Officer Report

Application No.: 16/01402/A Applicant: Joyjay Ltd Proposal: Approval in principle for the erection of residential accommodation for older people for up to 25 units addressing means of access Site Address: B C S House And Builders Yard Peel Road Braddan Douglas Isle of Man IM4 4LE Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 04.01.2017 Site Visit: 04.01.2017 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OWING TO THE SCALE AND NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALSO GIVEN THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE.

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is an irregularly shaped parcel of land situated on the northeastern side of Peel Road at a point between Braddan Church and the Snugborough Trading Estate. The site has a frontage to Peel Road of approximately 85m, within which is an existing vehicular entrance but towards the southern end. Further north is an existing building in office use and has some associated parking. This frontage area is on something of a plateau, behind which - to the northeast - there is steep a downward slope in the direction of the River Dhoo. At this point the land is again largely flat and is (or, at least, has been) used as a contractor's storage yard where at the time of the site visit there were a number of Portacabin-style buildings, shipping containers and associated deposited waste materials (paint, white goods, construction materials, pallets, fencing, and so forth).

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Approval in Principle is sought for the erection of residential accommodation for older people for up to 25 units. Access alone is sought for detailed consideration at this stage. It is understood that the units would be for people aged 55 and over. - 2.2 The new access would be sited centrally within the frontage. Gate posts with automatic gates attached would be sited roughly 6m back from the edge of the land ownership, and some 14m back from the road. The proposed site plan suggests that visibility of 2.4m by 90m can be achieved in both directions. - 2.3 Although indicative drawings of the proposed building have been provided, Siting, Design and External Appearance are all matters reserved for a subsequent application should the current scheme be approved. Therefore, only very limited weight can be given to these drawings. - 2.4 The application includes a lengthy Planning Statement along with a landowner's statement and a shorter document setting out the vision for the complex. - 2.5.0 Planning Statement:

• 2.5.1 The Statement is broken down into seven separate sections (one of which is missing), plus a summary / conclusion. Any comments that appear in the following text that appear to be 'value judgements' reflect the wording of the Statement rather than the view of the case officer.
• 2.5.2 Section 1, 'Background and Project Aims', details that the recession has resulted in the building companies of Parkinson Ltd & Blackburn Construction Services Ltd no longer operating. Approval was eventually granted for the erection of 17 industrial units in August 2013 - whilst at the outset there was strong interest in the units this did not materialise following the grant of approval. Banks are not prepared to "lend its support" to industrial development without confirmed end-users for some of the units. As such, alternative uses for the site need to be explored and, despite concern raised by Planning, overwhelming support was given by Braddan Commissioners for an ecofriendly village complex for senior citizens.
• 2.5.3 Section 2 discusses the ethos of a community living complex in great detail, noting design ideals for such complexes include not just buildings but also sensory walkways and pleasant places to sit. It also notes how such places offer various indoor recreational activities (films nights, art classes and so forth) and how this can help people become closer, and that this is "the real benefit of community living". The statement goes on to outline the various "eco-sustainability" credentials of this complex, which would include high-insulation values, low-carbon footprint materials, disabled access, solar panels, garden and landscaped areas, lighting designed to limit light pollution, use of log burners / low energy appliances, and a community minibus.
• 2.5.4 Section 3 sets out in some detail how the 'ethos' is to be achieved, including tentative floorplans and massing models along with a site layout. This essentially shows one single building accommodating each residential unit (described as "bungalows") along with a higher element that would provide for a manager's / warden's accommodation. Green roofs are shown, with reference also made to a shop, café and internal lift. Each unit is described as having 63sqm of living accommodation. A mixture of materials - stone, timber cladding and hedging - would restore a more natural look to the area. Access to the woodlands at the rear and the Heritage Trail is intended. The drawings also show a large communal area with what appears to be water features.
• 2.5.5 Section 4 highlights that there has been a 14% increase in people claiming pensions since

1. It also explains further the Braddan Commissioners' support for the scheme and also that a business case has been formally submitted to the Government seeking that they be social housing. Millennium Court nearby is highlighted as offering a similar style of building / arrangement in a similar use and it is also noted that these are near to Snugborough Industrial Estate.

• 2.5.6 Section 5 reflects on the Employment Land Review. The agent has no desire to pre-empt what may be said regarding the review of the ELR but "it would appear that the demand for industrial units is as it should be i.e. there are plenty of new units sitting empty with other approved ones yet to be built". It is also noted that the ELR classified Snugborough as "poor" and therefore the demand for this particular site to remain industrial "is barely apparent". Reference is also made to the economic development benefits of the scheme, specifically with regards to employment opportunities during construction both on- and off-site, a "pod-unit" industry would be created onIsland, a full-time warden role would be created, there would be a reduced demand on the healthcare service owing to improved lifestyles and a reduced burden on utility suppliers as a result of more energy-efficient homes being created.
• 2.5.7 Section 6 is entitled "Pre-planning consultations" and refers to concern raised by officers regarding the proposal, before again listing the benefits of the scheme and summarising the benefits thereof. Reference is also made to highway safety. The new entrance has been designed with 9m radii to ensure that those entering and exiting the site can do so efficiently with limited disruption. Setting the gates 9m back from the highway allows cars to wait here without obstructing the highway. The access is an improvement over the existing situation and exceeds requirements, and moving the existing junction away from the existing residential neighbour

• benefits them. The majority of parking is at the lower level, accessed by a 1 in 8 ramp, and there is also level-access parking at the upper level for use during adverse weather conditions. 17 spaces are tentatively proposed, which would exceed the "mandatory requirement" of 10 for this site. Pedestrian crossing points can be created both internally and externally of the security gates. A bus layby is incorporated adjacent to the main entrance is proposed, while there is already one adjacent the Braddan Church. There are good and well-lit pedestrian links to the Heritage Trail at Braddan Bridge, Kirby Garden Centre up a short incline, the hospital and Braddan Cemetery via a longer incline, and Union Mills with its Post Office, public house and shop via the Heritage Trail or Peel Road itself.
• 2.5.8 Section 7 is missing.
• 2.5.9 Section 8 is entitled Compliance with Planning Policy, and, noting that the site is zoned as Industrial Use on the 1982 Development Plan [case officer note: the Braddan Local Plan superseded this in 1991, but the zoning has remained similar - "Predominantly Industrial"], it argues that the scheme complies with the following policies of the Strategic Plan 2016:

• o General Policy 3c
• o Strategic Policy 1
• o Strategic Policy 2
• o Strategic Policy 4
• o Strategic Policy 5
• o Strategic Policy 7
• o Strategic Policy 10
• o Strategic Policy 11
• o Environment Policy 43
• o Housing Policy 1
• o Housing Policy 3
• o Housing Policy 5
• o Housing Policy 6
• o Transport Policy 1
• o Transport Policy 2
• o Transport Policy 4
• o Transport Policy 7 (and Appendix 7)
• o Infrastructure Policy 1
• o Infrastructure Policy 2
• o Infrastructure Policy 5
• o Energy Policy 4 It also is believed that the Spatial Vision, Island Spatial Strategy and Strategic Objectives are met.

In support of this, and in addition to points raised elsewhere, the statement notes that the existing site is redundant and its redevelopment will replace buildings of poor form with highly desirable senior living residences, introducing an "eco-enhancing environment" with native planting to the benefit of the wider environment, particularly relevant where housing is the primary neighbour. It is also noted that the surrounding uses are residential and river as well as by industrial, but that this latte use has declined over time and an acoustic fence will mitigate noise effects. The proposal is more appropriate for existing neighbouring uses. Over 50s walking is recommended at 2 miles per day, and this is encouraged on the site and by the nearby facilities. There is a 2,500 housing stock shortfall. The demand for senior living has never been more evident and The Government has its

• own "strategy review" where a village such as this of 60+ units is currently being explored. Biodisc septic tanks will be used to act as a betterment over the existing IRIS drainage connections. Greywater rain harvesting is proposed for the roof garden.

