Officer Report

Application No.: 15/00630/B Applicant: Manx Utilities Authority Proposal: Erection of a replacement electricity sub-station Site Address: Rear Of Eastfield Mansion House Eastfield Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 4AU Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 09.07.2015 Site Visit: 09.07.2015 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITES - 1.1 The submitted details identify two sites. The two sites are almost rectangular and sit within the curtilage of Eastfield Mansion House Care Home, which is a large, detached building within the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area. The sites sit adjacent to the rear access lane to the dwellings on the eastern side of Westbourne Drive, which is outside of the Conservation Area. - 1.2 Within the northern of the two sites sits a Manx stone building that has some window openings but all of which appear to be boarded up. The southern of the two sites currently comprises fairly open ground, with two trees present.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a replacement electricity substation within the southern of the two sites. This would be 3.1m wide by 3.7m in length, and have a very shallow pitched roof, the apex of which would, at 2.25m, be 0.20m above the eaves. The building would be sat on plinths 75mm in height. The building would be constructed of glass-reinforced plastic and painted a holly green colour. Two trees would be limbed to make way for the building and, although they are proposed for retention, the submitted proposed site plan omits them "for clarity". - 2.2 Also proposed is the demolition of the existing substation. Since this is attached to walls its demolition does comprise 'development' and therefore can be considered under the current proposal. A separate application - required since the building lies within a Conservation Area - seeking the demolition of the existing substation (PA 15/00631/CON) is also under consideration and was submitted concurrently with the current application.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 Aside from the above-noted application, none of the other applications on the site, which all relate to development on Eastfield itself, is considered of material relevance to the assessment of the current proposal.

4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 The site is within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential on the Douglas Local Plan, which has no accompanying adopted Written Statement. - 4.2 As such, the provisions of Strategic Plan General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35 are relevant. The former states (in part): "Development which is in accordance with the landuse zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them."

4.3 Environment Policy 35 adds further protection on these points: "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development." - 4.4 Environment Policy 39 states that "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area". - 4.5 The Character Appraisal for the Conservation Area does make mention of Eastfield Mansion House but does not comment on the building's form or history, instead noting the area in which it sits and outlining how development in the area was intended to be set out originally and how it eventually came to be built slightly differently - the allotments nearby, for example, appeared to originally have been intended as public gardens. Eastfield Mansion House and Rose Lodge occupied opposite ends of the terrace even at the early stages of design, however.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 The Senior Biodiversity Officer requested on 29.06.2015 that a 'dusk emergence survey' for bats be carried out prior to a decision being reached. This was duly provided and on 02.09.2015 the Biodiversity Officer concluded that, although no internal check was possible due to stability issues and the presence of asbestos, the survey provided was acceptable and no objection is therefore raised.

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The proposal comprises two distinct elements. Both of these must be concluded to either preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area in which they sit in order for the application to attract a positive recommendation. Each is taken in turn. - 6.2 The removal of an historic building formed of traditional materials could not, despite its poor state of repair, be said to represent an enhancement of the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. That being said, and although the building does have some merit in terms of form and materials, it does not provide what might be considered a 'special

• feature' of the area. The site is unusual in that it is a portion of land left over in the development of the immediate surroundings of Eastfield Mansion House, which is slightly north of the site in question - the period of the northern terrace is earlier than the terrace to the immediate south of the site.
• 6.3 There is clearly an argument that the demolition of a Manx stone built building does not in itself preserve the character of the Conservation Area, but it is very much a 'backland' building away from public thoroughfares. Moreover, neither the building nor the Mansion House in which grounds it sits are singled out for special mention in the Character Appraisal of the area.
• 6.4 The building is in a rear lane and not wholly visible from the main thoroughfares within the immediate areas of the Conservation Area. The frontage onto Eastfield is quite well screened, and the building is tucked up alongside an existing end of terrace. Given its location, its loss would have a suitably limited impact upon the character of that area and is therefore judged to have a neutral impact on the appearance of the Conservation Area; in this, it is considered that the loss of the building would, on balance, have the effect of preserving the character of this part of the Conservation Area and would therefore comply with EP35 and EP39.
• 6.5 Turning to the proposed new substation, the proposed dark green colouration is welcome in reducing the visual impact of the building, which would be suitably limited by the proposed and existing screening and positioning in any case. The building could therefore be said to have a neutral impact on the Conservation Area: clearly there are no buildings of this kind in the area, but electricity substations are by their nature somewhat unique structures. Again, this element of the proposal would comply with EP35.
• 6.6 It is arguable as to whether or not the two trees that the building would sit within and nearby the root structure of would be able to withstand the building works proposed. Four are intended as being retained and so must be assumed to be capable of being so; others are not identified on the plans but are clearly shown in photomontages of the proposed works.
• 6.7 Although the plan is indeed clearer without the trees shown, it is considered that to issue an approval to the current application could potentially allow for their removal despite the annotation that all four trees would be retained. It is considered that a condition requiring those trees to be retained unless agreed otherwise in advance with the Department would be appropriate in clarifying the matter. While the trees are not necessarily worthy of retention, the amenity they offer the area is in terms of group value rather individual, high quality specimens. To have a condition enabling negotiation at a future point with regards their potential removal would provide important clarity on their status should an approval be issued, and would also remove any concern regarding their removal as possibly undermining any approval that might be issued, since prior written agreement to that effect would need to be issued by the Department.
• 6.8 Turning to part (d) of General Policy 2, the bat survey has been found acceptable to the Senior Biodiversity Officer and there does not seem to be any reason to depart from this view.
• 6.9 Finally, it is also noted that the building has asbestos present and the building's retention could cause safety issues in future; its poor state of repair is also taken into account in assessing the proposal against part (m) of General Policy 2.

- 7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 In view of the above, it is considered that the proposal does not conflict with the relevant parts of General Policy 2, or Environment Policy 35, of the Strategic Plan sufficiently enough to warrant its refusal. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval. - 7.2 A condition relating to the retention of trees on the site as described in paragraph 6.7 above is recommended accordingly.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 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, and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

8.2 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.

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

• The Senior Biodiversity Officer within the Forestry, Amenity and Lands Directorate of the Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture. It is not possible to grant IPS to Directorates within the Department of which the Planning and Building Control Directorate is itself a part.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 03.09.2015 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

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

Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. The trees numbered (1), (2), (3) and (4) on the existing site plan (scale 1:250) as shown on plan MS140202-02-P0 shall be retained unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Department.

Reason: In the interest of retaining the character and appearance of the area.

The development hereby approved relates to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received 2nd June 2015: MS140202-01-P0 and MS140202-02-P0.

I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to a Senior Planning Officer. Decision Made : Permitted Date; 15.09.2015 Determining officer Signed :………………………… Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer Signed :………S CORLETT….. Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer