Officer Report

Application No.: 16/00232/B Applicant: Hartford Homes Ltd Proposal: Erection of a residential development of 81dwellings with associated hard and soft landscaping and on site infrastructure Site Address: Fields 131047 & 134069 Royal Park Phase 2 The Vollan Ramsey Isle Of Man Case Officer : Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: 10.03.2016 Site Visit: 10.03.2016 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation

Officer’s Report

THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE APPROVAL WILL BE SUBJECT TO A LEGAL AGREEMENT AND AS THE APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO OBJECTION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BUT RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

1.0 SITE - 1.1 The site is a parcel of undeveloped land (10.43 acres/4.22 hectares) at fields 131047 & 134069 which are located to the south and west of Vollan Crescent and to the south of Ormly Hall within Ramsey. The site is accessed via the existing Royal Park estate road which runs along the entire eastern boundary of the site and provides access to Phase One of the Royal Park development which has been completed. - 1.2 The Royal Park estate road joins Vollan Crescent and is the only vehicular access in or out of the whole Royal Park development. The more recently completed Palm Winds development (five dwellings) also utilises the same estate road and junction onto Vollan Crescent as an access. - 1.3 Fields 131047 & 134069 are currently characterised as agricultural fields which includes a variety of landscaping along all boundaries. The eastern and southern boundaries which current fronts onto the Royal Park estate roads comprises of a grass bank with gorse and hedging above. The remainder of the boundaries are made up of hedgerow/bushes varying in heights.

2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of a residential development of 81 dwellings with associated hard and soft landscaping and on site infrastructure. The proposal includes a total of seven houses types, although two of these house types have further design options/finishes. The proposal includes; 4, five bedroom dwellings, 71 four bedroom dwellings and 6 two bedroom bungalows. The dwellings will be finished in brick, horizontal cladding boards and with imitation slate roofs.

3.0 PLANNING POLICIES - 3.1 The application site is mainly within an area recognised as being an area of "Proposed Residential" and partially under "Proposed Open Space", both annotated as being within the "Ormly Hall" Development Brief Area under the Ramsey Local Plan. The site is not within a Conservation Area.

3.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application: - 3.3 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by:

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

3.4 Strategic Policy 2 states: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3." - 3.5 Environment Policy 42 states: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans." - 3.6 General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

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

3.7 Housing Policy 4 states: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:

• (a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10;
• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and

• (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14."

3.8 Housing Policy 5 states: "In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more." - 3.9 Transport Policy 1 states: "New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes." - 3.10 Transport Policy 4 states: "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan." - 3.11 Transport Policy 6 states: "In the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users." - 3.12 Transport Policy 7 states: "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." - 3.13 Recreation Policy 3 states: "Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan." - 3.14 Ramsey Local Plan - Policy R/R/P1: Re-Zoning to Open Space states; "The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Ramsey Local Plan) No. 2) Order 1998 re-zones the following areas from residential use to open space:-

• (a) Land on the eastern side of the undeveloped part of Ormly Hall Estate; this land is judged unsuitable for built development, being very open to view from off-shore and from land to the north and south; it should remain as natural, green open spaces, but ,might be used as such in association with existing or proposed adjoining uses;
• (b) Land to the east and south of the Grove Museum; this; land forms part of the present and historical context of the Grove House Museum, and should remain unbuilt such as to preserve this context."

3.15 Ramsey Local Plan - Policy R/R/P2: Specific Area Development Briefs states; "B. Ormly Hall Development may take place only in accordance with a scheme for the whole area which:

• a) Preserves as natural, green open space the land referred to in Policy R/R/P1(A);
• b) Provides for a new primary school if this is required by the Department of Education;
• c) Uses low density housing only; and
• d) Includes landscaping of the western boundary of the area and of the link to the Bridge Road."

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:

4.2 Proposed residential estate layout comprising of plots, roads and sewers for 111 mixed density dwellings with associated open space and landscaping - 04/02311/B - Fields 131161, 131047,134070, 131049 & 131085, Ormly Fields And Access Via Vollan Crescent, Ramsey - - 4.3 Proposed detailed house types for phase 1 of residential development comprising 46 plots 04/02310/B - Phase One, Fields 131161, 131047 & 134070, Ormly Fields With Access Via Vollan Crescent, Ramsey - APPROVED AT APPEAL. - 4.4 Elevational revisions to approved houses types- Phase 1 Ormly Fields, Royal Park off The Vollan, Ramsey - APPROVED

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 The Ramsey Commissioners have objected to the application for the following reasons (received on 18.03.2016):"Whilst the Applicant's Planning Statement section 5.3 Affordable Homes provides justification for the reduction in the number of affordable homes within this phase of the development, the Ramsey Town Commissioners consider that the provision of 6 no. bungalows fall far short of the calculated requirement for 20 or 21 units which should be provided. It has been indicated that there is little demand at present for affordable housing, however such provision should be promoted to encourage first time buyers to invest in a property within the Town.

