no identifiable historic or conservation value" although noting its visual presence in the streetscene and suggesting that it should be referenced in the redevelopment of the site. 3.6 Car parking 3.6.1 The full complement of car parking spaces has not been provided on site and the applicant refers to the Strategic Plan guidance which permits the relaxation of the car parking standards in town centre locations and in architecturally or historically sensitive areas. They also suggest that the central location of the site and proximity to local public transport (buses), that Stanley Road currently has restrictions on car parking along the frontage of the terraced houses and this will be released on completion of the development, allowing for more on street parking with the additional benefit that the overspill parking from the current garages - estimated to be 3-4 spaces on Cross Street during the week - will no longer occur on with formalised parking here. They believe that cumulatively, the proposal results in environmental improvement including the improvement of outlook from neighbouring properties. 3.7 Public Open Space 3.7.1 The proposal makes no provision for on site public amenity, recreational of children's play space within the site however, they suggest that the central location of the site and its proximity to existing public amenities spaces should assist in compensating for that lack of space within the development. They refer to the beach, St. Patrick's Isle, Peel headlands, the open brooghs behind Marine Parade, the bowling green, skate park and tennis courts on Marine Parade all within walking distance of the site and further afield within the town are the swimming pool, the two schools' recreational facilities, Peel camp site and golf course. They are prepared to provide a commuted sum by way of legal agreement to address this shortfall and this is the subject of discussion between Peel Town Commissioners and the Department of Infrastructure Housing Division. Planning Policy

60

3.8 The applicant believes that the development accords with Strategic Policies 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, Spatial Policy 2, General Policy 2, Housing Policies 3, 5, 17, Community Policies 7, 10, 11, Infrastructure Policies 1, 4, 5 are all satisfied by the proposal. They believe that the proposal will increase the choice and location of local housing and will help meet the current shortfall of 770 units in the West identified in the latest Update of the Residential Land Availability Study. They describe the location a sustainable within easy and convenient distance of amenities and services and the development strikes a balance between the immediate and wider architectural contexts of the site, creating a cohesive redevelopment that aligns itself respectfully to its neighbouring properties as well as adding architectural value to the existing street scene and the Conservation Area as a whole. Affordable Housing 3.9 The scheme does not include the provision of any affordable housing units on site and a commuted sum is proposed for this and for the public open space deficiency although no specified sum has been proposed. PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within a wider area of Mixed Use on the Peel Local Plan of 1989, reflecting the variety of uses in the area - industrial retail, residential and tourism. The site is also within the town's Conservation Area which was adopted in 1990. 4.2 The Peel Local Plan identifies that the town has "special characteristics" (paragraph 1.1) and the town plan aims to satisfy these characteristics and to meet its changing needs, stimulating and encouraging development where appropriate and to give a clear locational reference to national policies on development, change of use and conservation. The Plan includes reference to the need to closely control changes to existing retail units to ensure that original features which contribute significantly to the character of the old town are not lost (paragraph 2.5) and that no fixed guidelines on the retail zoning should be adopted given the sensitive nature and originality of the old town's fabric and its status as a Conservation Area (paragraph 2.3). 4.3 The plan refers to additional residential accommodation in the town as being a priority (paragraph 5.1). 4.4 The plan encourages "positive schemes of action" to enhance the character of the area (paragraphs 9.2 and 9.15) and identifies the importance of vacant and derelict buildings and what future they have to the town (9.4v), but noting that "demolition of even a single building which in itself may not be of architectural or historic significance and therefore not registered, and its replacement by a new building could prejudice the character or appearance of a Conservation Area" (paragraph 9.5). It continues, "If the development of a site following demolition were to be approved, the prospective developer should be aware that close attention would be paid to the design, location and massing of a replacement building" (paragraph 9.6). It states that, "Any new building will only be encouraged if it conforms to high standards of design and it respects the scale and character of its surroundings" (paragraph 9.17). Strategic Plan 2016 4.5 As the site lies within a Conservation Area, Environment Policies 30 and 35 are applicable EP30 delas with the demolition of existing buildings and that element of the scheme is dealt with under 19/00204/CON. Environment Policy 35 states "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development." This echoes the provisions of PPS1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man:

61

POLICY CA/2 SPECIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS When considering proposals for the possible development of any land or buildings which fall within the conservation area, the impact of such proposals upon the special character of the area, will be a material consideration when assessing the application. Where a development is proposed for land which, although not within the boundaries of the conservation area, would affect its context or setting, or views into or out of the area; such issues should be given special consideration where the character or appearance of a conservation area may be affected. 4.6 There are other policies within the Strategic Plan which are applicable to this planning application. 4.6.1 Its Strategic Aim, Strategic Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 and 12, Transport Policy 1 all promote sustainable development which preserves the important character of the Island and promotes improvement of its environment. 4.6.2 Peel is a Service Centre within the Spatial Strategy where "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" (Spatial Policy 2). Spatial Policy 5 directs new development to within defined settlements as does Housing Policy 4. 4.6.2 General Policy 2 sets out standards of development to be achieved where development accords with the land use designation of the site and states: General Policy 2: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (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; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption." 4.6.3 Environment Policy 42: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality". 4.6.4 Environment Policy 43: The Department will generally support proposals which seek to regenerate run-down urban and rural areas. Such proposals will normally be set in the context of regeneration strategies identified in the associated Area Plans The Department will encourage the re-use of sound built fabric rather than its demolition."

62

4.6.5 Housing Policy 5 requires that in developments of 8 of more residential units, a contribution towards affordable housing equivalent to 25% of the total number of units should be provided, affordable housing defined as that directly provided by the Department or local authority or which meets the criteria of the Department's House Purchase Assistance Scheme 2004 or any successive scheme approved by Tynwald. 4.6.6 Housing Policy 17 provides advice about the development of apartments. Whilst this applies to the conversion of existing buildings, which this is not, it provides guidance on the standards expected in this type of development: Housing Policy 17: The conversion of buildings into flats will generally be permitted in residential areas provided that: (a) adequate space can be provided for clothes-drying, refuse storage, general amenity, and, if practical, car-parking; (b) the flats created will have a pleasant clear outlook, particularly from the principal rooms and (c) if possible, this involves the creation of parking on site or as part of an overall traffic management strategy for the area. 4.6.7 Chapter 10 of the Plan sets out the need for and benefit from the provision of Public Open Space, establishing standards of different types of POS to be provided - formal recreation, children's play and amenity space. Where this cannot be provided on site, which is the preferred method of delivery, commuted sums can be acceptable (Recreation Policies 3 and 4 and paragraph 10.3.9). 4.6.8 Transport policy 4 requires that new development must be supported by a satisfactory highway network in a safe and appropriate manner and Transport Policy 7 requires that new development accords with the Department's standards on car parking which are set out in Appendix 7. This requires that new residential dwellings, whether apartments or houses, are generally provided with 1 parking space where there is only one bedroom per apartment and otherwise 2 parking spaces at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling. These standards may be relaxed where the development would otherwise secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building or architectural or historic interest, where it would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscene or would otherwise be of benefit to a Conservation Area and where it is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrate that a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality. A.7.1 specifically states that in the case of town centre and previously developed sites, the Department will consider reducing the requirement to provide on site parking having regard to the location of the site relative to public transport, employment and public amenities, the size of the dwellings, any restriction on the nature of occupancy (such as sheltered housing) and the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. 4.6.9 The Department has an Operational Policy on Section 13 Agreements which set out why and how such agreements should be entered into and also provides guidance on how this is done. It states: "It is important that the Planning Committee has sufficient information to understand the Case Officer's recommendation. Therefore applications will not be presented to the planning committee without at least a draft Heads of Terms for the agreement." 4.6.10 The Department has also recently adopted guidance on the design of residential development - new dwellings and extensions thereto and this provides advice on design as well as how the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in nearby dwellings, may be assessed. REPRESENTATIONS