• 2.6.0 Landowner's Statement:

• 2.6.1 In addition to covering a number of similar areas to the Planning Statement (including very similar text in respect of planning policies considered met by the proposal and pre-submission consultations), the Landowner's Statement also sets out the history of the site, the planning history of the site, and also comments on the Employment Land Review and the economic viability of the approved industrial units. Again, any comments that appear in the following text that appear to be 'value judgements' reflect the wording of the Statement rather than the view of the case officer.
• 2.6.2 The site was established in the late 1970s as a builder's yard with associated office. The yard area housed a joinery workshop, a concrete casting shed, a painting area and stores for plumbing equipment and scaffolding. As the nature of construction on the Island changed in the 1980s, greater reliance was placed on sub-contractors, and so the yard became a material and plant store alone. This period coincided with the development of adjacent land, known as Braddan Hills, for dwellings. In 2014 both the companies that had been using the land ceased trading and vacated the site.
• 2.6.3 The existing yard has been vacant for two years and is unlikely to be developed under the extant approval as there is no demand for the units for which approval exists. National income by sector figures show that sectors of the Island's economy requiring industrial units are in decline Engineering, for example, reduced by 15% between 2013/14 and 2014/15. After the publication of the ELR, landowners were invited to submit areas of land for consideration for zoning as industrial land, and this has reduced the attractiveness of this site, especially given the operational restrictions in place as part of the current planning permission. The owners of the site have been actively pursuing the development of the site but the large number of objections received from residents as well as the disappearing demand for these units (despite extensive marketing and discussion with DED) is such that an alternative use is needed.
• 2.6.4 A resident of the Braddan Hills area, who represented this area during the appeal hearings, was consulted with the proposed use of the site for residential purposes. After he had spoken with neighbours he confirmed overwhelming support for the idea. Discussions with "Environmental Groups" also resulted in a full endorsement of the development.
• 2.6.5 When considering the availability of industrial space as of October 2016 against the data in the ELR report, the available space appears to have increased or stayed similar. The 8,279sqm at Ronaldsway, which is the largest single area, remains vacant. Approximately 235,000sqft of space was available in June 2014 and one agent's website (as of October 2016) shows 239,000sqft of available space. [Case officer's note: these figures are 21,830sqm and 22,200sqm respectively.] The report states that demand for industrial units is for those between 465sqm and 929sqm; those for which extant approval exists on this site are between 80sqm and 160sqm. The report also states that the demand for industrial units in future will be in high-end manufacturing whereas the approval here relates only to basic industrial units. Not mentioned within the report is the slight decline in rent returns from roughly £7.00/sqft eight years ago to £6.50/sqft today - this does not demonstrate that demand is outstretching supply.
• 2.6.6 With respect to the economic viability of the approved scheme, the landowner notes that during the two-year period during which it took to obtain planning approval the construction industry went into serious recession and the demand for the units disappeared. They state that this site will remain undeveloped for a considerable time unless it is re-zoned for residential uses. The current approval for industrial units expires in December, and at that time a new application [case officer's note: presumably for the same use] would be made, which would result in strong objection from residents again "and for reasons highlighted within this report of incompatible use they may be successful in obtaining a refusal which will leave this undeveloped windfall opportunity in a state of 'limbo'".

• 2.7.0 'Vision' document:

• 2.7.1 This document essentially distils the Planning Statement into what amounts to something akin to a sales brochure. It offers no new / additional comments beyond those already set out above.

2.8 Following concern raised by Highway Services and the Arboricultural Officer, additional information in the form of a transport assessment and a Tree Survey and Constraints Plan, along with an associated report, has been received. - 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 Previous applications material to the submission of this scheme relate to the land's use for industrial purposes. - 3.2 There are three recent applications that are relevant to this proposal. Application PA 11/01365/B proposed 19 light industrial units but was refused by the Planning Committee as the number of units was considered to be excessive in relation to the number of parking spaces, resulting in a potentially over-intensive development of the site with insufficient car parking provision. - 3.3 In that application, proximity to the water course was dealt with, both in terms of the impact on wildlife and maintenance of the river, and neither issue was considered a reason for refusal. Well prior to this, Approval in Principle was granted for the development of the site under PA 98/01809/A for the creation of light industrial units with associated offices and parking to replace existing builders yard and offices, following previous proposals that were unsuccessful - PAs 93/01466/A (a light industrial unit), 87/00002/B (a factory) and 86/01403/A (warehouse and office). - 3.4 Previously PA 12/00413/B was then submitted, seeking detailed approval for the 'Erection of 17 Industrial Units for a mixed Use of General Industrial and Storage/Distribution with associated external works and drainage'. The application was subject to a number of objections and while it was approved by Planning Committee, the decision was taken to appeal. The Inspector considered the issues raised by the objectors, which were: (i) it was too intensive; (ii) it was too near the Braddan Hills residential area and the adjoining Heritage Trail; (iii) it would be unneighbourly; (iv) it would be a potential source of nuisance; (v) general industrial does not have the same amenity safeguards as light industrial; (vi) it is premature to consider an application until the East Area Plan;

• (vii) there is a potential of noise and no noise assessment of abatement measures have been submitted; (viii) the units would be visually intrusive; (ix) there is inadequate visibility for the access road; (x) 43 parking spaces were inadequate and more so if the units are used for light industrial purposes and it would be difficult for the planning division to know if such a change of use occurred; and lastly (xi) the development could pollute the River Dhoo, which is of ecological interest.

3.5 The Inspector considered all of these matters. She accepted that the site was allocated for industrial development and that this must be the starting point. In terms of visual amenity she concluded that the units would be visible to residents during winter months, but the site was unsightly at the current time and that the co-ordinated design of the units would be a visual improvement and landscaping could help reduce impact from Peel Road. Similarly the Inspector felt that noise intrusion is to a certain extent to be accepted from the development, but the noise generating activities would be within the buildings and thus mitigated. The site already has an industrial type use and the proposal would not worsen these to an unacceptable extent. The Inspector felt that there would be sufficient controls to ensure that the River Dhoo would not be materially harmed and that DEFA and WASA retain certain controls. In terms of parking, she felt that 43 spaces would meet the parking standards, but felt that some were unusually small and that some of the spaces were tandem. She also commented that it may be difficult to monitor whether activities become light industrial which would require more parking and this could lead to parking outside the site which would have serious highway safety considerations.

3.6 The final matter that the Inspector considered what impact on highway safety. Although the plans indicated that there was visibility spays of 2.4 x 120m in each direction, in reality the buildings at Ballafletcher Cottage severely obstruct visibility on one side of the access and when drivers emerge they can only see 15m to the left instead of the required 120m. In terms of turning right, the visibility depends on how much of the roadside vegetation has been cut back. The inspector criticised the vagueness of the applicants evidence about traffic generation and the lack of evidence from the Highway Division, and concluded that whilst the site was already in use the proposal would result in prejudice to highway safety. The Minister accepted the Inspector's conclusion that the highway safety concerns were significant enough to warrant the application's refusal, despite the favourable conclusions reached on the other matters, and the application was refused. - 3.7 Most recently, and as outlined in the above section, PA 13/00386/B was submitted and ultimately approved following an appeal. This sought approval for 17 'general industrial' units. The Inspector found that concern identified with respect to the inadequacy of the highway access under previous applications had been satisfactorily addressed, a view with which the Minister agreed and the application was approved subject to an extensive condition set.

- 4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

4.1 It should be remembered that the application has been submitted seeking Approval in Principle only, with all matters except Access reserved for subsequent consideration. - 4.2 The site is zoned as Predominantly Industrial on the Braddan Local Plan 1991. As such, the proposal is contrary to that zoning; there are no policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this application within that Plan, although the policies do note that there is a general need to provide land for industrial business to move to from within Douglas. Part of the site, along the riverbank and comprising a wooded corridor, falls within an area zoned as an Area of Ecological Interest on that Plan - however, no works currently are proposed within that area. - 4.3 The application therefore falls to be considered against a number of policies from the Strategic Plan: Strategic Policies 1, 2, 4, 7, 10 and 11, Spatial Policies 2 and 5, General Policy 3, Environment Policies 3, 4 and 43, Housing Policies 4 and 5, Business Policies 1 and 5, Transport Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 (and Appendix 7) and 8, and Infrastructure Policies 1 and 2, all of which are set out below for reference.

• Strategic Policy 1: "Development should make the best use of resources by:

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

• Strategic Policy 2:

"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."

Strategic Policy 4: "Proposals for development must:

• (a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings, Conservation Areas, buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest;
• (b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and
• (c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance." Strategic Policy 7:

"Undeveloped land which is zoned in Local or Area Plans for industrial, office, or retail purposes will be retained and protected for such uses, except where those uses would be inappropriate or incompatible with adjoining uses."

• Strategic Policy 10:

"New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:

• (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car;
• (b) make best use of public transport;
• (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and
• (d) encourage pedestrian movement."

• Strategic Policy 11:

"The housing needs of the Island will be met by making provision for sufficient development opportunities to enable 5,100 additional dwellings (net of demolitions), and including those created by conversion, to be built over the Plan period 2011 to 2026."

Spatial Policy 2: "Outside Douglas development will be concentrated on the following Service Centres to provide regeneration and choice of location for housing, employment and services

• o Ramsey
• o Peel
• o Port Erin
• o Castletown
• o Onchan" Spatial Policy 4 (in part):

"In the remaining villages development should maintain the existing settlement character and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and limited employment

• opportunities." Spatial Policy 5:

"New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3."

