Dept Final Decision (Part 1 of 2)

The Town And Country Planning Act 1999

Applicant:	Heritage Homes Ltd
Proposal:	Residential development of 101 dwellings with associated highway and drainage works, public open space and landscaping, Field 311825 And Parts Of Fields 315097, 311826, 311827 & 314444 Between Derby Road / Poortown Road & QE2 High School And East Of Reayrt Ny Keylley Peel Isle Of Man

Town And Country Planning Development (Procedure Order) 2005

Planning Secretary Department of Infrastructure Planning & Building Control Division Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas

1. In accordance with article 10 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005 ("the Order"), the person appointed by the Council of Ministers ("Council") to consider this application ("the Appointed Person") made his report and recommendations to Council (dated 30 June 2011) ("the Report") some six months ago. Since issuing the Report the Appointed Person has provided Council with a supplementary report dated 30 November 2011 ("the Supplementary Report") and a further note of clarification dated 8 December 2011 ("the Clarification Letter"); copies of all three documents referred to above are enclosed herewith;

1. Following its consideration of the Report on 14 July 2011, Council determined that it was minded to approve the application subject to 9 conditions set out in the notice dated 27 July 2011 ("the Minded to Approve Notice") and upon condition that the Applicant satisfied Council within 4 months of the date of the said Notice that it had entered into those agreements identified by the Appointed Person at Paragraphs 117 and 118 of the Report ("the Section 13 Agreements") (the Applicant has duly satisfied Council with regard to the Section 13 Agreements);

1. Subsequent to the Minded to Approve Notice, an issue arose in respect of the discharge of condition 8 of the Report relating to revised plans for 8 dwellings (plots B3-B10);

1. Council agreed to a process whereby it would effectively act as "Planning Authority" in respect of condition 8 and it subsequently circulated the revised plans, submitted to it by the Applicant, to all interested parties in order to allow 21 days for them to make further written submissions limited to the revised plans;

1. The Appointed Person was requested to review the written submissions and to make a supplementary report to Council dealing with the two objects of condition 8, namely, the design of the 8 dwellings relative to the existing character of Poortown Road and the impact upon important public views, from the Poortown Road, of the hills to the south of the site;

1. Council considered the Supplementary Report which concluded that the first object of condition 8 had been met but that insufficient information had been submitted to demonstrate satisfaction of the second and that therefore the submission of the revised plans should not be approved as discharge of condition 8;
2. Following receipt of the Clarification Letter Council sought, and then considered, further information from the Applicant in the form of photographs and visual representations (enclosed herewith) in respect of the second object of condition 8, specifically in respect of whether the important public view of the hills to the south of the site from Poortown Road was obstructed by development further into the site;
3. Council considered the photographs taken from five camera positions and took the view that the interior development combined with the newly developed neighbouring site would to a great extent mask the public view of the hills in the south from the Poortown Road; further, Council did not consider that the several small remaining vistas permitting partial and broken sight of the raised landscape beyond were significant.
4. Council noted that, should further changes be proposed in style and layout of plots B3 to B10 to minimise interference with the remaining vistas, it may interfere with the ability to meet the first object of Condition 8. In Council's opinion the revised plans struck an appropriate balance between the two objects of Condition 8.
5. Council considered whether further consultation with the interested persons could result in any discernable improvement in the position, noting that subsequent garden and boundary planting may obscure any small vistas remaining in any case, and felt that in the circumstances further consultation and the resultant prolonging of the decision making process with the attendant prejudice that this would cause would be futile and undesirable.
6. Council agreed that, as the interior development combined with the newly developed neighbouring site would to a great extent already mask all but the smallest vistas to the hills, the second object of Condition 8 could not be met. By reason of the foregoing after due consideration Council discharged condition 8.
7. With regard to Plot B1 Council noted and accepted the content of paragraphs 30 and 31 of the Supplementary Report.
8. On 15 December 2011 Council considered all the forgoing matters / material and information and granted approval of the above planning application subject the schedule of conditions outlined below.