Whilst it is recognised that the site layout complies with the parking standards as set down within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, the layout does not make provision for additional residents or visitor parking which will inevitably be the case as the majority of the properties proposed are 4 or 5 bedroomed units. Generally, these will be family homes with vehicle numbers increasing beyond the minimum standards provided."

5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highways Services do not object subject to the following conditions (received on 08.03.2016):"If the application is to be approved the following conditions should be attached:

• 1. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the garage, car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided and remain free from obstruction thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety.

• 2. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the road and footway/footpath between the highway and dwelling shall be constructed to at least base course level.

Reason: To ensure adequate pedestrian and vehicular access to each dwelling in the interest of highway safety."

5.3 Department of Infrastructure Housing Division does not object to the application for the following reasons (received on 10/03/16 & 03/05/16):

10/03/16: "Further to your memorandum of 3rd March 2016, we confirm that we have looked at the above application and we have considered the provision of the 25% affordable housing requirement.

Current data drawn from Housing Division records for the Northern Parishes area (including Ramsey) indicates that there are 19 persons on the first time buyers' register. The figure for firsttime buyers is not indicative of final purchases as the ability to progress to completion will depend upon personal circumstances and mortgage ability at point of allocation. In terms of public sector

properties, there are currently 107 persons on the general affordable homes for rent waiting list in the Northern area.

The Department would therefore request that consideration be given by the Planning Committee to include a requirement, in respect of any approval granted for this site, for the applicant to enter into a Section 13 Agreement with the Department to provide affordable housing, based upon the usual calculation, of 20 units (81x25% rounded to 20 units).

We can confirm that the applicant has consulted with the Housing Division to establish the requirements for Affordable Homes in the Area.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on this application."

03/05/16: "Further to our earlier communication of 10th March 2016, the Director of Housing has asked that we further qualify the information provided in our original memorandum regarding the waiting lists data in respect of persons on the housing lists who are seeking affordable housing to rent, and those on the qualifying list for the purchase of an affordable home through the first-time buyer's Fixed Scheme.

Within the last twelve months there has been limited residential development in the North of the Island which included allocations of affordable housing. Whilst there were 19 persons on the firsttime buyers' register at 1st March 2016 seeking to purchase in the Northern Area, we know from recent experience that no qualified first-time buyers (FTB) in this area have moved to the point where they are able to purchase a unit. The number of persons on the qualifying list as at 1st April 2016 for the purchase of an FTB home now stands at 12, none of whom is in a position at this point in time in proceeding with a purchase. The Department was unable to bring forward nominees in 2015 in respect of the former Gas Works site in Ramsey, which had 8 FTB units available. Each of these units was eventually sold through other routes.

As previously noted, the Waiting List for general affordable homes for rent in the Northern Area is 107. During formal discussions with the developer prior to their submission of this planning application, it was suggested that they might include a number of affordable homes for rent, which could be offered to a housing authority as a freehold transaction. This approach is being used at Cronk Cullyn in Colby as a way of exchanging potential commuted sums, (in the event of absence of FTB nominees), to acquire freehold units of the right house type so as to address current need. We are aware from recent discussions with Ramsey Town Commissioners' (RTC) officers that there are, in addition to the 107 persons on the waiting list, a considerable number of persons who are currently RTC housing tenants and who would readily relocate to single storey accommodation for reasons of age or the desire to move from larger rented properties to a more manageable environment. This would enable the Authority to take back larger public sector homes currently occupied by single persons or couples and then let the vacated units to families in need of more spacious accommodation. The Department sees this as a logical route to working toward the goal of satisfying need wherever possible and practicable.

It is worth noting that the Department is aware that the recently approved Clifton Drive Ramsey application contains provision for 16 affordable homes, which will be suitable for FTBuyers if the Department is able to bring forward nominees.

In summary, the Department sees this possibility for a housing authority to acquire 6 freehold affordable homes for rent on this site as a positive opportunity to address ongoing need in the area for this category of house type, and accordingly supports the proposed inclusion of the 6 units, thus ensuring ongoing delivery of affordable housing for rent.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment further on this application."

5.4 The owners/occupiers of Ormly Hall, Bride Road, Ramsey have objected (received on 18.03.16) to the application which can be summarised as; the area of green space will be destroyed forever; traffic in the neighbourhood will increase significantly destroying the tranquil, semi-rural feel of the area; is there a need for new houses; the housing is significantly denser than those in the neighbouring estates; there seems a real threat in the present climate that the development being constructed could remain unsold or abandoned as was the case in South of Ireland in 2010/11; little light to 8 houses to the back of our property due to tall trees; and any development should be absolutely necessary and should consist a mixed size housing with sympathetic landscaping. - 5.5 The owners/occupiers of 27 Rheast Mooar Lane, Ramsey have objected (received on

• 22.03.16) to the application which can be summarised as; erection of a sub-station opposite 1 Royal Park and concern with the noise associated with this and also possible danger to the public and children in particular who may be playing in the area; and the plan includes a footpath linking the new development with Rheast Mooar Lane do not considered it is needed in a dangerous position.

5.6 The owner/occupier of 46 Royal Park, Ramsey has objected (received on 22.03.16) to the application which can be summarised as; application includes an increase from 65 to 81 properties (25% increase) will increase level of overlooking and greater overbearing impact to our property; the data detailed in the 'Transport Statement'; is based on a traffic volume surveys taken during 2004, some 12 years ago prior to Palm Winds and Royal Park Phases 1 and therefore the statement is based on unreliable data; Proposal is contrary to General Policy 2 as it will have an adverse impact to all highway users and will have an unacceptable detriment to road safety, both by virtue to additional traffic and the siting of the properties facing onto the existing access road to Royal Park Phase 1; The Transport Statement has failed to fully or adequately account for the impact of the increase traffic volumes on the Royal Park access road and gives no consideration to the impact of the increased traffic volumes upon the established use and lifestyle of the existing residents (i.e. young children playing outside); and proposed siting of the substation is a material concern, no details have been published on the potential hazards to health of residents, particularly children, living in close proximity such substations. - 5.7 The owners/occupiers of 2 Royal Park, Ramsey have objected (received on 23.03.16) to the application which can be summarised as; application includes an increase from 65 to 81 properties and will result in an unacceptable overbearing impact to our property; highway safety concerns due to proposed road layout connecting to existing estate road; no consideration to the impact of the increased traffic volumes upon the established use and lifestyle of the existing residents (i.e. young children playing outside); new estate road will result in the loss of enjoyment of our home and garden due to noise and pollution; substation is proposed on the only green area our children on this street play on; the data detailed in the 'Transport Statement'; is based on a traffic volume surveys taken during 2004, some 12 years ago prior to Palm Winds and Royal Park Phases 1 and therefore the statement is based on unreliable data; and proposal is contrary to General Policy 2 as it will have an adverse impact to all highway users and will have an unacceptable detriment to road safety, both by virtue to additional traffic and the siting of the properties facing onto the existing access road to Royal Park Phase 1. - 5.8 The owners/occupiers of Westlands, Vollan Close, Ramsey have objected (received on

• 23.03.16) to the application which can be summarised as; the land in questions acts as a flood plain for a natural spring and for rain water; and planning permission should be subject to stringent requirements for adequate drainage.

5.9 The owners/occupiers of 28 Royal Park, Ramsey have objected (received on 23.03.16) to the application which can be summarised as; increase the number of properties form approximately 50 to 81 properties will, reduce value of current properties; additional traffic will have a negative impact upon highway safety of the children that live in the surrounding area, increase level of vehicles increase level of vehicles parked on road again impacting highway safety; small proposed

• park-land is vastly reduced from the original plan, no visitor parking, and the amount of dwellings should be reduced closer to the original 2004 application.
• 5.10 The owners/occupiers of 27 Royal Park, Ramsey have objected (received on 23.03.16) to the application which can be summarised as; We were aware of plans to build phase 2 at the time we bought the property but at that time the number of houses proposed was much smaller; proposal packs a huge number of houses onto the site with 3 separate access roads all leading off the current road onto Royal Park; concerns of traffic flow and highway safety; little space between each house; there will inevitably be cars parked on the street which in itself creates a safety risk for children playing in the area; concerns development will take many years to complete as the builder constructs the houses according to sales, resulting in heavy works traffic entering and leaving the site, furthering impacting highway safety; . Is there any evidence that Ramsey needs so many new houses in this area; and we would urge the planning committee to refuse application to develop the site as now planned and the developer to consider the information that was given to the purchasers of phase 1 and to develop the site as originally planned.
• 5.11 A J B Haslam (resident of Ormly Avenue - full address not known) objected (received on

• 23.03.16) to the application which can be summarised as; the original plan was for 50 plots and now it is 81 and the increase appears to be sited particularly at the rears of Ormly Hall, Vollan Crescent and Ormly Avenue; Phase 1 is composed of properties to a much smaller density; reduce value of adjoin properties; smaller plots will lead to traffic problems and will add to traffic density; and the increased density appears to be a means of trying to increase developers return without regard to the problems it creates.

5.12 The owners/occupiers of 1 Royal Park, Ramsey have objected (received on 24.03.16) to the application which can be summarised as; bought home on the bases of being told by Hartford Homes that the green space opposite our home would not be used as a through road or more significantly built on; will negatively impact on our property value, health, safety and lifestyle; community have been using this open space area; we have recently gain approved for a side extension to be used for tourist purposes and this substation is incomprehensible to our plan; substation will massively impact on our privacy; the short fall of the children's play and amenity spaces is quite perplexing; additional road should not need to include our cul-de-Sac and highway safety is also a concern; letter from Department Education and Children from (June 2014) is out of date and the number of pupils attending the schools will have a big impact on school resources; and wellbeing of existing families in Royal Park should take precedence. - 5.13 The owners/occupiers of Cair Vie, 6 Royal Park, Ramsey have objected (received on

• 24.03.16) to the application which can be summarised as; proposal increase from 65 to 81 properties (a 25% increase); will increase level of overlooking and greater overbearing impact to properties on Phase 1 and Ormly estate residents; the new proposal does not take into account Phase 1 and Palm Winds and the increase in density and layout does not take into account the previously outlined proposal and is incompatible with the current aesthetics of the existing homes and layouts as well as the quality of life and environmental impact; proposed road layout adjoin our road results in significant risk to safety in traffic movement; green space should be larger; detrimental to existing wildlife and natural habitats contrary to planning policies; proposed substation is of great concerns for the welfare of the families adjacent to it; health concerns of the substation especially to children; loss of privacy; data detailed in the 'Transport Statement' is based on a traffic volume surveys taken during 2004, some 12 years ago prior to Palm Winds and Royal Park Phases 1 and therefore the statement is based on unreliable data; Proposal is contrary to General Policy 2 as it will have an adverse impact to all highway users and will have an unacceptable detriment to road safety, both by virtue to additional traffic and the siting of the properties facing onto the existing access road to Royal Park Phase 1; and the Transport Statement has failed to fully or adequately account for the impact of the increase traffic volumes on the Royal Park access road and gives no consideration to the impact of the increased traffic volumes upon the established use and lifestyle of the existing residents or in particular the road layout of the existing cul-de-sac.

5.14 The owners/occupiers of 5 Royal Park, Ramsey have objected (received on 24.03.16) to the application which can be summarised as; purchased our property on the bases of 65 properties not 81; again purchased our property on the bases that the area where the substation is proposed would be left as green space; concerns the decrease in values due to proximity to substations; health concerns relating to the substation and electric and magnetic fields and potential increase in risk of children's leukaemia; additional number of dwellings (16) over the original approval will impact upon children who play outside with friends; why can the proposal be self-contained rather than using the existing cul-de-sac of phase 1; increase in properties accessing directly onto the main entrance road from 6 to 14 again increasing highway safety concerns; loss of privacy give people using the road directly opposite our property; why can't developer provide the correct amount of open space; why should residents of Royal Park be left with an insufficient amount of open space so the developer can cram another 16 houses into the site; plan notes proximity of Mooragh Park and the Promenade, but how many parents would be happy your let their young children go and play in the park, rather than on an open space outside their house; site is large enough to provide sufficient space; how does the commuted payment make up for the deficiency in open space; and no comments are made of the existing habituated which would be removed. - 5.15 The owner/occupier of 20 Ormly Avenue, Ramsey has objected (received on 25.03.16) to the application which can be summarised as; houses to rear of my property; significant increase in traffic using Bride Road; style of house is not in keeping with the area which is mainly bungalows; privacy will be greatly reduced; noise will be greatly increased; and increase in dwellings will reduce value of my property. - 5.16 The owners/occupiers of Vollan Rigg, Vollan Close, Ramsey have objected (received on 29.03.16) to the application which can be summarised as; houses to rear of my property; no rationale why so many more homes are required in this vicinity; direct overlooking from plot nr 8; decrease in property value; increase in flood risk; transport statement is out of date and application indicates no tree or hedges would be affected but the proposes indicates a Manx hedge to be removed. - 5.17 The owner/occupier of 4 Royal Park, Ramsey has objected (received on 29.03.16) to the application which can be summarised as; the 81 houses is excessive and not in keeping with the surrounding area; concern of additional traffic generated will have an impact to area; properties accessing onto main access road will result in traffic jams and potential restrictions to emergency services; loss of road side hedge along the front of 1-6 Royal Park which will have a negative impact; development would add to already squeezed resources (schools); the cul-de-sac in front of 1-6 Royal Park is used as a safe space to play; highway safety concern due to playing behaviours around the estate which will be altered by this very larger development; and shortfall in public open space. - 5.18 The owners/occupiers of 16 Ormly Avenue, Ramsey have objected (received on 29.03.16) to the application which can be summarised as; invasion of privacy; increase in noise and traffic; devalue properties; site acts as a flood plain; is there are requirement for more houses in Ramsey. - 5.19 The owners/occupiers of 40 Royal Park, Ramsey have objected (received on 29.03.16) to the application which can be summarised as; lower price of our property; increase traffic around the area which is already a problem; parking problem the chance of a child being knocked down will increase as most of the children on the estate play on the road. - 5.20 The owners/occupiers of 44 Royal Park, Ramsey have objected (received on 24.03.16) to the application which can be summarised as; additional number of vehicles will have a significant impact on the main through road into Royal Park; access road does not give adequate line of sight and inadequate for larger commercial vehicles; parking concerns due to properties on phase 1 having up to four cars; proposal will completely change the dynamic as children currently play outside in relatively safety; transport statement is flawed in using 2004 data; existing properties values in

• Ramsey already falling this will only add to this due to the oversupply resulting in increased development.
• 5.21 The owners/occupiers of 24 Royal Park, Ramsey have objected (received on 25.03.16) to the application which can be summarised as; concerns of time for houses to be built, phase 1 took 6 years; were aware of phase 2 but concerned about the massive increase in proposed dwellings and their positioning on the main access road to phase 1; increase in traffic; most 4/5 bedroom houses will have 2+ cars; safety of children due to increase in traffic; and lack of parking resulting in parking on the road which raise additional highway safety concerns.
• 5.22 The owners/occupiers of 17 Ormly Avenue, Ramsey have objected (received on 24.03.16) to the application which can be summarised as; low value of property; increase traffic flow would make this single main road estate very busy; more car parking on the road making it difficult to overtake and park; children being knocked down by speeding cars; loss or privacy of rear garden; and increase of 62% in dwellings over original application.

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 Given the land-use designation and the type of development the following elements are relevant to consideration in the determination of this application; (a) principle of development; (b) the potential impact upon the visual amenities of the area; (c) potential impact upon neighbouring amenities; (d) potential impact upon highway safety; and (e) other matters. PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT - 6.2 The first and main issue relating to this application is the principle of residential development on this site. As outlined within the planning policy section of this report, the majority of the site is proposed for residential use and therefore the proposal for additional residential development is acceptable. - 6.3 Further to the land use designation is the previous extent planning approval (04/02311/B) which allowed a total of 111 mixed density dwellings, of which 65 dwellings where located on the current application site referred as 'Phase 2', the remainder 46 dwellings have been constructed and referred as 'Phase 1'. - 6.4 Since this previous approved application, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan has been adopted (June 2007 & 1st April 2016). Within this document Strategic Policies 1 & 2 require that new dwellings be located within existing sustainable settlements. Spatial Policy 2 also indicated that outside Douglas development will be concentrated on a total of five 'Service Centres' to provide regeneration and choice of location for housing, employment and services, one of these service centres is Ramsey. - 6.5 More recently, an update to the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 has been undertaken and adopted, which identified that a total of 770 new dwellings is required to be provided between the years of 2011 to 2026 in the north of the Island alone. A total of 5,100 dwellings are required over this same period throughout the Island. Given Ramsey is regarded as the main Service Centre in the north of the Island, it is reasonable to consider the majority of these dwellings are likely to be provided in Ramsey, especially given designated residential land is still available under the Ramsey Local Plan which was adopted in 1998. - 6.6 Accordingly, given the above reasons, it is consider the principle of developing the majority of the site for residential purposes is acceptable. This is not an automatic reason to allow development as further material planning matters as indicated previously need to be considered, to determine if the principle of an 81 dwellings on the site is appropriate. THE POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON THE VISUAL AMENITIES OF THE AREA - 6.7 Perhaps the starting point is in relation to the density of the proposed development which equates to 7.7 dwellings per acre (19.19 dwellings per hectare). The Ramsey Local Plan - Policy

R/R/P2 indicates that development may take place only in accordance with a scheme for the whole area which "uses low density housing only". Neither the Isle of Man Strategic Plan nor the Ramsey Local Plan gives any definition of what "low density housing" is. This matter was considered under the previously application (04/02311/B) when the Inspector made the following comments:

"The proposal in Appeal A is for 111 dwellings on about 17.48 acres (7 hectares) which gives rise to densities of 6.34 dwellings per acre (15.69 dwellings per hectare). The Planning Committee considered that this density fell within the spirt of 'low density'; whilst the Appellants and the Objectors considered that the appropriate density was 5 dwellings per acre and no more. In my opinion, a gross density of under 6.5 dwellings per acre on this site could be regarded as 'low density' in the context of present planning practices taking into account the fact that part of the site is to be used for affordable housing in conformity with the emerging Strategic Plan, albeit not at the 25% recommended in that document, but at about 22% in this proposal. I am helped to this conclusion by the fact that development in the adjoining Ormly estate is about 6 dwellings per acre. In relation to Appeal B, I share some of the concerns of the Appellants that a density of 7 dwellings per acre is tending not to be low density in the context if the Ramsey Local Plan and the Planning Authorities past density guidance. The density is approaching the 8 dwellings per acre which was defined as medium density. However, I note there is no current guidance on densities on the Isle of Man."

6.8 It is also worth considering general guidance used within the UK in relation to densities and definitions of low, medium and high densities. Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (no longer in force but still used as a guide) indicated that local planning authorities should avoid inefficient residential developments that propose net densities of less than thirty dwellings to the hectare (12 dwellings to the acre) and encourage more efficient residential developments that propose net densities of between 30 and 55 dwellings to the hectare (22 dwellings to the acre). Although these figures are for net densities, rather than gross densities, it should be recognised that these are significantly greater than those the planning application proposes. Also this is UK guidance not Isle of Man guidance or policy, but it gives perhaps a help guide on housing density in other jurisdictions. - 6.9 Consideration should also be given to Strategic Policy 1 of the IOM Strategic Plan which has been adopted since the original approval. This indicates that developments should make the best use of resources by optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials; ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards; and being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services. It could be considered the proposal would comply with these requirements. - 6.10 Overall in terms of densities the proposals are considered appropriate for the site and similar to surrounding housing developments. Given there is no up to date guidance and as the relevant adopted Local Plan and Strategic both also fall silent on giving a definition of housing density, it is difficult to give a definitive answer where this is low or medium density. However, given previous planning approval has been given for very similar density and given the more recent adopted policies within the IOM Strategic Plan, it is considered the density of dwellings on the site is acceptable. Such development also helps relieve the pressure of development within the countryside. - 6.11 In terms of the potential impacts upon the visual amenities of the area, it is considered again the proposal would be an appropriate form of development from this respect. The layout, design, scale, form and finish of the dwellings are appropriate and would result in a pleasant housing development to live within. There would be a total of nine different housing styles, generally mixed which increase the variety within the street scenes. The design and finishes of the dwellings differ to the houses in Phase 1, which themselves differed from the neighbouring estate of Ormly Avenue which are made up of bungalows (1960/70s design). Again the Palm Winds development also differed from all the houses designs, offering a more contemporary two storey dwellings. Accordingly, there has been a number of housing styles constructed over the years in this

• immediate area and it is considered the proposal would just introduce further appropriate form of development in the Royal Park estate.
• 6.12 In terms of appearance of the estate from outside the estate itself, the dwellings would not be especially apparent, particular from distant views. The most apparent views would be from the existing Royal Park estate road. Currently the estate road is made up of a grass bank with gorse/landscaping above to either side. The proposal would result in the removal of this landscaping to the western side and replaces with 15 new dwellings, 14 of which gain direct access onto the existing estate road. This will result in the appearance along this stretch of the estate road becoming more developments rather than the existing rural feel. However, this was similar in the original application and also the site has been designated for residential development since 1998. Views of the application site and the proposed dwellings from the Vollan Crescent and the Bride Road would be apparent; however, given the setback of the dwellings from these roads, it is not considered the impact would be so significant to warrant a refusal. It is noted that the aspect of the site closest to Vollan Crescent would be one of the largest areas of public open space which includes substantial landscaping.
• 6.13 Accordingly, whilst there will be an impact to the visual amenities of the area, it is considered the proposals would be acceptable and comply with General Policy 2 of the IOMSP. POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES
• 6.14 The second issue relates to the potential impact of the development upon the residential amenities of neighbouring properties. Given the size of the site and number of dwellings, all properties adjacent to the site will be impacted by the development. Any development would have an impact, the issue to consider is whether the proposed development would significantly impacts upon the amenities of the neighbouring properties. Generally the main issue relate to overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy, overbearing impact upon outlooks and/or loss of light.
• 6.15 In terms of overlooking a general guide which the department utilises is the 20 metres measure, which is taken between direct facing windows. In this case all the proposed dwellings (exception of gable end bungalows - plots 18 &19) are greater than 20metres from neighbouring existing properties. The existing properties most affect from overlooking would be the properties within Ormly Avenue (along the western boundary) and properties along the Bride Road & Vollan Close (along northern boundary). However, given the distance between these properties and the existing boundary landscaping between these properties it is considered whilst there will be an increased amount of overlooking, it would not be so significant to warrant a refusal.
• 6.16 In relation to overbearing impacts upon outlooks of neighbouring residents, again given the distance the proposed dwellings would be from existing properties, the design and height of the dwelling and the existing boundary landscaping (west and north boundaries only), it is considered the proposal would not unduly affect neighbouring properties to warrant a refusal on this ground.
• 6.17 Considered has also been given to the impact of the substation, namely to 1 Royal Park which has also benefited from a side extension recently (tourist and non-tourist use) which would be approximately 11.5 metres from the side elevation of substation which would have a width of 4.8 metres, a depth of 6.5 metres and height of 3.6 metres. Whilst there will be an impact, the substation is proposed to have landscaping between it and 1 Royal Park (condition should be attached for additional landscaping details), the substation is modest in height and size and is located a sufficient distance away. Accordingly, it is considered this aspect of the proposal would not result in a significant overbearing impact to the occupants of Nr 1 to warrant a refusal.
• 6.18 Regarding the potential to loss of light; again as indicated previously, given the house size/heights and designs, and distances the proposed dwellings would be from neighbouring properties, it is considered the proposals would not result in a sufficient amount of loss of light to warrant a refusal.