• 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:

• (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."

• General Policy 3:

"Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:

• (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10);
• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11);
• (c) previously developed land 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;
• (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14);
• (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;
• (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and
• (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage."

• Environment Policy 3:

"Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value."

• Environment Policy 4: "Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect:

• (a) species and habitats of international importance:

• (i) protected species of international importance or their habitats; or (ii) proposed or designated Ramsar and Emerald Sites or other internationally important sites.

• (b) species and habitats of national importance:

• (i) protected species of national importance or their habitats;
• (ii) proposed or designated National Nature Reserves, or Areas of Special Scientific Interest; or
• (iii) Marine Nature Reserves; or
• (iv) National Trust Land.

• (c) species and habitats of local importance such as Wildlife Sites, local nature reserves, priority habitats or species identified in any Manx Biodiversity Action Plan which do not already benefit from statutory protection, Areas of Special Protection and Bird Sanctuaries and landscape features of importance to wild flora and fauna by reason of their continuous nature or function as a corridor between habitats. Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward." Environment Policy 22:

"Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of: pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater; emissions of airborne pollutants; and vibration, odour, noise or light pollution."

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."

• Housing Policy 4:

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

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

• Housing Policy 5:

"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."

Business Policy 1:

"The growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island will be encouraged provided that development proposals accord with the policies of this Plan."

Business Policy 5: "On land zoned for industrial use, permission will be given only for industrial development or for storage and distribution; retailing will not be permitted except where either:

• (a) the items to be sold could not reasonably be sold from a town centre location because of their size or nature; or
• (b) the items to be sold are produced on the site and their sale could not reasonably be severed from the overall business; and, in respect of (a) or (b), where it can be demonstrated that the sales would not detract from the vitality and viability of the appropriate town centre shopping area."

• Transport Policy 1:

"New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes."

• Transport Policy 2:

"The layout of development should, where appropriate, make provision for new bus, pedestrian and cycle routes, including linking into existing systems."

• Transport Policy 3:

"New development on or around existing and former rail routes should not compromise their attraction as a tourism and leisure facility or their potential as public transport routes, or cycle / leisure footpath routes."

• Transport Policy 4:

"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."

• Transport Policy 6:

"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."

• Transport Policy 7:

"The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."

Appendix 7 requires one space per three units of sheltered accommodation, and one spare per bedroom (up to a maximum of two spaces per unit) for residential dwellings.

• Transport Policy 8:

"The Department will require all applications for major development to be accompanied by a Transport Assessment."

• Infrastructure Policy 1:

• "With the exception of individual plots or very small-scale schemes (equivalent in scale to an individual plot), development shall only take place in areas which will ultimately be connected to the IRIS system."
• Infrastructure Policy 2:

"Full details of all interim drainage arrangements for development in areas awaiting connection to IRIS shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Local Government and the Environment before development is commenced."

- 5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

• 5.1.0 Employment Land Review:
• 5.1.1 An Employment Land Review (ELR) was published in June 2015. The three intended outcomes of the ELR, which looked at the entire Island, were as follows:

• "Gather information and evidence about the quality and quantity of and demand for employment land and premises.

• o "Identify any constraints on the current zoned land for employment, and
• o "Identify employment land requirements to meet the needs of the economy in the future."

• 5.1.2 Three of the nine 'Headline Findings' of the ELR, found within its Executive Summary, are set out below:

• o "The vast majority of demand for employment floorspace focusses on locations in the East."
• o "Available land in the East is limited to 2ha, a land supply of under 3 years."
• o "15.07ha employment land will be required in the East unless other areas are further incentivised in some form."

• 5.1.3 Some of the other key findings in the ELR, being mindful of the application the subject of this report, and its appendices are set out below:

• o "While there are few constraints to the development of allocations elsewhere, the employment and office land supply in and around Douglas is limited by: covenants restricting use; company expansion (therefore not available generally); planning approval / recommendation for higher value uses; and other constraints which prevent development in the short term. Once these are taken into account, the effective allocated land supply in the East Plan Area is reduced to 2ha."
• o "The employment land supply in those areas where activity is concentrated i.e. in the East and South is constrained. In the East, the shortage of employment land is particularly acute."
• o "Outside of office uses and Douglas town centre, availability of undeveloped land is the main differentiator between Plan areas: with relatively high availability and fewer constraints in existing allocations in the North, West, and South and becoming critical in the East, where 6 of 15 sites have no land available, and others face constraints including: covenanted uses; isolation from other employment uses; approval for other or higher uses; bad neighbour uses; conflicts with other uses; and parking issues."
• o "The Employment Land Workshop broadly supported an initial focus on improving availability particularly in the East. With availability heavily restricted, there is an urgent need for additional employment land in the area."
• o "The Business Survey results and their projection suggest that Isle of Man manufacturers are seeking to accelerate growth more quickly than suggested in Vison 2020. Where business are seeking to expand, most- between 86% and 96% - are likely to relocate to new premises to enable it. Most will also be seeking premises in the East or South."

• o "Demand for industrial and distribution floorspace is also focused in Douglas and the East where access to labour, transport links and road networks are better developed and where the majority of employees and customers live. Demand for industrial units has been resilient with the majority of premises on estates occupied and trading."
• o "The industrial areas to the south of the Snugborough estate are generally of poor quality, located in a narrow strip between the road and the river, with poor and restricted access and estate roads. Occupiers include Rural Industries who manufacture a range of concrete products and let a range of relatively small industrial units and stores. Manx Gas has a plant and there are builder's compounds and a small number of modern industrial units. There is an industrial development site in the southern section."
• o "The area of effective employment land in the East has been estimated at 2ha. The ELR estimates a further 15.07ha would need to be allocated in the East Plan area to 2029 to meet future economic requirements. This could be reduced to between 6.65ha - 10.8ha were it decided to limit growth in the East and incentivise development in other parts of the Island."
• o "There was general agreement that the concentration of employment activity in the East and South will continue and that provision of attractive premises and sites in preferred business location would encourage investment consistent with Vision 2020 objectives."
• o "…the consultations and trends show the strong desire for existing businesses in Douglas and the East to expand in that region and not to move away. The findings of the market commentary and analysis of development trends in recent years strongly reinforce this. While the quantity of available employment land across the Island as a whole may be sufficient to meet future need in absolute terms, in practice, the emerging and significant shortfall of suitable sites and premises in Douglas and the East is a factor constraining business growth."

• 5.1.4 Some other comments that are material to the assessment of this application are set out below:

• o "The assessment revealed that with the exception of some areas in the North and isolated instances in Douglas and the East, few if any of the allocations were poor."
• o "With forecast economic growth in manufacturing and related sectors, historic annual take up rates of some 0.78 ha in this area would be expected to increase. This indicates an effective land supply of 2.6 years."
• o "Take up of industrial, employment and commercial land and premises is not routinely monitored, rather take-up analyses tend to be developed in response to relevant applications or as required to support planning inquiries. The most recent concerned proposed light industrial development at Cooil Road, Douglas. Supporting information provided by the Department of Infrastructure and the applicant examined take up rates. The Department's supporting information was based on analysis of planning consents granted between 2000 and 2012 for locations in the East of the Island. It identified annual employment land take up of 0.78ha. in this area (based on consents at White Hoe, Middle River, Snugborough, Middle Farm, Ballafletcher, Carrs Lane, Spring Valley, the Isle of Man Business Park, South Quay and Kirby Farm. The Department's evidence to that Inquiry identified that in a worst case scenario (i.e. one in which all consents are developed) an estimated 2.14 ha of employment land would be available, equivalent to 2.75 years supply. Assuming permissions at Ballafletcher and White Hoe (Manx Telecom) were not implemented, some

4.26 ha would be available in the East, equivalent to nearly 5 and half years supply. The pressing nature of the requirement for additional employment land in the east was further emphasised, with the evidence noting that, "Due to the lack of available land, it is considered there is an over-riding national need for additional land to be released prior to the Area Plan for the East". Since the publication of the Inspectors Report, Canada Life's relocation and proposed expansion from

Castletown to a 1,672 sq.m unit (18,000 sq.ft) at the Isle of Man Business Park (at Ballacottier) further reduces the available supply."

• o "Market demand for industrial and distribution space is also focused in and around Douglas where access to labour, transport links and road networks are better developed and where the majority of employees and customers are located."
• o "In general terms, demand for industrial and warehouse premises has been resilient and the large majority of premises on estates are occupied and trading. Demand is generally for smaller to medium sized units of between 929 sq.m and 465 sq.m. The principle demand is for warehouse and distribution space with less marked demand for industrial and manufacturing space."
• o "From previous trends, 17 ha would be expected to be developed in the East and South. While there is an ample supply of employment land in the South, effective availability in the East is much more restricted and the majority of evidenced demand targets locations in the East. With effective employment land estimated to be 2ha, were the proportion of employment-related development in the East consistent with the pattern of recent years, a further 15ha would need to be allocated in the East Plan area to 2029."