63

5.1 Highway Services oppose the application on the basis that the application fails to demonstrate that the proposed development and highway changes would be safe and that there is a shortfall in the provision of parking. They suggest that the visibility splays of both entrances must be shown and part of Circular Road must be included to be able to determine the level of visibility required along it from the southern access which is not directly opposite it. The visibility splays shown have not been drawn correctly. No site levels have been provided to demonstrate that the subterranean parking would be feasible or that the ramped accesses would be 1:12 gradient or lower. This must be demonstrated in accordance with the Equality Act as there is no alternative ramp for disabled users. They note that the track plots show that two way traffic cannot be accommodated at either car park entrance and swept path plots need to be done for a large car park over 5m long rather than 4m long as shown. The car park aisles should be wide enough to enable cars to enter and exit. Information on refuse collection should be provided. 2m wide footways need to be provided along Stanley Road and Cross Street. They suggest that the development appears to encroach onto the public highway which is unacceptable and the proposed parking bays on Cross Street should be removed as Highway Services would not agree to any changes to the existing unrestricted on-street parking as part of the development. The scheme fails to provide the full amount of required parking and there is no information in the application to demonstrate that there is sufficient on-street parking in the vicinity to accommodate any overspill. There are no accessible parking spaces and the cycle store may not be large enough to accommodate the required number of cycles (Manual for Manx Roads requires one space per apartment) (12.05.19). 5.2 Peel Town Commissioners object to the application, considering that the proposal will result in an overall loss of parking spaces in the area and whilst this may be necessitated by the principle of redeveloping the sites, the impact of this should not be ignored. They do not consider that the applicant has demonstrated that there will be no unacceptable impact on on street car parking in the area as is required by the Strategic Plan and a parking survey should have accompanied the application to demonstrate that there is capacity in the car parking areas mentioned. They note that the height of the apartments is comparable with the highest adjacent building and this results in an overbearing impact on the streetscene and removing some of the random heights in the buildings around which add to the character of the surrounding area and the development will an oppressive view from neighbouring properties of the new development and in particular the north facing properties on Christian Street with their living areas looking out over the Cross Street development. They also express concern at the loss of the sandstone wall and no incorporation of this material in the new buildings (15.04.19). 5.3.1 Manx National Heritage object to the application, noting that the building would be stepped, as are other properties in the streetscene but its height would be higher than the three storey buildings lower down Stanley Road and significantly taller than the two storey cottage adjacent on the upper side, depriving these properties of natural light. They comment that the development utilises the site very intensively so that it is deeper and taller than their neighbours with the mass and height being apparent to and negatively affecting the adjacent properties. They observe that the photomontage clearly illustrates the dominant appearance to views into Peel from the west and suggesting that a smaller and less intensive scheme would be more sympathetic to the Conservation Area at this point. 5.3.2 They suggest that the extreme height of the apartment block emphasises the visual intrusiveness resulting from the mass and unsympathetic detailing and consider that the building will overshadow the nearby cottages on Christian Street, presenting to the rear windows of these properties a blank gable except for a few tiny windows and the building will dominate 19-21, Circular Road and 20, Stanley Mount which are themselves higher than the older properties and which demonstrate the visual dangers of over-tall modern developments in an historical streetscene. They suggest that the measured heights on the plans seem to indicate that the block will be significantly higher than shown on the photomontages. They

64

consider that these developments would represent a negative impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area (05.04.19). 5.4 Private representations 5.4.1 There are a number of private representations all of whom express similar concerns in respect of the development, many expressing the view that they do not object to the principle of redevelopment of these sites, but solely to the scale, mass and design and the impacts therefrom on the local environment. They object to the development on the grounds that there would be insufficient car parking - citing examples of having to drive around in the evening to find a parking space and a number of residents submitting the same parking survey which reveals that at many times of the day and week that there are fewer than three parking spaces, if at all, available in the streets surrounding the site. It is noted that some of the units are four bedroomed which could give rise to a demand for more than two spaces per unit. They share concerns that the buildings would be inappropriate in design and scale to the surrounding area and the Conservation Area and that the height and mass of the building would adversely affect the outlook, light and living conditions of their properties in varying degrees, some residents noting that their properties were specifically designed to have large windows in the rear and dormers. Concern is expressed at the fact that there is Japanese Knotweed on the site which is a Schedule 8 species in the Wildlife Act 1990. 5.4.2 Many residents are also concerned about the impact of the development in terms of the amount of earth to be removed, the impact on the stability of the surrounding buildings and walls, much of which is built on sand and the impact of the construction traffic and increased traffic levels generally from the proposed developments, emergency vehicles, noise and dust. Reference is made to loss of view and property values although these are not material planning considerations. Some question the argument that the current garage business is unviable, suggesting that if it were, it would have closed before now and suggest that the applicant has mentioned that he may open another garage. Some residents state that they use the garage and in some cases there is a waiting list for customers to be seen. Concern is expressed at the limited information which has been provided about the impact of the development on the residents of Christian Street and Stanley Terrace and indeed some of the properties are not shown fully on the submitted plans which makes the assessment of the application difficult along with little, if any information on how the land will be excavated and the surrounding land supported during and after excavation and reference is made to the loss of a life during building works in Gib Lane when a sandstone wall collapsed. 5.4.3 They question whether two cars would be able to pass each other in the entrance to the site. Concern is also expressed about the accuracy of the plans with discrepancies between 1712-01 and 1712-C-009 the height of the building relative to Stanley Terrace seems to be different and this is compounded by the lack of clarify as to where the surrounding buildings sit in relation to the proposed building which at some points is less than 12m away. One party suggests that the current space within the site offers an opportunity to create a managed green space of genuine wildlife value within the town and that the undeveloped nature of the site belies its topography and difficulty in developing because of it and should be seen as a green lung. Reference is made to what is considered successful redevelopment within the town in Queen Street-Strand Street- Beach Street in the 1970-80s. 5.4.3 Representations have been made from the owners of the following properties: 33, Stanley Terrace (18.03.19) 15, Circular Road (22.03.19) 25, Bridge Street (22.03.19) 30, Stanley Road (25.03.19) Mullen Beg, Patrick, owners of 22 Stanley Mount (26.03.19) 6, Stanley Mount (undated but received on 26.03.19) 24, Circular Road (25.03.19)

65

7, Victoria Terrace (27.03.19) 31, Stanley Terrace (undated and received on 28.03.19) 3, Stanley Road (27.03.19) 11, Stanley Road (28.03.19) 37, Stanley Terrace (30.03.19 and 05.04.19 and 16.04.19) 20, Stanley Road (28.03.19) 8, Gib Lane (30.03.19) 18, Stanley Mount (undated but received on 02.04.19) 31, Shore Road (30.03.19) 5, Stanley Mount (28.03.19) Westholme, Cannan Avenue (29.03.19) 13, Rockmount Road (29.03.19) 22, Circular Road (31.03.19) 5, Stanley Road (31.03.19) 32, Stanley Road (undated but received on 01.04.19) 21, Queen's Drive (29.03.19) 34, Stanley Road (29.03.19) 29, Stanley Terrace (26.03.19 and 30.04.19 - understood to be 30.03.19) 17, Circular Road (31.03.19) 60, Patrick Street (01.04.19) 26, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 22, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 17, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 39, Stanley Terrace (03.04.1, 04.04.19 and 11.04.19) 35, Stanley Terrace (03.04.19) 6, Stanley Road (03.04.19) 8, Stanley Road (undated but received on 03.04.19) 40, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 24, Bridge Street (02.04.19) 5, Circular Road (undated but received on 03.04.19) Thie ny Scoill, Derby Road (03.04.19) 9, Stanley Road (04.04.19) 13, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 4, Stanley Road (03.04.19) 11, Church Street (04.04.19) 23, Christian Street (02.04.19) 24, Stanley Road (04.04.19) 16, Stanley Road (03.04.19) Albany House, Albany Road (04.04.19) The Old Chapel, Patrick, owner of an office in Gib Lane (05.04.19) 7, Stanley Mount (02.04.19) 14, Stanley Mount (05.04.19) 27, Stanley Terrace (05.04.19) 14, Bridge Street (06.04.19) 19, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 9A, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 14, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 12, Stanley Road (05.04.19) Reayrt ny Keylley (05.04.19) 6, Circular Road (06.04.19) 6. Oak Road (28.07.19) Garden Flat. Marine Parade, owners of The Old Stables, Gib Lane (03.04.19)

66

Tim Crookall MLC reiterates many of the points raised by local residents, adding that in his time as representing the people of the town, he has very, very rarely seen so much opposition to a planning application (13.04.19). Peel Heritage Trust express concern about the impact on the Conservation Area from the size and mass of the proposed buildings, the impact on views from nearby dwellings (which is not a material planning consideration) and the overwhelming impact of the apartment block on the properties round about (28.03.19). ASSESSMENT 6.1 The principle of the development of residential development on this site is considered acceptable on the basis that this use is presently found in the area, they are included in the definition of Mixed Use and are compatible with the adjacent area. The issues in this case are: i) whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Environment Policy 35 ii) whether the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area in general in accordance with EP42 and GP2 iii) whether the proposal would satisfy the requirements of General Policy 2 in terms of impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property iv) whether the development would make adequate provision for car parking in accordance with Transport Policy 7 and Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan v) whether the proposed apartments and town houses would have sufficient amenity and service provision in accordance with Housing Policy 17 and Transport Policy 7 and Appendix 7 vi) whether the proposal would have any adverse effect on highway safety in accordance with General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 4 and vii) whether there is adequate provision for affordable housing and public open space. 6.2 whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Environment Policy 35 6.2.1 The existing buildings on the site will need to be demolished in order to facilitate the redevelopment of the site and the acceptability of this is dealt with in 19/00204/CON. The existing buildings on the site are varied in terms of their architectural treatment, age and appearance but none contribute positively to the character of the area. The sandstone wall does contribute to the character of the area and its removal is dealt with in the relevant RB application. 6.2.2 The proposed terraced housing follows the stepped building line established by the properties in Stanley Road. Their general detailing is also reflective of the appearance of the three storey town houses found elsewhere on Stanley Road however their depth is slightly wider. Whilst this may have an impact on the living conditions of those in neighbouring properties, it is not considered to affect the appearance of the properties from a Conservation Area point of view. The height of the property alongside 3, Stanley Road, being higher than its existing neighbour, is not in keeping with most of the street which steps with relative consistency all the way down the street although the section between 5 and 19 includes some variation on this. Again, whilst this additional height may result in impacts on the living conditions of those in adjacent dwellings, it is not considered that this adversely affects the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, particularly when compared with the visual impact of the existing garage buildings. 6.2.3 The apartment building could be considered to have an impact on the Conservation Area due to its design and its height, both of which contrast with those of the adjacent buildings. Development within Conservation Areas need not always replicate, or try to replicate existing built fabric although when done successfully, this can help new buildings sit seamlessly with the existing streetscene, as has been achieved on Strand/Beach Streets. Its

67

height, however, opposite new buildings which are lower and existing buildings in the form of 21-25, Christian Street, which are lower, results in an impact which is adverse, introducing a building which does not sit comfortably in the streetscene and which does not respect the general order of the buildings around it. 6.2.4 The design of the building is not intended to stand out or make a particular architectural statement and is unashamedly not following the vernacular arrangement of windows, finish materials or form. More modern architecture does have its place within historic streetscenes, however, the height and mass of the building and the northern elevation with its bulk and general absence of interesting features would have an adverse impact on the Conservation Area and streetscene generally, whether the viewer is close by on Cross Street or Stanley Road or further afield, as can be seen in the photomontages which show this gable sitting proud above the other rooftops and taking an appearance of more of a large, civic building than a collection of domestic units. 6.3 whether the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area in general in accordance with EP42 and GP2 6.3.1 The conclusion of this is that set out in the preceding paragraphs. 6.4 whether the proposal would satisfy the requirements of General Policy 2 in terms of impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property 6.4.1 Little information has been provided to assess the impact of the scheme on the living conditions of those in properties close to the site, particularly 2 and 5, Stanley Road, 19-25, Christian Street, 27-41, Stanley Terrace 26, Circular Road and the relatively new buildings which side onto Cross Street (21, Circular Road and Octagon House, Cross Street). The proposed building would be 6.5m higher than the ridge of the existing garage alongside the site and the gable facing the rear of the Christian Street and Stanley Terrace properties will be 9-9.5m high from ground level alongside the lane at a distance of 12m, 15.5m, 16m and 12m away from the rear of 21, 23, 25 Christian Street and 27, Stanley Terrace respectively and was close as 7m from these properties' rear boundaries. Guidance is provided in the Department's new Residential Design Guidance, March 2019 where neighbourliness is discussed in Section 7. This talks about overbearing development and building which can have an adverse impact on light and outlook. It recommends that we consider taking a dimension which is measured from 2m on the frontage of an affected property, looking 25 degrees across towards the proposed building. If the building appears above this point, there is likely to be an adverse impact on outlook and light. Whilst the applicant has not provided an illustration of this, a simple consideration of this calculation appears to show that the building would extend beyond this height and would therefore have an adverse impact on the outlook and light from 21-25, Christian Street and 27 and 29, Stanley Terrace. Aside from this calculation, the outlook from the rear of these properties is currently out over open land where there is a clear, open aspect, other than that from the lower levels which is obscured by the single storey garage to the rear of 23 and 25, Christian Street. The proposed development would bring a large expanse of rendered wall of a building whose eaves level is higher than those of the two storey Christian Street properties despite the natural ground level being lower. These conclusions on light and outlook also apply to the outlook and light to the two properties which side onto Cross Street 6.4.2 The Design Guidance looks at areas where there is a tight-knit building layout and street pattern and suggests that in such cases it may be acceptable to allow closer distances. However, in this case, as the building is much taller than the majority of the dwellings around it, it is difficult to make this allowance. There will be 10m between the side elevations of the Circular Road/Stanley Mount/Cross Street buildings and whilst this is a fairly standard distance between properties in the older part of Peel, in this case, given the three full floors of accommodation and the underbuilding associated with the car park, the number of windows and the height of some of them, in relation to the outlook and privacy of the windows in the Cross Street elevations of the existing properties is likely to result in a significant invasion of

68

privacy for these existing residents. Whilst a two storey building which would be similar to others already in the streetscene, would have an impact on outlook and privacy, what is proposed has a higher ground floor level and an additional floor of accommodation and windows resulting in a more significant impact. 6.4.3 The building will have less of an impact on other properties further up Stanley Terrace as they are further away although it is fully acknowledged that these properties have windows in their rear elevations which allow open views towards the Castle and the bay. The planning process does not protect a private view regardless of whether property owners may have purchased their home on account of the views that were available to them at the time. It is fully accepted that the building will change the view from these properties and that they would be looking towards the rear of a three storey building but the distances between the properties is such that there is unlikely to be a substantive, adverse impact in terms of how this impact is calculated given the Department's guidance on such things. 6.4.4 The easternmost house will be adjacent to 3, Stanley Road which is described above. The proposed dwelling will be taller than the existing flat roofed building and as there is a link which joins the new house with number 3, this has the effect of closing in the space between the main part of number 3 and the new gable. This intervening space accommodates a lantern light which provides the only light to the property's bathroom and the only window within the gable which serves the property's main bedroom. The proximity of the nearest property together with its height would have an adverse impact on the outlook and light to 3, Stanley Road. 6.5 whether the development would make adequate provision for car parking in accordance with Transport Policy 7 and Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan 6.5.1 The proposed development comprises five houses which each have two parking spaces, which satisfies the Strategic Plan standards The development also includes 12 apartments: six 2 bed units, three 3 bed units and three 1 bed units resulting in a requirement for 21 spaces where only 8 are being provided. 6.5.2 The applicant seeks to rely upon the relaxation provision within the Strategic Plan without demonstrating that the failure to provide the full complement of spaces will not result in unacceptable on-street parking in the area. The applicant instead seeks to point out that there are alternative parking spaces on street and note that the removal of the garage will release some on street spaces through the cessation of the operation which involves staff and customers' vehicles being parked on Stanley and Circular Roads and Cross Street. It is accepted that the cessation of the garage business would result in more on-street spaces being available, but this impact is likely to be felt only in the daytime when the garage would not have been operational. These are the times when the parking spaces for residents are less likely to be in demand and as such, the cessation of the garage business here is not likely to have a significant impact on the availability of spaces for nearby residents. 6.5.3 Stanley Road, Circular Road and Cross Street often busy and finding a space is difficult at all hours of the day. There is nothing in the application which would suggest that the additional eight spaces which are required for the apartment occupants could be found in the surrounding area without any adverse impact. Whilst a relaxation has been applied in other parts of the town, such as on East Quay (16/00839/B) where the inspector was content to accept one space per apartment, noting the applicant's evidence that it was relatively easy to find a space close to the site and also that the nearby apartments car parking spaces were not always fully utilised which suggested that apartments in this part of the town could be occupied by persons who only had one vehicle per apartment. There is no such evidence here, quite the contrary where parking spaces are difficult to find and where the surrounding area is residential rather than commercial, when parking spaces are likely to be required all at the same time. The objectors' car parking survey would support this.

69

6.5.4 The development would not preserve a sensitive streetscape to justify this: the development does not have to be so large or contain so may apartments to result in something which would preserve the streetscape and the proposal does not re-use any existing buildings. Whilst redevelopment of some or all of the site may be of benefit to the Conservation Area, it does not have to be of this size. The lack of car parking cannot therefore be justified by parts a, b or c of Appendix Seven. 6.6 whether the proposed apartments and houses would have sufficient amenity and service provision in accordance with Housing Policy 17 and Transport Policy 7 and Appendix 7 6.6.1 The apartments have good outlook and light from the windows in the front and rear. The front windows would be 10m from the Cross Street dwellings and this privacy aspect is dealt with above. They are of a size as to be able to accommodate washing and drying facilities without needing external space for these functions. The proposal does not provide sufficient car parking to satisfy the Strategic Plan standards. 6.7 whether the proposal would have any adverse effect on highway safety in accordance with General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 4 6.7 whether there is adequate provision for affordable housing and public open space 6.7.1 The scheme makes no provision for either although there is reference in the application to the payment of a commuted sum. In terms of affordable housing, the Department's preference is for the required housing to be provided on site rather than the payment of a commuted sum, particularly if there is no intended affordable scheme to which the commuted sum would be paid. In this case, the DoI Housing Division have indicated that there is an ongoing demand for affordable units in Peel in the form of first time buyers' and public sector housing as well as housing for older people and the application site would be suitable for these. Housing Policy 5 would result in a requirement for 4.25 units. Whilst the proposed houses may be larger than the first time buyers' standards, this is only because they have been designed as such and of course the units could be made smaller to fit with these standards. There is nothing to suggest that the four bedroomed units would not be suitable for public sector housing. CONCLUSION 7.1 The apartment building is considered to have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area due to its height and mass. The size and position of the proposed terraced housing on Stanley Road would have an adverse impact on the outlook and light to 3, Stanley Road and the height and mass of the apartment building would have an adverse impact on the outlook and light of Cross Street, Circular Road and Christian Street properties and there would be insufficient car parking provided without any evidence that the lack of parking would not result in an unacceptable impact on existing on-street parking in the vicinity. The application has not demonstrated that the development would have a safe impact on the local highway network and there are elements of the application which are not acceptable to the highway authority. Finally, there is inadequate or no provisions for the delivery of public open space or affordable housing within the application. For these reasons the application is considered to be unacceptable and is not supported. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

70

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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. 8.3 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.

71

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 12th August 2019

Item 5.6 Proposal : Registered Building consent for the demolition elements

relating the application 19/00203/B Site Address : 4 Garages And Car Compound

Stanley Road Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1NY

Applicant : Empire Garages Ltd Application No. : Principal Planner :

19/00204/CON- click to view Miss S E Corlett

RECOMMENDATION: To APPROVE the application

______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the conditions C 1. The works hereby granted registered building consent shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this consent. Reason: To comply with paragraph 2(2)(a) of schedule 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented registered building consents. C 2. Upon demolition of the existing buildings on Stanley Road, the site must be cleared and made level with a consistent surface, or as otherwise approved in writing by the Department and all demolition materials must be removed with any sandstone salvaged in the interests of historical importance. This must be undertaken within 56 days of the commencement of demolition unless works for the redevelopment of the site have commenced within this time. Reason: in the interests of the appearance and character of the Conservation Area.

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons It is recommended that the none of the contributors who have written in on the application, including Manx National Heritage and Peel Heritage Trust should 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 6(4) 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.

_____________________________________________________________

72

Planning Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT THE SITE 1.1 The application site is an area of land which sits to the rear of Stanley Road and to the east of Cross Street in the heart of Peel and within its Conservation Area. The site accommodates a number of buildings, three garage buildings which front onto Stanley Road and further garaging within the site. 1.2 The building on the corner of Cross Street and Stanley Road is a pitched roofed industrial style building with a rendered frontage onto Stanley Road, incorporating a large vehicular opening and doors and a pedestrian door and window alongside. This building extends along the side of Cross Street in brick and sandstone. The roof is finished in corrugated sheeting. 1.2 The next building up is a brick, pitched roofed garage whose ridge runs parallel with Stanley Road, at right angles to that of the building alongside. This too has a vehicular entrance with timber sliding doors fronting onto Stanley Road. 1.3 The highest building within the site fronting onto Stanley Road is a two storey office building associated with the garages alongside. This is part dashed render and part brick finish with a pedestrian door and windows. 1.4 The Cross Street frontage is formed by the gable of the lowest garage building and a sandstone wall with fencing above. The land within the site rises considerably above the height of the roadside wall. Vehicular access is available through an opening at the higher end of Cross Street, to the rear of 21 and 23, Christian Street. There is a single garage set back from Cross Street, between the rear of these properties and the site. 1.5 The rear of the site at this point is bounded by the garage and the rear of numbers 21-25, Christian Street and 27-33 Stanley Terrace (all odd numbers only), with a pedestrian lane separating them from the site. 21-25 are two storey as is 33 but 27, 29 and 31 are taller two storey dwellings. The eastern side of the site backs onto 35-39, Christian Street. Further along Stanley Road are two storey houses set above the level of the road with small, walled front gardens. Further down Stanley Road is a terrace of three storey cottages, all stepped in height to reflect the falling level of the road. These do not have front gardens. The houses in Stanley Road have a combination of finishes, some dashed render, some stone and some plain, painted render. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 There are current applications which propose the redevelopment of this site together with other land at the lower end of Stanley Road - 10/00199/B, 19/00201/B and 19/00203/B together with the associated applications for Registered Building consent for the elements of demolition - 19/00200/CON and 19/00202/CON. Registered Building consent is required for demolition within a Conservation Area under Section 19(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999. The applications for RB consent are therefore concerned only with the impact of the demolition works on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and not with any aspect of the redevelopment proposals. 2.2 Proposed here is the demolition of all of the structures within the site listed in paragraphs 1.1 - 1.3 above including the sandstone boundary wall adjacent to Cross Street. PLANNING POLICY Peel Local Plan 1989

73

3.1 The site lies within an area of Mixed Use, reflecting the variety of uses in the area - industrial retail, residential and tourism. The site is also within the town's Conservation Area which was adopted in 1990. 3.2 The Peel Local Plan identifies that the town has "special characteristics" (paragraph 1.1) and the town plan aims to satisfy these characteristics and to meet its changing needs, stimulating and encouraging development where appropriate and to give a clear locational reference to national policies on development, change of use and conservation. The Plan includes reference to the need to closely control changes to existing retail units to ensure that original features which contribute significantly to the character of the old town are not lost (paragraph 2.5) and that no fixed guidelines on the retail zoning should be adopted given the sensitive nature and originality of the old town's fabric and its status as a Conservation Area (paragraph 2.3). 3.3 The plan refers to additional residential accommodation in the town as being a priority (paragraph 5.1). 3.4 The plan encourages "positive schemes of action" to enhance the character of the area (paragraphs 9.2 and 9.15) and identifies the importance of vacant and derelict buildings and what future they have to the town (9.4v), but noting that "demolition of even a single building which in itself may not be of architectural or historic significance and therefore not registered, and its replacement by a new building could prejudice the character or appearance of a Conservation Area" (paragraph 9.5). It continues, "If the development of a site following demolition were to be approved, the prospective developer should be aware that close attention would be paid to the design, location and massing of a replacement building" (paragraph 9.6). It states that, "Any new building will only be encouraged if it conforms to high standards of design and it respects the scale and character of its surroundings" (paragraph 9.17). Strategic Plan 2016 3.5 As the site lies within a Conservation Area, Environment Policies 30, 35 and 39 are applicable: Environment Policy 30: There will be a general presumption against demolition of a Registered Building. In considering proposals for demolition or proposed works which would result in substantial demolition of a Registered Building, consideration will be given to: o the condition of the building; o the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the value derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions); o the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; and o the merits of alternative proposals for the site. Environment Policy 35: Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development. Environment Policy 39: "The general presumption will in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area." Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man 3.6 Unlike the Strategic Plan, this document has specific guidance on demolition in Conservation Areas as follows:

74

POLICY CA/6 DEMOLITION Any building which is located within a conservation area and which is not an exception as provided above, may not be demolished without the consent of the Department. In practice, a planning application for consent to demolish must be lodged with the Department. When considering an application for demolition of a building in a conservation area, the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area. Similar criteria will be applied as those outlined in RB/6 above, when assessing the application to demolish the building, but in less clear cut cases, for example, where a building could be said to detract from the special character of the area, it will be essential for the Department to be able to consider the merits of any proposed new development when determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unregistered building in a conservation area. Account will be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed, and in particular of the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole. PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 Alterations to the existing sales office on Stanley Road (88/01463/B and 88/01530/D) neither of which are relevant to the consideration of the current application to demolish the buildings on the site. 4.2 There have been other redevelopments in the immediate area, particularly relevant is the redevelopment of the building on the corner of Stanley Mount and Cross Street and the site immediately alongside on Stanley Mount. 14/00421/B and 05/01016/B granted approval to redevelopment of these plots for residential purposes. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services have no highway interest in this application (19.03.19). 5.2 Peel Town Commissioners make no comments on this application but have commented on the other proposals lists above in 2.1. 5.3 Manx National Heritage recommend that this application is refused as the submission makes incorrect conclusions that the proposed demolition has no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area or the historical importance of the Conservation Area, contrary to EP 39 and PPS 1/01 CA/6 in that the sandstone wall running alonside Cross Street is a significant survival of traditional walling using local sandstone which is highly characteristic of Peel and the removal of this will cause serious and regrettable harm to the character and appearance of the CA. Professional assessment of the significance of this historic structure should be undertaken to ascertain whether the wall is of such historical or other importance as would justify refusal of the application for its demolition. In addition, they recommend that the open area has potential for undisturbed archaeoloigcal remains on what would have been attractive ground during prehistoric and medieval times and an archaeological watching brief at the applicant's expense would be justified. Finally, the proposal contains no ecological 5.4 Peel Heritage Trust express concern at the proposed new buildings but make no specific comment on the loss of an existing features through demolition as proposed on the site (28.03.19). 5.5 The owners of the following properties have made comments on the demolition, objecting to the loss of the sandstone wall which runs along the eastern side of Cross Street which should be retained as an historic feature with many in the town having been lost 30, Stanley Road (23.03.19)

75

20, Stanley Road (38.03.19) 5, Stanley Mount (29.03.19) 26, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 22, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 39, Stanley Terrace (03.04.19 and 04.04.19) 24, Stanley Road (04.04.19) 9, Stanley Road (04.04.19) 16, Stanley Road (04.04.19) 6, Circular Road (06.04.19) The owners of a number of properties in the area have submitted comments, many of which relate to the proposed building on this and other sites and certain demolition elements relating to the other two sites, not the demolition elements which are the subject of this application. These properties which should be taken as being within Peel unless otherwise indicated - are as follows: 33, Stanley Terrace (18.03.19). 25, Bridge Street (21.03.19 and 22.03.19) 30, Stanley Road (22.03.19) Mullen Beg, Patrick (26.03.19) 6, Stanley Mount (undated but received on 26.03.19) 24, Circular Road (two letters both dated 25.03.19) 3, Stanley Road (27.03.19) 7, Victoria Terrace (27.03.19) 31, Stanley Terrace (two undated letters received on 27.03.19) 37, Stanley Terrace (30.03.19 and 05.04.19) 18, Stanley Mount (undated but received on 02.04.19) 31, Shore Road (30.03.19) 5, Stanley Mount (28.03.19) Westholme, Kirk Michael (29.03.19) 8, Gib Lane (30.03.19) 13, Rockmount Road (29.03.19) 5, Stanley Road (two letters both dated 31.03.19) 32, Stanley Road (28.03.19) 21, Queen's Drive (29.03.19) 34, Stanley Road (29.03.19) 60, Patrick Street (01.04.19) 17, Stanley Road (30.03.19) 17, Circular Road (31.03.19) 6, Stanley Road (03.04.19) 40, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 24, Bridge Street (02.04.19) 5, Circular Road (undated but received on 03.04.19) Thie ny Schoill, Derby Road (03.04.19) 35, Stanley Terrace (03.04.19) Garden Flat, 4, Marine Parade (03.04.19) 13, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 4, Stanley Road (03.04.19) 23, Christian Street (02.04.19) Albany House, Albany Road (04.04.19) The Old Chapel, Patrick, owner of an office on Gib Lane (05.04.19) 14, Stanley Mount (05.04.19) 14, Bridge Street (06.04.19) 19, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 40, Stanley Road (02.04.19) 16, Queen's Terrace (05.05.19)

76

9A, Stanley Road (05.04.19) 14, Stanley Road (05.05.19) 12, Stanley Road (05.04.19) Reayrt ny Keylley (05.04.19) Tim Crookall MLC (13.04.19) ASSESSMENT 6.1 The single issue here is whether the demolition of the existing buildings would result in any adverse impact on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. 6.2 All of the buildings in question here are relatively modern additions to the town and none has any positive attributes which would result in any opposition to their removal. Whilst the structural integrity of the surrounding buildings and land may well be of concern to those living around the site, there are other procedures vested in other legislation and authorities, in particular Section 26 of the Building Control Act 1991. 6.3 The only element of age and interest is the sandstone wall which abuts the site along Cross Street. CONCLUSION 7.1 The demolition of the structures fronting Stanley Road are considered to result in an enhancement of the Conservation Area, whether or not the site is redeveloped and the application is supported. It is important that conditions are attached which require that the site is left in an acceptable condition following the demolition of the existing structures such that the appearance of the Conservation Area is not adversely affected should redevelopment of the site not be implemented immediately. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Registered Buildings) Regulations 2013, the following are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application; (c) Manx National Heritage; and (d) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

77

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 12th August 2019

Item 5.7 Proposal : Creation of overflow car park for occasional use by staff and

visitors Site Address : The Bungalow

Ard Jerkyll East Foxdale Road Eairy Isle Of Man IM4 3HL

Applicant : ManxSPCA Application No. : Principal Planner :

18/01224/B- click to view Miss S E Corlett

RECOMMENDATION: To APPROVE the application

______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. Prior to the use of the car park hereby approved, the visibility splays as shown in drawing 03B and 04B must be set out and the car park hard surfaced as shown in the approved drawings and all must be retained as such thereafter. Reason: to ensure that the car park is fit for purpose and safe. C 3. 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 dwellings, 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. Reason: The landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme and must be implemented as approved.

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons None

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report

78

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE DEVELOPMENT IS CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THE SITE 1.1 The site is part of a field which sits to the immediate west of Ard Jerkyll, the facilities of the Manx Society for the Protection of Animals. The site is currently an open area with some hard standing and mostly grass. The site has an existing entrance onto the A24, in front of Ard Jerkyll, a property associated with the operation on the main site. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the use of the land alongside Ard Jerkyll for overspill car parking associated with the animal sanctuary. The car park will be surfaced in hardcore and laid out to accommodate 52 spaces, each 2.4m by 5m. 2.2 A new entrance is proposed which purports to offer visibility of 74m by 2.4m to the east and 105m by 2.4m towards Foxdale with a tarmacadam strip 4m into the site from the edge of the carriageway and with an entrance 8m wide. 2.3 The applicant explains that they have an indoor dog exercise area where they hold events and rent out to local dog clubs and sometimes this can attract over 100 visitors and they have to use a nearby field which has no proper entrance and is boggy. This can result in people not turning in and sometimes people parking illegally on the highway. 2.4 The works will also involve levelling and the installation of a membrane, no details of which have been provided in the initial submission. The applicant explains in a further letter of 19th December, 2018 that the works will involve a site scrape, resulting in around 150-225mm of material which will be replaced by the same amount of Type 1 aggregate and any surplus material will either be removed to a licensed tip or used around the site to make up ground as required. 2.5 Access from the car park is via an existing track which leads to the dog training and rehabilitation building and the applicant explains that this building is used daily for the animals at the MSPCA but is also used for fun events, the annual dog of the year show and dog parties which are usually third party fund raisers for the charity and these events cannot be accommodated by the existing parking provision. 2.6 Following concerns raised by Highway Services and the Department regarding available visibility, further plans have been received, reference 2018/21/03B and 2018/21/04B. These show the removal of existing bank and trees (up to six) to provide the required visibility to the east. This will also assist those coming out of the existing entrance to Ard Jerkyll Cottage. Four mew silver birch trees are to be planted on the inside of the eastern side of the access into Ard Jerkyll Cottage to compensate for the loss of the existing roadside trees. The taller conifers are largely to be retained. PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as not for any particular purpose but not within any area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. As such, there is a presumption against development here as set out in General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1. The proposal does not accord with any of the exceptions given in GP3 and EP1 protects the countryside for its own sake and presumes against development here which would adversely affect the countryside unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative. PLANNING HISTORY

79

4.1 The site has been the subject of a number of applications for development, expansion and the provision of facilities for animals who have been rescued from abandonment or harm. The application refers to a facility for dog exercising and this relates to 12/01096/B which was for "an indoor dog training and rehabilitation centre". No conditions were attached to that approval to require the facility to be used in association with the MSPCA operation on the site. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Malew Parish Commissioners have no objection (06.12.18). 5.2 Highway Services initially objected to the application but indicate on 29.07.19 that they have no objection to the application on the basis of the amended plans, subject to conditions which require that the visibility splay is provided and retained and the car park is hard surfaced and laid out as shown in the application. ASSESSMENT 6.1 The works proposed will result in a changed visual appearance of this part of the highway due to the required visibility splay opening up the site. There is no footway on this stretch of the A24. The existing access to Ard Jerkyll Bungalow does not currently offer any more visibility and it is doubtful that this access could afford any better visibility than that now proposed so is not a viable alternative. There is, however, existing and proposed vegetation behind that to be reduced in height so the impact of lowering the vegetation to no higher than 0.9m is not considered objectionable and there will still be vegetation which will screen much of the impact of the new car parking area. 6.2 The existing car parking facilities are not only limited in area but are also on a slope where the spaces offer little room for manoeuvring in and out. The provision of additional parking to serve the facility is therefore welcome in principle. It is also noted that the proposed spaces will serve a particular part of the operation although it is not considered objectionable for customers and staff to routinely use this proposed car park which will have better visibility and circulation space than the existing. CONCLUSION 7.1 The site already has an impact on the otherwise rural character of the area and there is already hard surfacing within this site. What is proposed will formalise this further and increase its visibility through the widening of the access but not to an extent which is considered unacceptable. There is an acknowledged need for the additional parking spaces in an area where on-street parking is not possible or welcome. As such, the proposal is supported. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

80

81

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 12th August 2019

Item 5.8 Proposal : Additional use of agricultural building to include plant repair

business (retrospective) Site Address : Ballachrink Farm

Ballanicholas Garth Crosby Isle Of Man IM4 2HD

Applicant : Manx Agri Plant Services Ltd Application No. : Planning Officer :

19/00248/C- click to view Miss Lucy Kinrade

RECOMMENDATION: To APPROVE the application

______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. The plant repair use hereby approved shall be limited only to within the area outlined in red on drawing number 01 Rev A date stamped as received on 4th March 2019. Reason: The application has been assessed on an exceptional basis and any use outside of this area would need to be assessed as part of a separate application. C 3. The additional use hereby approved shall remain connected with the main farm in that it shall only be owned and operated alongside the wider farm. Reason: To ensure that segregation of the commercial site from the wider farm does not occur.

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons None

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT COULD BE CONSIDERED A DEPARTURE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL THE SITE

82

1.1 The site represents the curtilage of Ballachrink Farm, Ballanicholas, Garth, Crosby an existing farm holding comprising a traditional two storey Manx Farm house and several large agricultural farm buildings all clustered around the existing farm lane which runs approximately 350 metres west from the B35 Garth Road which runs between the Foxdale Road and Tosaby Road. 1.2 The existing agricultural building which is the subject of this application sits around 300m from the B35 and is the first building you pass when heading into the centre of the farm holding. The cluster of farm buildings including the application building cannot readily be seen from the B35 public highway due to the existing roadside boundary treatment and the mix of vegetation and trees that line the winding farm lane and surrounding farmhouse and cluster of buildings. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the additional use of the above agricultural building as a workshop for the carrying out of repairs to agricultural and plant machinery. 2.2 The application is supported by a statement from the applicant setting out the history of the dairy farming site and the present use of the application building for the servicing of machinery since 2002 although no evidence has been provided to support this other than that written information included within the statement. "Various classes of machinery are serviced and repaired within the building from agricultural tractors and machinery, telehandlers, plant equipment, farm quads etc. A lot of service and repairs are done at customer premises, but larger jobs, rebuilds and overhauls are done in the workshop where specialist tools and equipment are at hand. The workshop building provides a cleaner, safer and more pleasant environment than many customers farmyards to carry out work on machines that are ever more complex to repair due to the increasing sophistication and use of electronics in their make up." 2.3 There are currently 2 full time mechanics and an apprentice employed, although the nature of the business means that not all are always on site at the same time due to call outs to various sites across the Island. PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site has been subject to five previous planning application, two recently for the alteration and extension to the existing house and the conversion of a redundant stone barn to tourist accommodation, and prior to that three applications for the original development of the agricultural buildings associated with the dairy farm business. o 14/00406/B Conversion of existing redundant stone barn into tourist accommodation - APPROVED o 13/00811/B Alterations, erection of an extension, creation of vehicle entrance, driveway and parking provision - APPROVED o 99/00320/B Erection of agricultural building and extension to cow shed - APPROVED o 93/00516/B Construction of cowshed - APPROVED o 89/01582/B Erection of 2 agricultural storage buildings - APPROVED PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area designated as open space, not zoned for development under the Isle of Man Development Order 1982. The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 sets out the Island's strategic and spatial objectives and contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of the current application; 4.2 Spatial Policy 5 states:

83

"New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3." 4.3 General Policy 3 states (in part): "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: (c) previously developed land(1) which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment; (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage." 4.4 Environment Policy 1 states: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative". 4.5 Environment Policy 16 states: "The use of existing rural buildings for new purposes such as tourist, or small-scale industrial/commercial use may be permitted where: a) it is demonstrated that the building is no longer required for its original purpose and where the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation; b) the reuse of the building will result in the preservation of fabric which is of historic, architectural, or social interest or is otherwise of visual attraction; c) it is demonstrated that the building could accommodate the new use without requiring extension or adverse change to appearance or character; d) there would not be unacceptable implications in terms of traffic generation; e) conversion does not lead to dispersal of activity on such a scale as to prejudice the vitality and viability of existing town and village services; and f) the use of existing buildings involves significant levels of redevelopment to accommodate the new use, the benefits secured by the proposal in terms of impact on the environment and the rural economy shall outweigh the continued impact of retaining the existing buildings on site." REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only. 5.1 Marown Parish Commissioners - no objection (22/05/2019). 5.2 The Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - no comments received as of 29/07/2019. ASSESSMENT

84

6.1 The key considerations in the assessment of this application are i) the principle of the development (GP3), ii) impact on the countryside (EP16 and EP1), and iii) the highway safety impact (EP16(d)). i) Principle of the development 6.2 As with any rural area which is not zoned for development, there is a general policy presumption against development. General Policy 3 for example, as set out in section 4.0 of this report, allows for development in the countryside in only the specific circumstances and exceptions cited. In the case of this application the proposal does not readily fit into a single exemptions but rather a mix of those exemptions stated. The site contains a number of existing agricultural buildings within one of which the proposed use will be undertaken, although not a building of any historic or architectural interest the proposal will make best use of existing redundant farm building especially since the cessation of the diary business in 2002. The proposed business is to service and repair a mix of agricultural and plant machinery, most of which is essential to the conduct of agricultural operations across the entire Island. The location is perhaps not within what would be considered a sustainable location (ie within a town or village) but is appropriate given the agricultural nature of the business in its own right. The application in principle is considered to meet the tests of General Policy 3 ii) Impact on the Countryside 6.3 Environment Policy 16 deals specifically with the reuse of agricultural buildings for alternative purposes. Use for small scale industrial or commercial purposes such as that proposed may be acceptable provided the tests of that policy are met. With regard to EP16 the applicant has stated that the building is no longer required for farming purposes (a) and in its own right is not of any historic or visual value as per (b), the proposal does not require extension or alteration of the building to accommodate the new use (c) and while traffic may increase its not to such an unacceptable level as to result in any implications on the highways or traffic in the area (d), given the agricultural nature of the business and perhaps best suited in such a location that the proposal is not considered to be harmful to the vitality of any nearby settlement centres (e) and it's likely that the agricultural benefits expected in servicing and maintaining farming equipment for the local farming community would be sufficient enough in any case to outweigh any potential environmental impacts beyond the building being left in a redundant state (f). 6.4 The proposal is to be within an existing building and within the extents of an existing farm holding and within the cluster of existing buildings. The site is set back and accessed via a farm lane some 300m from the main road. This contained nature of the proposal within the site will limit any spread of development to the surroundings and thus seeking to ensure no impacts on the wider countryside or on the wider rural landscape. iii) Highway Safety Impact 6.5 The applicant has advised that the nature of the business is as such that there are vehicles coming and going form the site, whether staff, delivery vehicles or customers, although there is a large proportion of the business which requires the servicing or fixing vehicles on the site at which they are based (usually customers farms or properties) with only the larger jobs being carried out within the safe environment of the application building. The existing access is already shared with the main farm house and an approved tourist unit, its additional use by traffic associated within the proposed plant repair is not to result in such an increase in traffic as to create any new highway safety issues beyond the existing use, and there is sufficient off road parking available to accommodate several vehicles off the road.

85

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The diversification of the farm in this instance to include the repair business is acceptable and could be argued that there is an agricultural need for such a business in the long term in the provision, servicing and care of local farming machinery in maintaining the viability of the Islands farming businesses and community, and perhaps a use not unusual or unacceptable in such a rural location and this and contained within the existing farm buildings. 7.2 In light of the favourable findings as set out above it is considered on balance that the proposal complies with the aforementioned policies of the Strategic Plan 2016 and is recommended for approval. 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 The Planning Committee 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

86

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 12th August 2019

Item 5.9 Proposal : Window / door alterations to premises and erection of side

extension to provide tourist living accommodation Site Address : Church Farmhouse

Great Meadow Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 4EB

Applicant : Kobus Limited Application No. : Principal Planner :

19/00658/B- click to view Miss S E Corlett

RECOMMENDATION: To APPROVE the application

______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. The accommodation hereby approved must be used as part of the overall residential unit of Church Farmhouse and may be used either as permanent residential or tourist accommodation. Reason: to control the development of new units of accommodation in the countryside and to clarify the extent of the approval.

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons None

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT THE SITE 1.1 The site is the curtilage of Church Farmhouse which lies on the eastern side of the A3 opposite Great Meadow mansion house and grounds. The site accommodates the main house which sits centrally in the site along with a detached garage and greenhouse to the east.

87

1.2 The house is a stone faced dwelling, described by the applicant as late Victorian/Edwardian and it has a single storey, stone, hipped roofed annex along with a stone, two storey annex on the rear. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 This application seeks to address the reasons for refusal raised in the earlier application referred to below although an appeal against that decision has been made. This appeal is due to be heard on 24.07.19. 2.2 The scheme proposes to remove existing stone outbuildings alongside and attached to the main house and the erection in their place of an extension which will accommodate two en-suite bedrooms one which will be an accessible unit and the other a standard bedroom. Both will be accessed using the existing rear access: the accessible unit will also have access out through a set of patio doors. 2.3 Unlike the previous scheme, this aims to minimise the impact of the extensions, breaking up the visual form into different elements which are not dissimilar to the existing outbuildings, using lean-to roofing and a combination of timber cladding with stonework and metal fascia. 2.4 Two new windows will be introduced on the first floor of the western elevation, finished and constructed to match the existing in this wall, along with patio doors in the ground floor. 2.5 The property is proposed to be used for either residential or tourist accommodation. PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South (2013) as not for a particular purpose. Great Meadow opposite is identified as Existing Low Density Housing in Parkland. The site lies within an area of Undulating Lowland Plain on the Landscape Character Appraisal. 3.2 There is therefore a presumption against development here as set out in General Policy 3, Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan. 3.3 There are policies relating to the Landscape Character Appraisal relating to the landscape character type which is applicable here, as follows: 3.10 Implications of the Landscape Character Assessment Landscape Type - Undulating Lowland Plain and Rugged Coast Landscape Area - F7 (Castletown and Ballasalla), F8 (Poyll Vaaish and Scarlett Peninsula) and E10 (Castletown Bay) i. The broader setting of Castletown is provided by Castletown Bay, which is formed by the Langness Peninsula on the east and by Scarlett to the west, and by the gently sloping agricultural land rising towards South Barrule. This certainly merits protection, both for its own sake in terms of landscape, and as the historic context of the Town. ii. To maintain and improve the approaches to the Town. The more immediate setting for the old town - the residential developments around the edge, and, to the north-east, industrial development - is in some places and in some respects disappointing as they do not seem to reflect the local style and scale of development. Refurbishment, and in some instances new development, should provide opportunities to improve the built environment alongside the approaches to the Town. iii. Retention of the green space which serves to separate Castletown from the industrial development to the north (see Green Gap Proposal 3). Castletown and Ballasalla (F7)

88

The overall strategy is to conserve the character, quality and distinctiveness of this open area that contributes to the setting of Castletown and Ballasalla, to enhance the river field pattern and to conserve the aquatic habitat corridor of the Silverburn. Key Views Open and panoramic views out to sea and over Langness' rocky shoreline beyond the Airport. Key views to the prominent landmarks of Castle Rushen and King William's College. 3.4 The Strategic Plan has advice on tourist accommodation as follows: 4.4.4 The development of tourism should be fostered by making appropriate use of the Island's natural attractions, our built heritage and our vintage transport systems. Accordingly: Strategic Policy 8: Tourist development proposals will generally be permitted where they make use of existing built fabric of interest and quality, where they do not affect adversely environmental, agricultural, or highway interests and where they enable enjoyment of our natural and manmade attractions. 4.4.5 This policy reflects the general restriction on new development outside defined development zones. Tourist proposals in the countryside will normally be required to meet the above criteria. Environment Policy 16: The use of existing rural buildings for new purposes such as tourist, or small-scale industrial/commercial use may be permitted where: a) it is demonstrated that the building is no longer required for its original purpose and where the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation; b) the reuse of the building will result in the preservation of fabric which is of historic, architectural, or social interest or is otherwise of visual attraction; c) it is demonstrated that the building could accommodate the new use without requiring extension or adverse change to appearance or character; d) there would not be unacceptable implications in terms of traffic generation; a) conversion does not lead to dispersal of activity on such a scale as to prejudice the vitality and viability of existing town and village services; and f) the use of existing buildings involves significant levels of redevelopment to accommodate the new use, the benefits secured by the proposal in terms of impact on the environment and the rural economy shall outweigh the continued impact of retaining the existing buildings on site. 9.5.3 It is considered that the Island's primary assets to tourists and visitors alike are its unique historical landscape, culture and heritage, as well as a wide range of specialist events and attractions. Many activities and facilities providing for the Island's tourists require no permanent development: the TT Races, for example which attract by far the most significant number of tourists to the Island of any event held here, require little but the Grandstand on Glencrutchery Road and a small number of modest marshals' shelters around the Course. Tourism can, however require the erection of built structures - holiday accommodation being the most frequently requested form of new development required in association with the tourism industry. It is important that a balance be struck between the needs of tourism and the protection of these assets, and that tourism development should be sustainable in accordance with the objectives of this plan. There is no special reason why less demanding policies should be applied to tourism development than for other types of development in the countryside, and larger scale schemes may have to be the subject of an environmental impact assessment before planning permission is granted, as with any other form of large scale development.