6.19 Overall, whilst the proposed development will have an impacts upon existing neighbouring properties, it is considered for the reasons given the proposed development would not having an significant impacts upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties and therefore comply with General Policy 2 of the IOMSP. POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON HIGHWAY SAFETY - 6.20 A number of concerns have been raised in relation to the additional traffic generated by the proposed development and whether the existing highway network can accommodate this increase in traffic. Concern has also be raised that the traffic survey which was undertaken and the new transport statement refers too now, is out of date and cannot be relied upon. - 6.21 In relation to the Transport Statement submitted now, this indicates that there is an extant planning permission for 65 plots and therefore the current application seeks a net increase of 16 plots over the extent planning permission. The report indicates that the extent permission for 65 plots is included within the planning permission for 111 plots within Royal Park, in addition to the five dwellings on the Palm Winds site. The Transport Statement takes into account of the Royal Part estate road, Vollan Crescent, Bride Road, Andreas Road and Mooragh Promenade. The report finds that the net increase of 16 dwellings over the extent planning permission for 65 dwellings will generate a total of some 11 vehicular movements during the morning and evening peak hours. This is an increase in vehicle movements on average of a single vehicle every 5 to 6 minutes and will not be noticeable to other users of the network. Due to this the reporter states; "This negligible increase in vehicles using the highway network will not be significant and hence will not result in material change in the levels of traffic movements using the network." The report concludes that the traffic likely to be generated by the application proposals can be safely accommodated on the access road, Vollan Crescent, Bride Road, Andreas Road and Mooragh Promenade and hence that the proposals accord with the policies and guidance of the Ramsey Local Plan and the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. - 6.22 Highway Services have raised no objection to the proposal on the grounds indicated above. Consideration should also be given that the previous Inspector concluded that 111 dwellings within Royal Park would not result in a highway safety concerns or the traffic generated could not be accommodated within the existing highway network. Given the proposals equates to 16 additional dwellings, and as it has been determined by the Transport Statement that this would have a "negligible increase" and "proposals can be safely accommodated" within the existing highway network, and as there is no objection to these conclusions from Highway Services; it is concluded the proposals would comply with General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 4 of the IOMSP. - 6.23 In terms of off street parking provision the IOMSP requires each dwelling to be provided with two off road parking spaces. With the exception of the six, two bedroomed bungalows - these would have two spaces each - the remainder of properties have at least three off road parking spaces, two on the driveway and one within the integral garage. The larger five bedroom properties have at least four spaces, two on driveway and two within the double integral garages. Accordingly, the application complies with Transport Policy 7 and the parking standards of the IOMSP. Again Highways have raised no objection. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION - 6.24 As indicated by Housing Policy 5 the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing when developments are of 8 dwellings or more. On this basis a total of 20 affordable units would generally be required. In this case the applicants have been in discussion with the DOI Housing Division and both parties have agreed that the applicant will constructed all six bungalows (totally cost of £900,000) and essentially transfer the ownership to the local authority. It should be noted that if the applicant provide a commuted sum payment this would equate to a total payment of £810,000. There is argument to this agreed method and that is the applicants should provide the 20 affordable units on the site, which is normally required by Housing Policy 5. However, as stated by the Housing Division in their comments to this application (paragraph 5.3 of this report for full response) there are currently no persons in the north of the

• Island on the First Time Buyers home who are in a position to purchase a dwelling. Accordingly, if the 20 affordable units where provided on this site, the likelihood is they would not be utilised for this need.
• 6.25 Due to this the Housing Division indicate they have had further discussions with the applicants and have agreed to include a number of affordable homes for rent, which could be offered to a housing authority as a freehold transaction. This approach is being used at Cronk Cullyn in Colby as a way of exchanging potential commuted sums, (in the event of absence of FTB nominees), to acquire freehold units of the right house type so as to address current need. The Housing Division have indicated that they are aware from recent discussions with Ramsey Town Commissioners' (RTC) officers that there are, in addition to the 107 persons on the waiting list, a considerable number of persons who are currently RTC housing tenants and who would readily relocate to single storey accommodation for reasons of age or the desire to move from larger rented properties to a more manageable environment. This would enable the Authority to take back larger public sector homes currently occupied by single persons or couples and then let the vacated units to families in need of more spacious accommodation. The Department sees this as a logical route to working toward the goal of satisfying need wherever possible and practicable. In summary, the Housing Division sees this possibility for a housing authority to acquire 6 freehold affordable homes for rent on this site as a positive opportunity to address ongoing need in the area for this category of house type, and accordingly supports the proposed inclusion of the 6 units, thus ensuring ongoing delivery of affordable housing for rent. OPEN SPACE PROVISION
• 6.26 Recreation Policy 3 indicates that where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan. In this case the application should provide a total of 7,584sqm. The application provides a total of 7,348sqm, which will be a mix of Formal, Children's play and Amenity Space which is a shortfall of 236sqm. The applicants propose to make up the shortfall in on site provision by the payment of a commuted sum of £2,528 to Ramsey Town Commissioners, who would use the payment for up-keep of public open space within the town.
• 6.27 Whilst the full provision is not being made the applicants are; as well as providing a commuted sum payment, providing a "Village Green" area which includes a mixture of soft and hard landscaping, benches, informal groups of cube seating and feature curved stone walls all accessed via footpaths from four directions. The Village Green area will also be landscaped with substantial trees up to a height of 4.5/5.5 metres in height. Furthermore the scheme includes substantial tree and landscape planting to the "Amenity Area" including footpaths and benches. Accordingly, whilst there is a shortfall, the standard, design and quality of the open space provision is arguable of a greater standard found elsewhere on other developments on the Island and arguable overcomes the shortfall of on-site open space provision in this case.
• 6.28 The applicants also indicate the site is close and easy access to Mooragh Park and the Promenade.
• 6.29 Consideration is also given to the original extant approval which appears to have less open space provision and certainly less useful.
• 6.30 It is also important to note that as indicated within the planning policy section of this report, part of the site is designated as 'Proposed Open Space'. The northern most section of the site is proposed to be utilised as public open space referred as 'Amenity Area'. Accordingly this section also complies with the land use designation of the Ramsey Local Plan. OTHER MATTERS