• 5.1.5 In terms of Snugborough Estate itself, the report assesses the estate as being, overall, "average", commenting as follows: "Main estate (northern) of average quality, southern sections poorer standard. Older property, restricted parking".

• 5.1.6 The report reaches its "average" classification on the basis of the following value judgements of the estate:

• o Undeveloped Land Availability - None
• o Marketing - Average
• o Internal Environment - Average / poor
• o External Environment - Average / poor
• o Site Development Constraints - Good
• o Public Transport - Good
• o Road Access - Good
• o Local Market Conditions - Average

• 5.2.0 Vision2020

• 5.2.1 The Vision2020 document sets out how Government intends to respond to business needs while maintaining the Island's attractiveness as a place to live. It comprises eight separate 'strategies', one of which is entitled 'Manufacturing Centre of Excellence'. Some of the key text from that part of Vision2020 as it applies to this application site is set out below:

• o "Since Economy 2014, manufacturing has steadily become more recognised locally as a hitech, growing industry offering diverse, well-paid careers.
• o "In the years to 2020, manufacturing will be front and centre of the Isle of Man's economic vision.
• o "One of the Island's true successes has been its 'cluster' approach allowing for shared knowledge, resource and synergy to achieve higher value.
• o "The aerospace engineering cluster - including airframe design, ejector seats, engine parts, undercarriages, aviation maintenance - is recognised worldwide and has already been joined by a new cluster of businesses with expertise in synthetic diamonds, optics and coatings."

• o "Other manufacturers are succeeding in diverse niches such as bespoke bathroom/kitchens, thermostatic controls for kettles, electronic controls, diving equipment and body composition monitors.
• o "Aligned with our appeal to high net worth individuals, the Island also operates in the superluxury sphere with niche watch and clockmakers working at the highest quality and value.
• o "Future growth will be driven by skills and financial assistance. To achieve the skilled workforce required, Government has invested in a major Centre of Excellence for manufacturing training. This Centre is linked to UK universities to meet the diverse skills needed.
• o "Capital investment is needed to enable Isle of Man businesses to achieve world-class products and flexible financial partnerships with Government will be needed to ensure the Island remains competitive.
• o "Competitive infrastructure costs will be an underlying feature of growth, as will tactical inward investment and the potential to develop technology parks to match our aspirations."

• 5.2.2 The 'Tech Isle' strategy also contains some relevant text:

"The Isle of Man will be known as a leading centre for innovative SMEs [Small-to-Medium Enterprises] to relocate and grow due to its:

• o excellent infrastructure (telecoms, electricity and data hosting),
• o supportive financial and professional services, and
• o tax advantages, both for the business, its intellectual property (IP) and its owners who are increasingly choosing to live here."

• 5.3.0 The Draft Planning Policy Statement: Planning and the Economy:
• 5.3.1 When determining planning applications, Section 10(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 ("The Act") states that the Department shall have regard to:

• (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application,
• (b) any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3;
• (c) such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and
• (d) all other material considerations.

• 5.3.2 In respect of (b), it is relevant to consider the provisions of the draft Planning Policy Statement (PPS) on the Economy. There is also a national need for economic development, which is reflected in the draft PPS as issued for consultation in 2012. The weight to be attached to that document would obviously be greater if the review promised in paragraph 26 of the "Initial Summary of Responses" had been carried out, and also if a final PPS had been laid before Tynwald and published in accordance with Section 3(3) of The Act. It is also considered that the weight to be attached to the draft PPS would be greater if paragraph 14 of that document recognised the primacy of the development plan (as required by Section 3(4) of the Act), rather than suggesting a less onerous test than is contained in General Policy 3(g) of the Strategic Plan. Nevertheless, the general thrust of draft PPS remains a material consideration, which reinforces Business Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan.
• 5.3.3 With the above in mind, and also noting that the PPS is quite short and therefore in some ways the entire document has a relevance to the foregoing assessment, the following extracts of the Draft PPS are considered particularly relevant:

• o "The Government is committed to promoting a strong, stable, and productive economy that aims to bring jobs and prosperity for all. In doing so the Government is committed to delivering further economic growth and diversification."
• o "Achieving sustainable economic growth requires a fast, efficient and responsive planning system that includes a presumption in favour of development whilst protecting the countryside and enhancing the quality of the natural and built environment, which supports growth alongside regeneration, social and environmental sustainability, and has a greater emphasis on the quality of design."
• o "It is essential that the planning system considers, and makes appropriate provision for the identified national needs of the entire economy and assists in steering economic development to the most appropriate locations. The economy should not be constrained by a shortage of land for economic development uses."
• o "The planning system should support economic and employment growth alongside social and environmental sustainability. There is a general presumption in favour of development. Proposals will be considered on their merits bearing in mind the Development Plan and the need to protect the island's unique character, natural environment and quality of life."
• o "For planning purposes the Isle of Man Government defines economic development as the development of land and buildings for activities that generate wealth, jobs and incomes. Economic development land uses include: the traditional employment land uses (offices, research and development, industry and warehousing), as well as retail, leisure, and public services."
• o "Although for planning purposes, it is not defined as economic development, it is recognised that house building and construction do play a valuable role in the economy."
• o "In so doing, the planning system will aim to: (i) Recognise that economic development can often deliver environmental and social benefits;

• (iv) Through the Development Plan ensure that suitable locations are available for industrial, commercial, retail, housing, public sector (e.g. health and education) tourism and leisure developments, so that the economy can prosper;
• (v) Provide opportunities for land and premises to enable for improved productivity, choice and competition, particularly when technological and other requirements of modern business are changing rapidly;
• (vi) Recognise that the economy will always be subject to change; therefore planning will need to be sensitive to these changes and the implications for development and growth;

• (viii) Work with the Department of Economic Development and other Government Departments to identify opportunities for future investment to deliver economic objectives;
• (ix) Ensure that economic and employment growth supports regeneration, social and environmental sustainability."

• o "In the national interest, it is important that Planning Officers, the Planning Committee and Planning Inspectors adopt a positive and constructive approach to determining planning applications for economic development, taking account of advice on the indicated economic benefits of the development alongside social and environmental issues."
• o "Planning will need to ensure that the economic benefits associated with a proposed project are understood and that these are given adequate material consideration with social and environmental issues in the decision making process. Therefore it is essential that any evidence is sufficient to meet these criteria. The decision makers in planning will continue to recognise that on
• occasions the economic benefits may outweigh social and environmental considerations."

• "Well designed employment and residential uses can in some cases be compatible and planning should have regard to the proximity and compatibility of proposed residential development adjacent to existing industrial and commercial uses to ensure that both amenity and economic development opportunities are not unduly compromised."

- 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS

• 6.1.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure initially sought further information on 20th January 2017, stating as follows:

"A development of this type, and particularly in this out of town location, should be accompanied by a comprehensive transport statement covering, but not limited to, the following: sustainability of the site in terms of forms of transport other than private car; pedestrian routes to public transport, services and amenities following actual routes incorporating footway/footpath widths and gradients, suitability for vulnerable pedestrians and wheelchair users, road crossing points, lighting, suitability for electric mobility scooters; on site parking for residents, staff, visitors, servicing, emergency access; possible pedestrian links to the railway track footpath to the north.

"The visibility of 2.4m x 90m indicated on the plans is acceptable. "Highway Services requests that the decision is deferred to allow the applicant to submit sufficient information for the application to be assessed."

• 6.1.2 On receipt of a transport assessment, Highway Services formally objected to the application on 11th April 2017. Although the comments are lengthy, they are worth noting in detail given the scale and nature of the proposed development:

"The applicant has provided a transport assessment from a previous application for an industrial development and has assumed that traffic generation is based on the size of the car park; this is incorrect, traffic generation is based on the use of the site and the traffic generated will peak at different times of the day. This transport assessment is not suitable for the current application without a separate traffic generation calculation to prove that the peak traffic movements for the proposal will be less than those of the assessment proposal.

"There is no justification within the traffic assessment study for the very low level of car parking provision. The Isle of Man Strategic Plan makes provision for sheltered housing or nursing facilities to have a reduced parking requirement based on the assumption that the residents are unlikely to own vehicles and therefore parking is primarily for staff and visitors. The proposal does not fit either of these categories and more closely resembles an apartment complex with residents who are older but may still be working or driving and therefore require a car. There is no mention of staff or visitor parking provision. If adequate parking provision is not provided then parking may occur on the main road or on the access roads within the site.

"The application claims that the site is accessible by public transport and has good pedestrian access to local amenities. There are proposals for a bus stop layby on the same side of the road as the proposal but no details of how pedestrians are to access public transport on the other side of the road where there is no footway and no crossing provision provided.

"Pedestrian footways should have a longitudinal gradient of no more than 5% (3deg) with an absolute maximum of 8% (5deg) being acceptable over short distances. The routes described in

• paragraph 3.2 of the report have gradients varying from 7% (4deg) to 16% (9deg); these are far in excess of the acceptable gradients for walking routes, particularly as the pedestrians are likely to be older and less able to walk.

"The internal layout of the proposal is for footpaths 1.5m wide, this is too narrow for 2 wheelchair users to pass each other.

"Highway Services recommends this application is refused on the grounds that it does not provide adequate car parking or access to public transport and local services."

6.2 The Department for Economic Development was contacted for their views. On 8th February 2017, the Head of Inward Investment & Business Support commented as follows:

"I refer to your e-mail dated 25 January 2017 in relation to the above mentioned planning application and your request for the Department's views on the proposal, in particular the loss of industrial land that would result if the application was approved.

"As you will be aware the Department is jointly responsible for the Employment Land Review Study (ELR) which was completed in 2015 and is currently subject to an update and review. The ELR identifies a shortage of industrial land in the East which needs to be urgently addressed through bringing forward Development Orders and/or the Area Plan for the East. The site in question already has a valid approval for industrial development so on the face of it the loss to residential use would seem unfortunate.

"However, looking at the broader picture the Department also recognises that this particular proposed residential development has many benefits to it and is supported by the adjoining residential neighbours more so than the previous industrial application. There is also a demand for this type of accommodation, it is supported by the local commissioners and it would create much needed work for the construction sector.

"Given that the process for the Area Plan for the East is scheduled to commence in the next few weeks with completion targeted for 2019, if the applicant was to put this site forward for rezoning as residential as part of that process the Department would not oppose the rezoning on the basis that the demand for industrial land for the future was adequately provided in higher quality areas elsewhere in the East. Recognising this situation in the interim the Department is prepared to support the use of this site for either industrial or residential purposes.

"I hope the above comments assist the Planning Committee in considering this application."

• 6.3.1 On 9th February 2017, the Arboricultural Officer within the Department sought further information prior to the application's determination:

"I recommend that you request the following information before the outcome of this application is determined:

• (a) A plan, to a scale and level of accuracy appropriate to the proposal, showing the position of every tree on the site or on land adjacent to the site that could influence or be affected by the development, indicating which trees would need to be removed to facilitate the development.
• (b) In relation to every tree identified on the plan, a schedule listing the information specified in

paragraph 4.4.2 of British Standard BS5837:2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - recommendations).

• (c) A plan illustrating the above ground and below ground constraints imposed by every tree identified as being retained.
• (d) A basic-level protection plan showing how, in principle, trees marked for retention could be retained.

"Unless this information is provided I would have to object on the basis that there is insufficient information to be able to assess the impact on trees and woodlands."

• 6.3.2 On receipt of further information, the Arboricultural Officer offered further comments on 21st March and 12th April 2017. He noted that:

• "The proposal includes the removal of 22 individual trees and 1 tree group but I agree with the report's assessment that these are mostly category C or U trees and are therefore not worthy of consideration as material constraints."
• 6.3.3 He also requested a tree protection plan, which was duly provided and he concluded to be acceptable. He concluded that, if the application were to be approved, the following conditions should be attached to the approval notice:

• 1. The plans and particulars submitted in accordance with condition [X] shall include a scheme for the protection of the retained trees (a tree protection plan) and details of the appropriate working methods (an arboricultural method statement), prepared in accordance with the recommendations of British Standard BS5837:2012, Trees in relation to Design, Demolition and Construction Recommendations.
• 2. The plans and particulars submitted in accordance with condition [X] shall include a landscaping plan and tree planting specification. The tree planting specification shall adhere to the recommendations of BS8545:2014 (Trees: from nursery to independence in the landscaperecommendations) and include details of all trees to be planted, including a) their quantity, location (or density), species and size at date of planting; b) the approximate date when they are to be planted; and c) how they will be maintained until successfully established.

6.4 The Senior Biodiversity Officer within the Department commented as follows on 19th January 2017:

"From a wildlife conservation perspective, I have no issue with the redevelopment of the developed area of this land (note, this is separate from any consideration of tree protection), but point out that the wooded corridor along the riverbank forms an Area of Ecological Interest in the Braddan Parish Plan, being of wildlife conservation interest. The wooded area falls within the red line of this application, which reaches the river, though the plans show the development footprint apparently falling outside of, but extremely close to this area.

"If the development were to receive approval in principle then I recommend that this be on the basis of a design and methods that avoid damage to the Area of Ecological Interest, but it this Area were to be affected by such a development (whether the footprint or the works) then a preliminary wildlife assessment should be required and any issues arising addressed in the detailed application.

"There is also a suggestion that a footbridge might be proposed in future. I can see the sense to this suggestion, but a consideration of the most appropriate site would be needed, to minimise damage to the vegetated corridor or particular areas of special interest.

"Light spillage at night into the wooded corridor, or over the river, should be avoided. This area is a known Manx hotspot for bats."

• 6.5.1 The Housing Division within the Department for Health and Social Care sent a Memorandum in response to the application on 9th January 2017:

"We refer to the aforementioned application, and we confirm that we have looked at the detail of the application and have considered the provision of a 25% affordable housing requirement.

"Current data drawn from Housing Division records for the Eastern area (including Douglas, Onchan and Braddan) indicates that there are in excess of 460 persons on the general public sector waiting list for affordable housing to rent. A total of 119 persons included in this figure are over 50 years of age, with no dependent children.

"There are also 70 persons on the active first-time buyers register. The figure is not indicative of final purchases as the ability to progress to completion would depend upon personal circumstances and mortgage ability at point of allocation.

"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 a contribution to affordable housing, based upon the usual calculation, of 25% of the number of units approved within the application.

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

• 6.5.2 They confirmed in another Memorandum, dated 6th March 2017, that their original comments "remain unchanged".
• 6.6 Braddan Commissioners offered no objection to the application in comments received 20th January 2017, and subsequently offered their support to the application in comments received 24th January 2017: "I wish to add that the Commissioners wished to offer their support to the application in terms of the concept, its positioning and the re-zoning of the area from industrial to housing".

• 6.7.1 A letter has been received from 4 River Walk, Braddan Hills, which has been signed by residents of four dwellings in Braddan Hills and another in Braddan Bridge, and alongside this further letters of support in respect of that letter has been received from the residents of a further 16 properties in the Braddan Hills estate. The letters in support were received in two bundles, first on 25th January 2017 and thereafter on 1st February 2017. All these letters in support of the letter written by the resident of 4 River Walk are identical to one another, while three additional emails, also confirming that support, offer some additional comments.

• 6.7.2 A further pair of letters has been received from the owner / occupiers of a property in Kirk Maughold, dated 30th December 2016 and 3rd March 2017.
• 6.7.3 The comments made throughout the correspondence received from private individuals can be summarised, in no order, as follows:

• o At first site this appears to be a somewhat perverse proposal, on land clearly zoned for industrial use;
• o However, I can understand the change of use proposed because of its adjacency to housing

• something that Planning allowed without much thought!;

• o At my age I am beginning to think we need this sort of scheme and its stated intention to be 'green' adds to its attractions!;
• o I only wish there were something like this afoot for the Ramsey area!;
• o We wish to support the application on the basis of need but also its clever use of brownfield land;
• o It is a good - one could say brilliant - scheme promising the sort of housing we have been sadly lacking, and using brownfield land;
• o Why do 'Outline' applications have to go through all this paper these days?;
• o I can't see how traffic can conceivably be worse than the previous builder's yard;
• o Nor are the trees all that special;
• o This Island has far more trees than it did 100 years ago;
• o While I am all for retaining specimen trees (like the Contorta-Pine in our front garden which Elizabeth would like cut down!), I see nothing special in the self-seeded ones in this valley, except perhaps as a visual shelter belt to the housing to the north;
• o Your files will indicate that residents of the adjacent , including the owners of the Ballafletcher Cottages, have opposed the development of industrial units on the site, on grounds still considered worthy of consideration;