89

Business Policy 11: Tourism development must be in accordance with the sustainable development objectives of this plan; policies and designations which seek to protect the countryside from development will be applied to tourist development with as much weight as they are to other types of development. Within the rural areas there may be situations where existing rural buildings could be used for tourist use and Environment Policy 16 sets out the circumstances where this may be permitted. Business Policy 12: Permission will generally be given for the conversion of redundant buildings in the countryside to tourist use providing that the development complies with the policies set out in paragraph 8.10 Housing Policy 11. Housing Policy 15 provides advice on the extension of traditionally designed properties as follows: The extension or alteration of existing traditionally styled properties in the countryside will normally only be approved where these respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. Only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions which measure more than 50% of the existing building in terms of floor space (measured externally). Business Policy 13 generally allows the use of existing residential property as tourist accommodation. PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The site has been the subject of a number of applications for alterations and extensions to the main house, the erection of the garage (97/00215/B) and creation of farm access lane. Most recently an application was approved to use the house as self catering accommodation (18/00259/C. It should be noted that this was an application for the additional use of the property for this purpose, with the original use as a dwelling still remaining. Most recently, the site was the subject of an application for conversion of the existing garage to tourist accommodation, the erection of a new car port and the extension of the house to provide a self contained tourist unit. This application was refused for reasons relating to the principle of the creation of new self contained units of accommodation and also the design of the extension (19/00254/B). REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 There are no representations on file at the time of writing. It is worth noting that no objections were received to the previous application which was for more significant works. ASSESSMENT 6.1 The scheme is considered to be more sympathetic to the existing dwelling which is historically and architecturally interesting, through the use of broken form which is not dissimilar in character to what is currently on site. The use of muted materials which are not dissimilar in colour to the existing stonework will also help the new fabric sit comfortably next to the house without trying to compete with it. The new accommodation will not be self-contained but will complement the existing range of accommodation within the dwelling, with some internal alterations (which would not require planning approval). CONCLUSION 7.1 The works are considered to address the previous reasons for refusal and satisfy Housing Policy 15 and the application is supported. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:

90

(a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

91

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 12th August 2019

Item 5.10 Proposal : Additional use of residential dwelling for teaching

yoga/mindfulness classes with associated parking (retrospective)

Site Address : Poylldooey House Gardeners Lane Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 2TF

Applicant : Alison Michelle Burton Application No. : Planning Officer :

19/00661/C- click to view Mr Nick Salt

RECOMMENDATION: To APPROVE the application

______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. The additional use of the site as a yoga/mindfulness teaching space shall be limited to the 'games room' as shown outlined in red/pink on drawing no. 29/2009/02 date stamped 6th June 2019. Reason: To ensure that the use approved remains secondary to the wider residential use of the site, thus reducing the likelihood of it resulting in unacceptable traffic levels, parking demand or other impacts through future expansion.

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons None

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS BEING REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT PROPOSES A DEPARTURE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE OFFICE HAS RECOMMENDED IT FOR APPROVAL 1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is part of the curtilage of an existing dwelling, Poyll Dooey House which sits to the south of the Sulby River to the west of Ramsey. The site includes existing outbuildings

92

and a modest area of land around it. The site has its own access off a lane which leads north west onto Gardener's Lane close to the river crossing. 1.2 There are stone and brick outbuildings to the north west of the site which have been recently converted and refurbished, with planning approval for the conversion to a dwelling. At present, the outbuildings are used for storage, games rooms and garaging in association with the main dwelling. 2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application a retrospective one for the additional use of part of the outbuildings for the teaching of yoga/mindfulness classes. The part of the building in question is a ground floor games room approximately 25m2, with access doors on either side. 2.2 The applicant has provided some details pertaining to the use, which has been commenced: o The room has capacity for 7 yoga clients; o 5-7 classes are offered each week during evenings and Saturday mornings; o There is parking on the wider site for 15-20 vehicles, 9 at the outbuilding itself. 3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The application site is within an area 'D' Proposed Residential in the Ramsey Local Plan 1998 (South Map). 3.2 For this reason, General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 applies to the proposal. The relevant parts of that policy are below. "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: (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. 3.3 Transport Policy 7 refers to parking: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. The current standards are set out in Appendix 7." With regard to the parking standards, there are none specifically relating to the use, although for 'medical/health' services, 3 spaces are needed per consulting room. 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 Planning approval was granted (16/01055/VAR) for an extension to the approval which was granted for the conversion of the outbuildings to residential accommodation. The initial approval was granted under PA 12/00190/B. The permission granted proposed a conversion of the outbuilding with an extension. 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Ramsey Town Commissioners have no objection to the application (22.07.19). 5.2 DoI Highways have no objection to the application, commenting the following (05.07.19): "The site is located in a rural location and is considered to be set in an unsustainable location.

93

Access to the site is off Garners Lane on a narrow access track over a "Ford"…the track is unmade. The site is offering approximately 10 parking spaces to accommodate the residential and commercial traffic generation. Information has been submitted highlighting yoga classes for up to 7 people between 6.30 and 7.20pm Monday, Tuesday and Thursdays with an additional class 7.45-8.45pm on Thursday and a class on Saturday 8.45-9.45am. In addition to yoga the applicant is offering mindfulness 8 week courses either on a Monday / Wednesday 7.45-9.15pm or Saturday mornings 10.15-12.45pm. Assuming there are 7 people attending each class and therefore 7 private vehicles travelling to and from the site for every class, this represents an increase in movements along the narrow access road with limited passing places. However, the majority of these vehicle movements will be travelling in the same direction before the classes and also afterwards. Whilst there may be an element of traffic passing each other on a Thursday evening when one class finishes and another starts, it is not considered to be detrimental in terms of road safety. Whilst there are concerns over the sustainability of the site, the proposals are considered on balance to be acceptable. There are no highways related conditions." 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The key considerations in the assessment of this application are: o The principle of the use o The impact on Ramsey town centre o The parking and access 6.2 The principle of the use 6.2.1 When considering this matter it is important to acknowledge that permission has been approved and refused for the operation of businesses (i.e. beauty treatments, hairdressers & tutoring) from a residential property, throughout the Island. 6.2.2 The site is zoned as 'proposed residential' but currently sits in the grounds of a property over 150 metres from the closest residential neighbour, with open space surrounding it. A key obstacle which often prevents such uses being acceptable in residential areas is the impact on the neighbourhood both via noise or increased activity and increased parking and highways demand. In this case, given the presumably quiet nature of the proposed additional use, and the distance from neighbours, the potential impact of any residential amenities is considered minimal. 6.3 The impact on Ramsey town centre 6.3.1 One concern around the operation of uses in private properties such as the one being assessed, is the potential to detract from the overall desire to see business premises mainly in the settlement centres - in this case Ramsey town centre. It is considered that this aspect must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, having regard to the nature of the use and its suitability both for town centre and other locations. The teaching of yoga classes is one use which is considered suitable for both town centre and more rural locations - those out-of centre locations being potentially suitable due to their relative tranquillity. Overall, the operation of yoga classes for up to 7 clients at a time, during evenings and weekends at the site is not considered likely to be of detriment to the vitality of Ramsey town centre. 6.4 The parking and access

94

6.4.1 The main consideration therefore is the impact of the additional use on the parking capacity of the site, and both Gardeners Lane and the access lane to Poyll Dooey House. With regard to parking, it is considered that the 15-20 spaces throughout the site both adjacent to the outbuilding and around the main house and driveway are ample for the maximum 7 clients during yoga sessions. As the applicant and class instructor is the resident of the dwelling adjacent, there would be no additional demand likely from staff. The applicant also notes that some of their clients also walk or cycle, given the proximity to other locations within Ramsey. Around 170m to the north west of the site there is a small public parking area for access to Poyll Dooey Nature Trails, although it is not considered likely that such 'overflow' parking would be needed. 6.4.2 The website of the yoga business operates an online booking system with the earliest classes beginning at 6.30pm on weekday evenings, along with early Saturday mornings. These are not peak periods of traffic. Furthermore, the northern end of Gardeners Lane, and the access lane to the site are not main thoroughfares and the potential 14 additional traffic movements for each evening are unlikely to have more than a negligible impact on highway safety or capacity. This view is supported by the Highway Services comments received (5.2). 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 In summary, the additional use in the building, at its current scale and in its current form, is considered acceptable for the site and in when assessed against the relevant planning policies as set out in this report. The application is recommended for approval. 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.