6.31 A number of concerns have been raised of the potential health issues (leukaemia) relating to substations, particularly in relation to children. - 6.32 The Planning Department has sought advice from the Director of Public Health on this matter and she has stated: "So long as the proposed installation complies with ICNIRP guidelines, I would not be raising any concerns from a public health perspective. As the substation will be inside a building, this will effectively screen out the electric field making exposure outside that building even lower than would be the case for an outdoor installation. There are no proven health risks from the EMF fields associated with electricity production, supply or use. A number of studies have shown a possible association between childhood leukaemia and exposure to electricity in the home and/or high voltage power lines (not substations). However, there is no biological explanation for this effect and it therefore remains an association rather than a causal link. Expert advice Public Health England) is that the ICNIRP guidelines provide an adequate precautionary margin." - 6.33 Accordingly, whilst concerns are understandable, given comments made by the Director of Public Health and as no evidence has been provided to suggest otherwise, it is considered there are no reasons to refusal the application on this ground. - 6.34 In terms of loss of values to properties potentially caused by the development, this is not a material planning consideration which can be taken into account when determining the application.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 Overall, for the reasons indicated with this report it is concluded the proposals complies with the relevant planning policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and the Ramsey Local Plan and therefore it is recommended the application is approved subject to conditions as listed and subject to a Section 13 Legal Agreements relating to Affordable Housing provision and Open Space provision.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 as modified by the Transfer of Planning and Building Control Functions Order 2015, 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) The Highways Services of the Department of Infrastructure; and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.

8.2 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and paragraph 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:

Ormly Hall, Bride Road, Ramsey Vollan Rigg, Vollan Close, Ramsey

• 1 Royal Park, Ramsey

• 2 Royal Park, Ramsey

• 4 Royal Park, Ramsey
• 5 Royal Park, Ramsey Cair Vie, 6 Royal Park, Ramsey 46 Royal Park, Ramsey

• 16 Ormly Avenue, Ramsey
• 17 Ormly Avenue, Ramsey
• 18 Ormly Avenue, Ramsey 20 Ormly Avenue, Ramsey

• 27 Rheast Mooar Lane, Ramsey A J B Haslam (resident of 1 Ormly Avenue, full address not known)

8.3 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and paragraph 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:

Westlands, Vollan Close, Ramsey

• 28 Royal Park, Ramsey 27 Royal Park, Ramsey 40 Royal Park, Ramsey 44 Royal Park, Ramsey 24 Royal Park, Ramsey

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Approve subject to Legal Agreement Date of Recommendation: 17.05.2016

• 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. Each dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the dwelling and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.

• C 3. No development shall take place until a further landscaping plan of soft landscaping works surrounding the substation have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning and

Building Control Directorate and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the soft landscaping works include additional planting as well as existing landscaping being proposed along the southern boundary of the substation/parking area, especially in relation to the boundary with 1 Royal Park. All planting shall be carried out in accordance the approved details in the first planting and seeding seasons following the first occupation of each dwelling permitted. Any trees or shrub which within 5 years from the completion of the development dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of similar size and species unless the planning authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development and to protect amenities of neighbouring amenities.

• C 4. The last dwelling of the development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the areas of public open space referred as "Amenity Area" shown on drawing 01 REV E have been turfed with grass, including the footpaths and landscaped as proposed and all made available for recreational use. 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: to ensure adequate Public Open Space provision is provided.
• C 5. Once the fiftieth dwelling of the development hereby approved is occupied the area of public open space referred as "Village Green" and the area of public open space to the east all shown on drawing 01 REV E & 02 REV C are required to have been turfed with grass, including the footpaths, landscaped, seating, feature stone walls as proposed and all made available for recreational use. 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: to ensure adequate Public Open Space provision is provided.
• C 6. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the road and footway/footpath between the highway and dwelling shall be constructed to at least base course level.

Reason: To ensure adequate pedestrian and vehicular access to each dwelling in the interest of highway safety.

• C 7. All planting, seeding or turfing not included within the areas of public open space (mentioned within Conditions 4 & 5) comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development. 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: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.

N 1. This approval is subject to a legal agreement.

This approval relates to drawings reference numbers 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 1609/15-RP 01 REV B, 1609/15-01 REV E, 1609/15-02 REV C, 1609/15-03,

15-138. 15-138/10, Transport Statement and M125 REV F received on 25th February 2016 and 16th May 2015.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Interim Director of Planning and Building Control in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Permitted Date : 08.08.2016 Determining officer

Signed : J CHANCE Jennifer Chance Interim Director of Planning and Building Control

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.