• o We have no wish to reiterate the views of Jojay's submission, which we understand has attempted to demonstrate how the revised proposals adhere to the Strategic Plan, but do wish to confirm our support and concentrate on a couple of crucial areas;
• o While there is no argument that the site is zoned for industrial use under the 1991 Area Plan and that this must be the starting point for any assessment, we would respectively remind the Planning Committee that the economy of that time was substantially different than today;
• o In the later 1980s / early 1990s industrial activities were on the outskirts of Douglas alongside a couple in the South (e.g. Balthane, Ronaldsway). There was seen a need to extend industrial development to other areas and to protect those sites with industrial designations;
• o Since then, industrial estates have been updated with new units built;
• o As of 2012/2013, there was a real danger of supply outstripping demand;
• o A quick online search indicates a number of such units for sale, suggesting oversupply has been allowed to develop;
• o This is no fault of the Planning Authority but it provides a clear indication of the difficulties the applicant has faced in securing prospective tenants or even a different use for the site;
• o The new-build units meet today's business demands - i.e. on recognised estates, ease of access, on land that lends itself to such uses;
• o This site, however, is constricted, with far-from-ideal road splays, access through road closure programmes, current planning restrictions are limited, and the topography is far from ideal and will make construction costly;
• o The site is no longer fit for purpose as industrial, and this would be our view even if the land was not next to our properties;
• o The view is a commercial one, weighing up all the factors relative to this site and the limited
• options available;
• o If the views above are to be considered reasonable then there is a need to reassess the
• objectiveness and direction of previous Area Plans alongside the various Isle of Man Strategic Plans issued since 1991 but in the context of today's economy;
• o As an example, we would quote Strategic Policy 7: "Undeveloped land which is zoned in Local or Area Plans for industrial, office, or retail purposes will be retained and protected for such uses, except where those uses would be inappropriate or incompatible with adjoining uses";
• o The Strategic Plan takes precedence over the Area Plans and accordingly it is incumbent on the Planning Authority and Planning Committee to reconsider zoning;
• o Previous Planning Officers & Inspectors have refused to take due cognisance of the 2003 Draft Braddan Plan, saying that it has no material weight;
• o However, the Plan clearly demonstrates how the attitudes of the Planning Authority had changed since the adoption of the 1991 Plan;
• o Part of the Draft 2003 Plan states in respect of a parcel of land adjacent to the application site: "As such the Department would suggest that the present industrial designation remain but that care is taken in any further proposals for the change of use or further development to ensure that such uses and developments are not the cause of nuisance or neighbourliness [sic] to the nearby dwellings";
• o We would add that the Inspector for the Cooil Road Development Order stated in his report: "The policies in within the 2003 Plan hold no valid planning status, but reference, where appropriate, is made to them, to provide more up to date guidance on environmental, planning and land use issues" - this is a refreshing view that we feel should be extended to this application;
• o There is no doubt that the carefully researched blueprint surpasses government objectives in relation to eco-friendly residential construction;
• o The application encompasses enterprise and opportunity as per one of the Chief Minister's guiding principles to ensure "an Island of enterprise and opportunity", setting a blueprint for future similar developments on the Island, and should be encouraged by the Planning Authority;
• o The residents of Braddan Hill and Braddan Bridge have objected most strenuously to the development of this site over the years for reasons all of which we feel would remain justified if the land was kept as industrial;
• o However, most if not all of those objections fall away when viewed against this latest application;

• o Throughout this letter and previous submissions, we have referred to the residents collectively. However, each resident is an individual who have had or continue to have successful professional careers on and off the Island. They share one common factor, which is that they work
• or have worked in the commercial world and therefore are well aware of the changing economic and social forces facing the Island and its people - and some have even been instrumental in defining government policy over a number of years. Accordingly it is hoped that their views will not be lightly dismissed;
• o We are confident that this will not be the case with this application because in our view it is (a) an entrepreneurial approach to find a way to develop what is a redundant site that has for some time been a blot on the landscape, (b) it has local authority support and is in keeping with present / future social housing needs, (c) meets government eco-aspirations for construction; (d) could be a blueprint for future developments elsewhere on the Island, and (e) with manufacture of components off-site and assembly on-site there could be a promising industry for local use with an export potential;
• o We suspect it is rare for an application such as this, if approved, be a 'win-win' for all parties, namely: (1) the Planning Authority / Committee will have been seen to exercise their right to review redundant industrial sites and support a development that is enterprising, exciting and has ecoproposals, (2) Braddan Commissioners may seek to acquire the development on a turn-key basis, but even if not we understand the company has the finance available to complete the development, meaning the company is willing to accept the risks associated with it and which demonstrates the commitment and belief in the proposition, (3) the Isle of Man government would have a project that is in keeping with the 'can do entrepreneurial' philosophy the Island promotes, (4) the residents of Braddan Bridge / Braddan Hills will have a development alongside that they are willing to support, and (5) the future owners / tenants and people of the Isle of Man will enjoy occupancy of the completed project;
• o We would be most grateful if you could kindly consider the above when assessing this application and having done so would urge you to support the proposed change of use from industrial to residential and for the construction of homes for the elderly in keeping with the conceptual drawings provided;
• o All-in-all the application appears to be much more favourable than the previous proposal so hopefully once the finer detail is sorted it will proceed without issues;
• o I am very grateful to you for continuing to lead on the engagement on this;
• o The new proposed usage of the site is certainly far better than previously proposed.

6.8 The Manx Energy Advice Centre wrote in support of the application on 24th January 2017. They noted that their aim is to provide advice and encourage energy efficiency / generation via renewable sources, and they state that the energy efficiency proposed on the application site should be encouraged such that the application has their full support. - 7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 Although the background to this application site as outlined above is fairly extensive and has been difficult to concisely summarise, there are really only four key issues for assessment here:

• 1. Is the loss of the existing employment land acceptable?
• 2. Is the proposed over-55 residential accommodation acceptable here?
• 3. Is the proposed access and parking provision acceptable?
• 4. Is the impact on trees and biodiversity acceptable?

7.2 These are addressed in turn. It is also not ignored that there has been neutral feedback from DED as well as very positive feedback to the proposal expressed by both the Commissioners and also nearby residents - although, in respect of the latter, this is perhaps not entirely surprising given the vociferous objection raised by those same residents in respect of the application seeking approval for the industrial units.

7.3 It should be remembered that it is not possible to change a land use zoning through the submission of a planning application. This can only be done via approval in Tynwald following

several rounds of consultation as required by a Development Plan process that seeks to address strategic needs, rather than relying upon (indeed, it seeks to avoid) ad hoc decision-making. While it may be found that a proposal not complying with an adopted zoning is acceptable, conclusion must be reached having regard to material considerations that indicate as such. The weight to be given to each material consideration depends on the nature and quality of the evidence submitted. Representations are one such material consideration. In this case, while it is noted that the residents in support have all stated a commercial professional past, absolutely no indication as to the nature of their professions has been provided and so it is not clear how their careers should in themselves act to give any greater weight to the comments they have made.

7.4 It is also worth reflecting on what is actually being sought approval for. The application only refers to people aged over 55, not the "elderly" people referred to in representations. Other applications seeking approval for similar developments have referred to such accommodated as 'sheltered'. The Planning Committee may recall assessing a scheme known as 'the Mart Site' in Ramsey (PA 15/00810/A). The case officer noted the following in his assessment section:

"The Isle of Man Strategic Plan does not define what is meant by "Sheltered Housing", but generally there are many different types of sheltered housing schemes. Some will have a scheme manager (a warden) who lives onsite or offsite, and all should provide 24-hour emergency help through an alarm system. Accommodation is usually self-contained, but there are often communal areas, such as the lounge, laundry room and garden. Many schemes run social events for residents. Extra-care sheltered housing provides for greater support. This allows you more independence than living in a care home, as you would still live in a self-contained flat but would have your meals provided and may also receive personal care.

"Advice was sought from the DOI Housing Directorate to seek if they had a definition for "Sheltered Housing". They make the following comments:

"'In the UK standards for sheltered housing were laid down in the 1969 Ministry of Housing and Local Government circular 82/69, which introduced the concepts of category 1 and category 2. In category 1 schemes, communal facilities and a resident warden are optional. Dwellings can be bungalows as well as flats. Lifts are not usually provided. The circular intended that category 1 provision should be for the relatively independent elderly. Category 2 schemes comprise flats under one roof, and there must be communal facilities, resident wardens and lifts.

"'It appears from my limited historic records that we first started developing public sector sheltered on Island around the 1970's to a very similar model so I would assume that this UK policy was the source of or informed our current Island model and policy. Although Circular 82/69 has not been mandatory in the UK since 1980 and there are now a range of much higher level of support models in operation in other jurisdictions, we on Island are still only delivering public sector sheltered to the basic Cat 1/Cat 2 Standards although this may change in the future. What we currently describe as Older Person's Housing in our general public sector housing stock - whereby we allocate only to those aged 50/55 or over (no communal facilities or warden) is essentially basic Cat 1 under the 1969 definition.'"

7.5 Accordingly, while there is no planning definition of 'sheltered housing', and no Use Class for it, that is essentially what is proposed here as the DOI would define it. There is, however, a requirement that such schemes provide only one space per three units via Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan. Is the proposed loss of employment land acceptable? - 7.6 In the first place, there is a clear expectation in the Braddan Local Plan that this land should be retained for employment uses. This is also backed up in the Employment Land Review, which while noting that this land is poorer quality than other areas of land is also manifestly clear that there is a critical shortage of available employment land in the East of the Island. This means that

• its loss to another, non-employment use would require an additional allocation of land - likely greenfield - in order to address the market demand. These are questions beyond the scope of an individual planning application and will be properly addressed through the preparation of the Area Plan for the East. However, despite the advice of officers that the proposal was at best premature and at worst wholly contrary to the Development Plan, to the Employment Land Review and to the economic development priorities of the government, the application has been submitted and it requires to be assessed and determined.
• 7.7 Being mindful of the extracts from the Draft PPS for the Economy, it would be reasonable to conclude that the application submitted would effectively prevent a site zoned for employment purposes from coming forward for economic development purposes. The application is, therefore, in many ways directly contrary to the aims of the Draft PPS, not least since it specifically excludes from the definition of "economic development" housebuilding.
• 7.8 With this in mind, and noting the extremely clear conclusions of the ELR, it is really quite surprising that DED's views on the application are equivocal. The following comment is particularly unexpected:

"…if the applicant was to put this site forward for rezoning as residential as part of that process the Department would not oppose the rezoning on the basis that the demand for industrial land for the future was adequately provided in higher quality areas elsewhere in the East…"

7.9 It is not known where these "areas elsewhere in the East" are. No sites beyond those that were judged to be 'commitments' in the ELR are known to have come forward. It cannot be the case that the "areas elsewhere" include Eden Park since that formed one such commitment, and in any case was built on land not zoned for development. Moreover, the loss of land within the Isle of Man Business Park to the Cycle360 concept will have resulted in a net loss of available land. The ELR remains a document within DED's ownership, and the ELR's conclusions that there is a very short supply of industrial land have not been challenged with any evidence-based clarity in this application or elsewhere. There is therefore a significant and possibly irreconcilable discrepancy between the views of the DED and the independent report (i.e. the ELR) that they commissioned to inform views in cases such as this. - 7.10 The pressing need for employment land in the East will be exacerbated by the loss of this land from its zoned use, which will presumably therefore actively stymie economic development. The views of DED also contradict the findings of the ELR; were the DED's views to be accepted, then it would also have to follow that the ELR would cease to have much - if any - material weight in future decisions on planning applications. In the absence of any quantifiable evidence contradicting the ELR's findings that there is a defined and poorly-met demand for industrial land in the East, and being mindful of the recentness of its publication, it is concluded that the comments of DED must be given very limited weight in this case. Being Government's only independent advisory body on matters of economic development, this conclusion is unfortunate and has not been reached lightly. - 7.11 The statement of the applicant that the site has proved unattractive to the market is at odds with the findings of the ELR. There has been no information submitted by, or from, estate agents to explain what marketing has been undertaken. For example, it is not known how long the units have been advertised for sale or lease, at what price(s), how these compared with other similar units in terms of price, whether or not inducements have been offered to potential lessees and, if so, what these were / are. A websearch yielded no results for the units, so it is not clear if they are still being offered for sale / lease. What has been submitted by the applicant in respect of this does not reflect substantive evidence. While it is not intended to dispute the argument of the applicant, the views of the working group that helped the consultants prepare the ELR cannot be easily dismissed:

"There was general agreement that the concentration of employment activity in the East and South will continue and that provision of attractive premises and sites in preferred business location would encourage investment consistent with Vision 2020 objectives."

"…the consultations and trends show the strong desire for existing businesses in Douglas and the East to expand in that region and not to move away. The findings of the market commentary and analysis of development trends in recent years strongly reinforce this. While the quantity of available employment land across the Island as a whole may be sufficient to meet future need in absolute terms, in practice, the emerging and significant shortfall of suitable sites and premises in Douglas and the East is a factor constraining business growth."

7.12 Therefore, it must be concluded that the loss of this land at this time from employmentgenerating purposes, for which it has an extant planning approval, is contrary to the Braddan Local Plan zoning, contrary to the findings of the ELR, contrary to the Draft PPS on the Economy and contrary to the Vision2020 document. Accordingly, unless material considerations indicate otherwise, the application should be refused on this basis. Is the proposed over-55 residential accommodation acceptable here? - 7.13 The answer to this question will need to be considered in terms of the site itself and also the nearby uses, which while including residential also include lawful industrial uses. - 7.14 In respect of the former, it is noted that the land is zoned for industrial use. This indicates that the site has been found acceptable for development. Whether residential use is acceptable here requires an assessment as to the strategic qualities of the land. For sites of this scale such an assessment as this is, generally speaking, best done as part of an Area Plan process, which allows for proper consideration of the need of the development proposed, the need of the development proposed in this location and also across the East, the ability of the site to contribute to sustainable development, and so forth. While a previous Inspector in considering this site felt it was "for most practical purposes this site is within a settlement", this is a value judgement that would need revisiting as part of the wider assessment of the 'edge of settlement boundaries' work that informs the Area Plan process. - 7.15 In view of the above, and noting the requirements of Strategic Policy 1(b) and Spatial Policy

4, the application is concluded to prejudice the proper strategic planning of the East of the Island, and should be refused on that basis.

7.16 It is not ignored that the site is previously developed land. Its existing condition is poor, but it cannot readily be seen from nearby public positions and, even such that it can be seen, the Inspector in considering the previous application state that "I accord little or no weight to the site's current, frankly unsightly condition; this should not be treated as supporting redevelopment". The key point here is that part (c) of General Policy 3 allows for the redevelopment of previously developed land subject to a number of criteria and it is factual that the existing dumped material on the site neither represents permanent buildings, nor is it lawful. Moreover, and as already set out, there has been little convincing evidence that the site is redundant (indeed, the findings of the ELR suggest quite the opposite), and nor is it readily viewable from public positions. Any argument that its (re)development could improve its appearance or that of the wider landscape is therefore not fully accepted. Accordingly, the proposal complies with none of the conditions allowing redevelopment of previously developed land set out in part (c) of General Policy 3 and it should be refused on that basis. - 7.17 The nearby industrial building (approved under PA 88/01865/B), the use of which may be noisy and the working hours are not restricted by condition, may well provide an uncomfortable living environment for anyone residing on the application site. It is perhaps worth turning the situation around: would a new industrial use receive officer support if the here-proposed residential accommodation was already in place? It is likely that there would at the very least be significant

• concern with such an idea - as reflected in the vociferous objection raised by nearby residents to PA 13/00386/B. Accordingly, and without any information to the contrary, new residential development here may prejudice the use of adjacent land for new employment uses on land zoned for those uses. As such, the application is unacceptable on this ground. Even were the principle of the loss of the employment land acceptable, and the principle of residential development here also found to be acceptable in and of itself, it is concluded that the application would still be contrary to part (k) of General Policy 2.
• 7.18 Similarly, the proximity to those existing industrial uses is unlikely to be especially pleasant for residents of the proposed scheme. This is again reflected in the objections made to PA 13/00386/B from local neighbours in terms of noise, dust and smells arising from industrial uses. As such, and for similar reasons, it is concluded that the application is contrary to Environment Policy 22.
• 7.19 It should also be considered as to whether or not the specific use proposed is acceptable here. It needs to be demonstrated that the proposed use will be appropriate for the intended occupants of the proposed dwellings. The site is much lower than the highway and the question of whether or not the access is safe for drivers who may lack confidence will be answered later in this report.
• 7.20 However, it should also be considered whether or not this is a sufficiently sustainable location. Highway Services are of the view that the proposal is poorly related to nearby amenities and also to public transport, to a degree sufficient to warrant the application's refusal. The architect has outlined a number of facilities nearby that residents could use via means of transport other than a private car, but it is likely that at least some of those residents will have lower levels of mobility such as to mean they will need facilities very close by if they are to be used.
• 7.21 Aside from the adjacent church hall, there are not considered to be other facilities within reasonable walking distance. There are no facilities nearby that would address day-to-day needs, and nor are there any facilities that might address more infrequent needs or desires. Accordingly, and while the site is on a bus route, residents are likely to be reliant upon private car. Moreover, access from the bus stop on the southern, west-travelling side of the highway to the site is likely to be difficult given road speeds here. The greater likelihood is that residents of such a scheme as this will choose to be more reliant on private car, which means that consideration must be given to the proposed parking provision (addressed later in this report).
• 7.22 It is logical that a housing scheme such as this should be either very sustainably located or it should provide sufficient facilities within its grounds. The current application, while making reference to a shop and café, proposes neither facility, and no reliance can be placed on these forming a part of any subsequent reserved matters application should the current scheme be approved. Though the application suggests that it would be environmentally friendly in some areas, its location outside of a sustainable settlement coupled with the likely reliance of residents on private cars cannot be ignored. The comings and goings associated with residential use are likely to be notably higher than with an industrial use, and so it is reasonable to conclude that the proposal is unsustainable for residential development, particularly so for people reliant on private car.
• 7.23 Accordingly, it is concluded that the application fails to comply with parts (a) and (d) of Strategic Policy 10 and should be refused for that reason. Is the proposed access and parking provision acceptable?
• 7.24 Highway Services note two specific concerns, namely that there is insufficient parking proposed and moreover that the site is poorly related to / connected with nearby facilities and amenities, to include public transport. The latter has already been addressed in this assessment.

7.25 Since the application seeks Approval in Principle only, it needs to be demonstrated that the proposed development can be satisfactorily accommodated within the site. Therefore, while no regard whatsoever can be given to the indicative layout drawings that have been provided within the application, the application nevertheless needs to demonstrate that sufficient parking can be provided - and this it has failed to so do. Given the size of the site it is likely that sufficient parking could indeed be provided within it to serve 25 households, especially since siting and landscaping of the site and the internal layout of the households / dwellings is not for consideration here and, should this application be approved, this could potentially be resolved at the reserved matters stage. - 7.26 However, it must be remembered that an application seeking Approval in Principle must clearly demonstrate that the works proposed can be accommodated on the site in a manner that would be appropriate to that site. The design approach, which as a very basic premise is to be commended, is for an environmentally sustainable development that provides an attractive environment with communal gardens. Increasing the parking provision to a level more befitting the needs of the likely occupiers of the dwellings would significantly reduce the amount of outdoor amenity space offered to residents, thus undermining the design ethos. - 7.27 Given the lack of information at this stage, it is concluded that the application fails to demonstrate that sufficient parking provision is made to address the need arising from the proposed development. As such, the application is judged contrary to Transport Policy 7 since it does not propose what is considered to be an adequate level of parking and nor does it demonstrate that the necessary level of parking can be adequately located on the site. - 7.28 In terms of the access, it is noted that the visibility splay to be provided is acceptable. This is not disputed. However, the lanes within the site will be necessarily steep (howsoever they are provided) given the slope of the site. While significant alterations to the land grading may well be possible in order to alleviate this issue, there is nothing within the application to suggest that this is the intention and, moreover, it would likely need to be of such a scale as to imperil the financial viability of the scheme. Therefore, it must be concluded that the steepness of the slope will not suit the intended occupiers of the site, either in terms of walking or driving, but also in terms of wheelchair access. While visibility from the site onto the highway is adequate, nervous or hesitant drivers may find the steepness of the slope difficult to easily navigate. - 7.29 It must therefore also be concluded that the site fails to provide satisfactory and convenient access for all users, and is therefore contrary to parts (h) and (i) of General Policy 2. Is the impact on trees and biodiversity acceptable? - 7.30 The information now forming part of the application is sufficient on which to reach a conclusion that the proposed works would not have harmful impacts on the important trees on or near the site. The Arboricultural Officer is content that those trees proposed for removal are not worthy of retention. There are trees beyond the site that could be protected should the proposed works go ahead, and it is these that are considered to be of most importance in the area, not just in terms of softening the appearance of the industrial nature of the area but also in terms of contributing to a key characteristic along Peel Road and the Heritage Trail. - 7.31 In respect of biodiversity, it is clear that no objection has been raised on this point even though there are points of interest both within and outwith the application site. It is not immediately known to what the Area of Ecological Interest refers, but a condition requiring a general wildlife survey would be appropriate should the application ultimately be approved. Similarly, a condition requiring the submission of an external lighting scheme would be appropriate in order to mitigate any impact on the nearby bat habitat.

- 8.0 RECOMMENDATION

8.1 It is concluded that the application is unacceptable on several grounds relating to the principle of over-55s residential development on land poorly related to existing settlements and zoned for industrial use. It is accordingly recommended that the application be refused.

8.2 None of the foregoing assessment should be taken to mean that officers view the concept of the proposal unacceptable. The idea of an eco-friendly sheltered living environment is to be strongly welcomed. This application is only in Principle and so limited weight can be given to any potential eco credentials of the scheme, but in any case it has been concluded not that the proposal is itself unacceptable, but that the location is unacceptable. - 9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• o 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;
• o The Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; and
• o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

• 9.2.1 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
• 9.2.2 In this instance, it is considered that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person:

• o The Department of Economic Development;
• o The Housing Division within the Department for Health and Social Care;
• o The owners / occupiers of 1 River Vale, Braddan Bridge;
• o The owners / occupiers of 2 River Vale, Braddan Bridge;
• o The owners / occupiers of 10 River Walk, Braddan Bridge, and
• o The owners / occupiers of 12 River Walk, Braddan Bridge.

The four abovementioned dwellings are opposite the application site, albeit with the Heritage Trail in-between.

• 9.2.3 In this instance, it is considered that the following persons do not have sufficient interest and therefore should not be awarded the status of an Interested Person:

• o The owners / occupiers of Glebe Cottage, Kirk Maughold, who live too far from the site to be materially affected by the proposal;
• o The owners / occupiers of 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18 & 19 River Walk, Braddan Bridge, of 1, 2 and 4 River Heights, Braddan Bridge, and of Braddan House, Braddan Bridge, all of which are too far from the application site to be materially affected by the proposal;
• o The Manx Energy Advice Centre, which is an advisory group and has no direct interest in the application site or development proposed for it;
• o The Arboricultural Officer, who sits within the same Department as the Planning & Building Control Directorate, and
• o The Senior Biodiversity Officer, who also sits within the same Department as the Planning & Building Control Directorate.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 13.04.2017

• R 1. The proposed loss of the land at this time from employment-generating purposes, for which it has an extant planning approval, is contrary to the Braddan Local Plan 1991 zoning, contrary to the findings of the Employment Land Review, contrary to the Draft Planning Policy Statement on the Economy and contrary to the Vision2020 document.
• R 2. The application is concluded to prejudice the proper strategic planning of the East of the Island contrary to Strategic Policy 1(b) and Spatial Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• R 3. As there is not a significant amount of building on the site, and it has not been demonstrated that the site is redundant, and given the site's fairly well-screened nature, the proposal does not comply with any of the conditions allowing redevelopment of previously developed land set out in part (c) of General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• R 4. It has not been demonstrated that new industrial or other employment-generating uses on the neighbouring employment-generating land would not be prejudiced by the occupation of the dwellings here proposed. Accordingly, the application is contrary to part (k) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• R 5. It has not been demonstrated that the existing uses undertaken on the neighbouring employment land would result in acceptable amenity levels for the occupiers of the dwellings here proposed. Accordingly, the application is contrary to Environment Policy 22 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• R 6. The application site is poorly related to existing facilities and services. Given that the intended occupiers of the dwellings proposed may have mobility issues, the proposed use cannot be considered to represent a sustainable form of development, contrary to parts (a) and (d) of Strategic Policy 10 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• R 7. The application does not demonstrate what is considered to be an adequate level of parking and nor does it demonstrate that the necessary level of parking can be adequately located on the site. Accordingly, the application is contrary to Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• R 8. The existing steep slope down into the site would fail to provide satisfactory and convenient access for all users, and is therefore contrary to parts (h) and (i) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 24.04.2017

Signed : E Riley Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report was required YES/NO See below

Customer note

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

Planning Committee Decision 24.04.2017

Application No. : 16/01402/A Applicant : Joyjay Ltd Proposal : Approval in principle for the erection of residential accommodation for older people for up to 25 units addressing means of access Site Address : B C S House And Builders Yard Peel Road Braddan Douglas Isle of Man IM4 4LE Presenting Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Addendum to the Officer’s Report

In acknowledging the specific wording of Government Circular 0046/13, which outlines in what circumstances people may "generally" be considered to have sufficient interest in a planning application to be granted interested person status ("IPS"), the Planning Committee noted that the Circular is clear that only where there are adverse impacts arising from a proposal should such status be awarded. In noting that the private persons to whom IPS was recommended to be granted were all in support of the application, the Committee debated whether or not they could be said to be substantially or adversely impacted by the proposal. The point was made that the refusal of the application would result in the extant approval for industrial units still being implementable and that this would leave those persons substantially or adversely affected by this proposal, but that is a state of affairs that exists irrespective of the decision issued to PA 16/01402/A. It was concluded that the private individuals to whom the officers had initially recommended granting IPS to have that status withdrawn.

DED and DOI still retained their interest in the site and it was accepted that they should continue to be afforded IPS.