Date of Issue: 23 December 2011 Chief Secretary's Office Government Offices Bucks Road Douglas

Mr Will Greenhow ACMA Chief Secretary

Schedule of Conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
2. This approval relates to the residential development of 101 dwellings with associated highway and drainage works, public open space and landscaping Field 311825 and parts of

Fields 315097, 311826, 311827 and 314444 between Derby Road/Poortown Road and QE2 High School and East of Reayrt Ny Kelley, Peel as shown by 2313.129, 2313.127, 2313/2/102, 2313/2/103, 2313/2/104, 2313/2/105, 2313/2/106, 2313/2/107, 2313/2/109, 2313/2/111, 2313/2/117, 2313/2/118, 2313/2/121, 2313/2/121(2), 2313/2/122(2), 2313/2/122, 2313/2/123, 2313/2/124, 2313/2/125, 2313/2/135, 2197-2ACN303, 2313.200, Drainage calculations and technical details, Transport Assessment and Support Documentation all received 16th April 2010 and 2313ADR510 Rev F and 2313ADR511 Rev A received 2nd August 2010 and 2313/2/119 received 11th April 2011 and 2313/10/01, 2313/2/111A, 2313/2/118, 2313.2.120, 2313/2/124, 2313/2/125, 2313/2/126A received 2nd September 2011.

1. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shown on approved drawing 2313/2/126A Landscaping Scheme must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwellings, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.
2. Prior to the occupation of any dwellings, the road layout shown by approved drawing 2313.127 Site Layout including parking areas, must be laid to at least base course level and the parking associated with the development must be available for use by occupiers of the dwellings.
3. There must be no discharge of surface water to the main foul sewer.
4. The temporary sewage treatment plant and all associated infrastructure must be decommissioned and removed from the site within 3 months of the public foul sewer system within Peel becoming connected to IRIS or any subsequent replacement scheme unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.
5. For the avoidance of doubt, this approval does not extend to approval in any form of any roadway shown outside the application site denoted by a red line on drawing 2313.127.
6. No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The approved statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period, and shall provide for:

(i) The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors. (ii) The loading and unloading of plant and materials. (iii) Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development. (iv) Wheel washing facilities. (v) Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during the construction. (vi) The fencing of the site. (vii) The establishment of a local liaison committee, and a protocol for receiving and answering representations from the public. (viii) The meeting of the local liaison committee prior to the commencement of development, and then at least once every 6 weeks, and the publication of agendas and minutes.

Crown Division Government Offices Douglas Isle of Man

30 November 2011 The Council of Ministers Sirs CASE REFERENCE DF10/0013 PLANNING APPLICATION 10/000544/B

Application by Heritage Homes Ltd for residential development of 101 dwellings with associated highway and drainage works, public open space and landscaping on land at field 311825 and parts of fields 315097, 311826, 311827 & 314444 between Derby Road/Poortown Road & Q2 High School, and east of Reayrt Ny Keylley, Peel. -

Discharge of Condition 8 Proposed dwelling on Plot B1

1 I have the honour to report that on 30 November 2011 I carried out a site visit at the above site, on instructions from yourselves. Specifically, those instructions were as follows:

a) to review the written representations received on the Condition 8 point (for plots on B3 to B10 as indicated on the amended plans submitted by Heritage Homes) and to supply a supplementary report and recommendation to Council by Thursday 1 December 2011; and

b) deal with the matter of Plot B1 which, although strictly outside of the Condition 8 point, had been raised by a number of the Interested Parties.

2 In essence, the first instruction is to advise on the discharge of condition 8, which I set out as follows:

No development shall take place unless a plan has been submitted and approved in writing by the Planning Authority showing revisions to house types and if necessary layout of plots B3-B10 in order to accord with the existing character of Poortown Road, and to minimise intrusion into public views of hills to the south of the site. Development shall be in accord with the approved plan.

3 The applicant submitted revised plans for plots B3-B10 on 2 September 2011, and it is these with which this report is concerned. The proposals were notified to interested persons in the locality on 28 October 2011, and their representations will be found on the file. These include a number of administrative points which are not relevant to the planning merits of the proposals, and I note that they have been dealt with by officers of the Government.

4 Originally I reported as follows: Objection is also raised that the character of Poortown Road is of single storey dwellings, and that by proposing two storey dwellings, not only would the character of the locality be altered, but the imposing view of the distant hills which is available to the public would be harmed. This to my mind is to a degree a valid objection. Whilst the dwellings proposed along the Poortown Road frontage would be set behind a service road, the house types are the relatively imposing "Oak" design, set close together, and in my view they would form a significant interruption into this scene. This is not so great a deficiency that the proposal should be refused, but the layout and house type proposed here should be reviewed.

5 The essence of the proposals now made is to modify the designs so that in place of 5 Oak type dwellings, 1 Cedar and two Laurel S, a mix of 4 Rowan dormer bungalows, 1 Oak house and the Cedar and Laurel S as before is proposed. As a result of the smaller dwellings, there would be greater space between dwellings, and the height of 4 of the dwellings would be reduced.

The site and its surroundings, and development proposed

6 The site is a part of a larger development site on which the Council of Ministers have indicated that they are minded to grant full planning permission, subject to the satisfaction of various conditions, of which one is the subject of this report. The development would have 101 dwellings on it. The site lies along the south south western side of Poortown Road (which for convenience I refer to as south).

7 In my original description of the surroundings I stated that "The land slopes gently from east to west with the high point opposite The Highwayman public house being about 10m higher than the low point along the south western boundary. From Poortown Road the hills between Peel and Glen Maye form a backdrop to the site. To the north of Poortown Road, facing the site, are a number of single storey dwellings which front the main road and face the site. These include Three Peaks, and South View." For the avoidance of doubt, the backdrop formed by the hills is to the east of south.

8 Since the Applicant points out that there are a mix of dwelling types on the opposite side of Poortown Road, a more detailed description is merited. The frontage of the site covers the stretch of road between Ballaquane Road at the west and Oak Road to the east. This is a frontage of some 175m. Occupying the first 75m are two bungalows, Sea Peep and Three Peaks, whose gardens abut to give an open area of about 30m between the two. Permission exists for the erection of a further bungalow within this length. A further 35m are occupied by the frontages of two modern two storey dwellings, South View and Meadow View. These stand close to the road, and are not shown on the Applicant's plans. Then is a garden occupying some 25m, and a substantial Regency style dwelling. This, and a wide access to a tractor supplier behind, and the verge of Oak Road occupy the remaining 40m. Beyond Oak Road is The Highwayman, a substantial public house. To the west of Ballaquayne Road are open paddocks.

9 To complete the picture, two completed dwellings of the Reayrt ny Cronk development would form a contiguous frontage with the proposed development.

These dwellings appear to be of the "Laurel B" design, and a "Cedar" design immediately adjacent to the western boundary of the subject site. Well beyond the eastern boundary stands Ballawattleworth Cottage, an imposing two storey dwelling of traditional design.

The application proposal is to amend the originally submitted proposal. This would have developed the site so that the frontage would have been, firstly an end on Cedar, Plot B3, then a service road which turned from a southerly direction along the frontage. Behind the service road plots B10 to B5 would have been Oak, with a Cedar on Plot B4, which would have stood gable on to the roundabout forming the junction with Oak Road and the access to the site.

The revised proposal is to replace the Oak designs such that 5 plots would be Laurel S and Rowans designs, one would be Oak, and the two Cedar designs would be retained.

The Council of Ministers has asked me to consider also the proposal to site a Laurel B type dwelling on plot B1. Plot B1 stands at the junction of the service road described above and the internal spine road of this part of the estate. It would be the third dwelling in a line running back from Poortown Road.

Representations

Heritage Homes state that there is currently a mix of dwellings on the opposite side of Poortown Road, with 3 full 2 storey houses and 2 bungalows with living accommodation in the roof. East of the site is also a substantial 2 storey dwelling. They point out that my conclusions related only to the Oak type dwellings, and not others which are less imposing visually. The amendments proposed relate however to all plots B3-B10, some of which had other designs proposed. Replacing all but one of the Oak designs with Rowan Designs would introduce dormer bungalows of lower height and much reduced profile, to give a more varied and attractive street scene, reflecting the mix on the other side of Poortown Road.

With regard to Plot B1, it is stated that the layout plans considered at the inquiry included the footprint of this dwelling. The Inspector had concluded that no party had been disadvantaged by the late submission of the dwelling design, and that no objection to its design had been raised at the inquiry. It would, however, be appropriate to approve the erection of a dwelling on this footprint, subject to a condition requiring submission of details of the internal layout and elevations.

Peel Town Commissioners note that no revision has been made to plots B6, 8 and 10 as required by the condition; that the proposed reduction in size was relatively small, and that any new dwelling should be of single storey construction to better blend with those opposite.

Mr and Mrs T Cowin (Sea Peep - opposite the site) raise numerous procedural points which have been dealt with internally, and are not for my consideration. They reiterate objections relating to the character of development opposite Sea Peep dated 17 May 2010, and 14 April 2011. Both were made before the

Inquiry, and as far as they were made out at the inquiry, I dealt with them at that time.

A detailed examination is made of the changes which the present application would make. In summary, this is that significant change is made only on plots B5, B7 and B9, where Rowan type houses replace Oak type. It is contended that since Condition 8 required revisions to house types, it was not appropriate to retain an Oak type dwelling on Plot B8. Retention of this dwelling would not accord with the character of Poortown Road, or remove the harm identified to the public view of the hills to the south. This would be emphasised by the rising ground levels to the east. Furthermore, the house types on plots B10 and B6 had not been revised at all. These plots would still be occupied by imposing two storey dwellings, disregarding the objection found by the Inspector. The plans failed to relate to the two bungalows opposite, and those surrounding them in Close Quane.

Similar objections are made to the retention of Cedar type houses on Plots B3 and B4. These are the largest dwelling types, having a floor area of 294m2. This would be 61m2 greater than the Oak design, considered "imposing" by the Inspector. The Rowan type dwellings which replaced Oak types would have a floor area of 198m2, which is only 9m2 less than the Laurel S type house, and its ridge height would be only 1m less.

The revisions were not considered to meet the objection found by the Inspector, of according with the character of Poortown Road, and minimising intrusion into public views to the south.

Miss H Cowin (3 Elm Drive, Ballawattleworth) makes the same objection in concise form, that the retention of previously proposed house types on plots B3, 4, 6, 8, and 10 does not accord with the requirements of condition 8; that the proposed development would alter the character of Poortown Road, and that the height of Oak, Laurel S and Cedar type dwellings would obscure the view of hills to the south, and would not meet the requirement of the condition to minimise intrusion of the views.

Mr \& Mrs Jones (Three Peaks, opposite the site) make the same objection concerning the failure to amend plans of plots B3, 4, 6, 8 and 10, and concerning the effect on views of the hills. The revised plans would not accord with the character of Poortown Road, nor would they relate to the bungaklows opposite and in Close Quane.

With regard to the proposals for Plot B1, Mr S C Foster and Mr N Cushing (on behalf of the Ballawattleworth Action Group) express views as to the advisability of considering design proposals for plot B1 on the basis of the plan submitted at this time. In their view a separate application should be made. Mr Foster further states that Plot B1 would be an appropriate site for toddler's play facilities, and refers to paragraph 118 of the Inspector's report on the original application.

Assessment

I consider first the point on which several objectors base their case - that the wording of condition 8 requires revision to all house types. This is incorrect. The condition must be read as a whole. The operative parts state that there should be "revisions to house types and if necessary layout of plots B3-B10 in order to accord with the existing character of Poortown Road and to minimise intrusion into public views of the hills to the south of the site". Any revisions within these plots which achieved the object of the condition would satisfy the condition.

Nevertheless, I do not fully accept the Applicant's conclusion that revision would be limited to Oak type dwellings. Whilst the nature of these dwellings set in a row prompted my concerns, the condition requires such changes as are necessary within the plots identified to achieve its object.

I turn then to the substantive issues. First, whether the proposed mix of dwelling types would accord with the existing character of Poortown Road. I have intentionally described above development presently on Poortown Road in considerable detail. I accept the Applicant's point that as well as the bungalows at the western end of the opposite frontage, there are two storey dwellings towards the east. I do not consider that the presence of bungalows in Close Quane at the rear of Sea Peep and Three Peaks make a material contribution to the character of Poortown Road, except as far as they do not provide a backdrop to the frontage. In my view there are two important characteristics - the first is that development is not contiguous, but contains significant open space along its length; and second is that there is a mixture of houses and bungalows. The bungalows are not diminutive, having space for accommodation in their roofs.

It would not be reasonable to expect a modern development to mimic the variety and spacing of development opposite in order to accord with the character of Poortown Road. Indeed, the granting of permission for a further bungalow in an infill position indicates that a reduction in spaciousness would not be harmful. Furthermore, Strategic Policy requires that the best use is made of development land. Nor should development necessarily include bungalows. What is required is variety, interest and style which blend with the remainder of the street. In my view the amendments to house types would achieve that object, as far as character is concerned.

The second substantive issue is whether the design changes would minimise the intrusion into public views of the hills to the south of the site. Whilst in my original report I did not elaborate greatly on the significance of these views, photographs submitted by objectors and included in the documents showed the significance of the scenery hereabouts. To the south of the site the slopes of Slieau Whallian are a notable landscape feature rising above the landscape.

No landscape assessment had been submitted with the application. The necessities of the inquiry process required a judgement to be made as to whether or not to call for such an assessment. I took the view that careful treatment of the frontage would enable some of the public benefit of these views to be retained. In my view this is very important on the outskirts of a town, since

it relates the urban development to its setting, and nourishes a sense of place and distinctiveness.

The Applicant states that the lower heights and greater spacing of the dwellings now proposed would satisfy the intention of Condition 8. As I have concluded, this would be the case as far as the character of Poortown Road is concerned, but I am not convinced of the point as far as the effect on the views are concerned. This is largely because although the Applicant has helpfully produced plans which set out to demonstrate the street scene, they do not include the backdrop when looking towards the hills (which may not be directly at ). It is not possible to make an effective assessment of this aspect by a site visit alone, and there are well developed means of demonstrating such impacts through drawings. Furthermore, I recognise that these views may in any event be masked by development further into the estate, in which case this aspect of the condition could not be satisfied. In my view the Applicant should have paid more attention to this aspect of the condition, and because he has not, permission should not be granted.

I turn then to the issue of plot B1. In my original report I listed the application plans, noting "Add Plan 2313/2/119". The permission which the Council are minded to grant therefore applies to that drawing, which shows details of the Laurel B type house. In my original report I noted: This was submitted late when its omission was pointed out. A separate consultation was carried out. Whilst there are objections relating to the character of the proposed development, I do not consider that any party was disadvantaged by the late submission of this plan. Indeed, no objection specific to that design, or any other, was raised at the inquiry." Plans drawn up in 2008 indicated a house of this type on the plot, and the layout was considered at the inquiry. The location of a dwelling is not at issue, nor is its type. The only issue is whether it was appropriate to bring forward a detail of that type at a late stage.

It was my understanding that the Applicant offered to withdraw the Plan at the inquiry, and that discussion took place regarding the most appropriate way of dealing with the omission. From my notes and recollection, I did not accede to the withdrawal of the plan, and my conclusion is that set out above. However, for the avoidance of any doubt, my conclusion remains as set out above - that no party was disadvantaged by the late submission, or by its being brought forward again at this stage.

I have noted Mr Foster's view on the appropriateness of that site for a toddler's play area. The Council of Ministers has determined that there should be a legal agreement with the planning authority covering the location, funding, provision, and programming of equipped play areas before permission is granted in full, and the approval of this house type would not jeopardise that agreement if it were determined that that site was an appropriate location.

Conclusion

The revision of the plans satisfy Condition 8 as far as the need to accord with the character of Poortown Road is concerned. Insufficient information has been submitted by which to determine the impact upon important public views. The submitted plans should not therefore be approved.

34 The Council's intention to grant planning permission includes the details of the Laurel B type house.

Recommendation

35 I recommend that the submission of 22 September should not be approved as the discharge of condition 8.

I have the Honour to be Sirs Your obedient Servant

David Ward BSc(Hons)CEng MICE FIHT Inspector

Chief Secretary's Office

8 December 2011

Sirs

CASE REFERENCE DF10/0013 PLANNING APPLICATION 10/000544/B

Heritage Homes Ltd, Poortown Road, Peel

Discharge of Condition 8

I refer to the query raised yesterday regarding matters dealt with in paragraph 29 of my report submitted on 30 November, and in particular my observation:

"Furthermore, I recognise that these views may in any event be masked by development further into the estate, in which case this aspect of the condition could not be satisfied."

The principal point of my conclusion is that the information supplied is not adequate to demonstrate the requirement of Condition 8 has been met:- that a plan has been submitted... showing revisions to house types and if necessary layout of plots B3-B10 in order ....to minimise intrusion into public views of hills to the south of the site.

In paragraph 28 I recorded that at the time of the original inquiry I took a judgement that it would not have been appropriate to call for a landscape assessment at that time, and that Condition 8 would have been sufficient to determine the extent to which this significant landscape view could be given some degree of protection. With the benefit only of my site visit, the photographs provided and the contoured site plan, I took the view that the most reasonable limitation which could be placed on the development was to review the effect of frontage development. The contours of the site however, are such that development in the interior may also impinge upon the views.

I did not consider it appropriate to recommend limitations on development further into the site, because that was a matter which ought to have been in the minds of the decision makers at the time the land was allocated for housing development. My observation that these views may be masked by development in the interior of the site is an acknowledgement that whilst I accepted the concerns of objectors on the issue, the extent to which it would be reasonable to limit development further into the site may itself limit the impact of minor alterations along the frontage.

If the Council of Ministers accepts that it is appropriate to minimise intrusion into this view, they, and those who objected originally, will need to recognise that the extent to which these views can be protected at this stage is circumscribed by the earlier decision to allocate this site for residential development.

What will be needed is for the Applicant to submit plans which demonstrate a) the relationship between frontage development and the scenery; b) interior development and the scenery, and c) the addition of the two. If it is shown that b) completely masks the hills, then the frontage development changes proposed will have achieved the first object of the condition, to accord with the existing character of Poortown Road, but it would have to be

accepted that the second part of the condition could not be met, and the proper course of action would be to permit the development without complying with the second part of the condition.

David Ward Inspector

Case Reference Df10/0013

Planning Application 10/000544/B

Application by Heritage Homes Ltd for residential development of 101 dwellings with associated highway and drainage works, public open space and landscaping on land at field 311825 and parts of fields 315097, 311826, 311827 & 314444 between Derby Road/Poortown Road & Q2 High School, and east of Reayrt Ny Keylley, Peel.

1. I have the Honour to report that on 11 May 2011 I held an inquiry into the above proposal. This report deals first with procedural matters. There follows a description of the site and its surroundings, and the proposed development; the gist of the cases put by the parties; and my assessment with a recommendation as to the decision which might be made in the case. Lists of appearances and documents are appended.

Procedural Matters

1. Two procedural submissions were made.

• i) The appointment of the Inspector¹.

1. Mr Cowin appears to challenge the appointment of an Inspector to consider the application at an Inquiry, on the basis that there is no reference to "Inspector" in any legislation; and that whilst section 11 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 makes provision for the Council of Ministers to direct that an application be referred to it for determination, there was no evidence that such a determination had been made. The Peel Town Commissioners also make the second point.

1. There is provision in the Town and Country Development Procedure Order 2005 for an application to be referred to the Council of Ministers by a Government Department², and this is the provision under which the application comes to be considered by the Council. None of the legislation refers to "Inspectors", but the Council of Ministers is enabled to refer the application to a person appointed to advise, and traditionally this person is called an Inspector, a term which has wide recognition, and is used by the Courts.

¹ See Document 6 ² 6(iii)

1. In order to clarify the issue, and in the light of there being no specific personal appointment for the case in hand, the Council of Ministers appointed me on a specific and personal basis to consider this application . This appointment was until 31 May, and this was subsequently extended to cover the duration of reporting after that time.
2. Whether or not the reference of the application to the Council of Ministers and their appointment of an Inspector meets every requirement of Manx Law is a matter of law in which I am not qualified. However, it appears to me that because of the interest of the Department of Infrastructure in the highways on which work is proposed under the proposal, and the request of the Ballawattleworth Action group that the application should be considered at Inquiry, the Department and the Council have taken appropriate action to enable interested parties to have their cases heard, and for independent advice to be given. Furthermore, there is no contention that any party is disadvantaged by this approach. On the contrary, had the application not been referred to the Council of Ministers, representation at Inquiry would have been limited to interested parties, which is a narrower definition of interest than that which has been allowed at this inquiry.

ii) Procedural matters raised by the Peel Town Commissioners

1. Five matters are raised . The fifth point is that considered above. Point 1 refers to the erroneous listing of drawing 2313.217 in the application, where it appears that there should have been reference to plan 2313.127. This is a typographical error, and it is not so obscure that any reasonable person would have been disadvantaged by the error. I accept that this plan, being titled "Site Layout - Part two" begs the question as to where part one is. Nevertheless the plan shows a complete site bounded by the required red line, and if there is a part one, any permission will not apply to it. Whilst that may be to the applicant's disadvantage, I cannot see that any other party would be disadvantaged. I do agree that the Applicant's approach to checking typing and drawing notation leaves something to be desired, but I do not consider that the application itself is put at risk.
2. Point 2 concerns the omission of a drawing showing house design for plot B1. This was submitted late when its omission was pointed out. A separate consultation was carried out. Whilst there are objections relating to the character of the proposed development, I do not consider that any party was disadvantaged by the late submission of this plan. Indeed, no objection specific to that design, or any other, was raised at the inquiry.
3. Points 3 and 4 concern the scope of Plan 2313_ADR_510F, which is a drainage layout plan. It results from the revision to the drainage arrangements for both the present application and that now built under permission 10/00521. The plan indicates, and is entitled "Proposed Drainage Layout for 144 dwellings", and contains information which is outside the area of the application. The Commissioners believe that to approve that plan could conflict with a decision to be taken on applications10/01123/C and 01124/B which were the subject of an appeal. The latter appeal concerned an application for amended drainage for permission 10/00521. However, that inquiry has been completed, and the Inspector's report submitted. The Minister has considered the report and indicated that he was minded to accept the recommendations, with the

[^0] [^0]:

effect that permission would be granted for the amended drainage, which I understand to be that which is shown on the part of the contentious plan which is outside the application site. The Commissioner's concerns are therefore unfounded. I accept their view that mattes are not made clear on the drawings. I note that my colleague had some criticisms in this regard. There is a need for greater care by the Applicant, but the application is not invalid.

The Site And Its Surroundings

1. The application site is an area of about 5 ha located immediately south of Poortown Road/Derby Road (A20), and north east of the Queen Elizabeth II High School. This has been agricultural land on the eastern side of Peel. To its west is recently completed residential development of Reayrt Ny Keylley permitted under Planning Permission 09/00521 and others. This comprises 173 dwellings and includes some amenity space and woodland. It is accessed from a roundabout on Poortown Road some 50 m to the north east of the site.
2. The site wraps around the recent development, along the south western side of which is an agricultural lane which then bisects the site itself. The site then has a rectangular piece of land projecting to the south east on which no development is proposed at present.
3. The land slopes gently from east to west with the high point opposite The Highwayman public house being about 10 m higher than the low point along the south western boundary. From Poortown Road the hills between Peel and Glen Maye form a backdrop to the site.
4. To the north of Poortown Road, facing the site, are a number of single storey dwellings which front the main road and face the site. These include Three Peaks, and South View. To west of these dwellings Ballaquane Road is a residential street. To their east is Oak Road which gives access to extensive recent development, including a neighbourhood centre comprising shops, dental surgery and a nursery. East of Oak Road is The Highwayman Public House. Oak Road runs to within 120 m of Ramsey Road, A4.
5. The proposed development is for 101 dwellings of a range of types. Access would be from an additional roundabout on A20 about 220 m east of the existing roundabout, at the Oak Road junction. From this a short length of 6.0 m carriageway road would lead to the south. Some 50 m from the roundabout a junction would allow an east running 5.0 m carriageway which would connect to the estate road of the earlier phase, running south westwards. Extension of this road into the south western part of the site permits its development.
6. The application includes details of drainage, which entails some amendment to drainage approved for the earlier phase of development (permission 10/00521), and these were subject of an amendment to the first submission of the application now under consideration . Approval of the amendments to the drainage for 39 out of 43 dwellings in the earlier phase which depend upon the installation of a stand alone treatment plant was the subject of objections by a third party, and following an inquiry

[^0] [^0]: Letter dated 2 August 2010 Document 2(v)

the Minister has indicated that he is minded to grant permission. As I have determined above, these are not the subject of further consideration at this stage.

Planning Policy

1. Peel Local Plan (LP) designates a significant area of land, which includes the application site, for residential development on the perimeter of the town, and sets out requirements for density, landscaping and car parking. The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (SP) maintains the LP as part of the development plan until Area Plans are adopted. The SP sets out policies for the location of development in existing settlements or sustainable urban extensions. It seeks to ensure an adequate supply of housing land, indicating that housing needs of the Island would be met by the provision of 6000 additional dwelling opportunities over the plan period 2001-16. 1000 of these are to be accommodated in the western region. of dwellings on sites of over 8 dwellings must be affordable.
2. Housing supply in the west had been assessed up to the end of . This assessment was accepted as being definitive by all those at the inquiry. Taking into account all permissions granted, there were 965 dwellings approved up to that time, for both new dwellings and conversions. If a projection was made of additional conversions and windfall sites likely to be approved up to 2016, there would be some 1029 sites approved. However, of the approvals issued, 54 had now lapsed and not been the subject of replacement approvals. A further 76 approvals had not so far been implemented.
3. In terms of policy, it is of note that the issue of housing land supply in this part of the island was considered by a colleague of mine in the context of an appeal against refusal of permission for the 43 dwellings constructed by the Applicant on adjacent land . Whilst that Inspector's consideration was based on 2008 assessment, he addressed the impact of development in excess of the 1000 aimed for 2016 in the western area. He concluded that no harm had been shown to arise if the housing requirement was exceeded, and that refusal of that development on grounds of prematurity was not justifiable. He also concluded that the requirements should not be regarded as absolute or maximum figures.
4. That Inspector also observed that it would be preferable to have allowed that proposal because it would include affordable housing, whereas windfalls and conversions would not.
5. That report was accepted by the Minister, which means that it is a proper expression of the Ministers policy on the matters considered.
6. Transport and highway policies are in general set out in the SP, and are unexceptional.
7. At my request the witness for the Highway Authority produced a document dated 11 December 2000 which is entitled "Request for a decision by the Department Member with delegated powers". The request is approved, and relates to a proposed Peel

[^0] [^0]: Planning Circular 6/89, adopted 19 April 1989. For relevant extracts of SP see 4(i) Section 5 (ii) 10/00521/B Document 2(i) appendix 2 (ii)

Relief Road. The approval is that the Department should request that the relief road be included in the Peel Local Plan; and that the Department should negotiate with developers with a view to the relief road being included in the development proposals. I comment later on the weight to be given to this document.

The Case For The Applicant

The material points are:

1. Development of the site would accord with the land use designations of the Peel Local Plan, and with the policies of the . Three issues had arisen in relation to the proposal:

a. The principle of development in the light of the housing need and distribution figures of the SP; b. The drainage proposals for the scheme c. The likely effects of traffic on surrounding streets.

Housing need and distribution

1. The policies of the SP which referred to an overall figure were Strategic Policy 11 and Housing Policy 1. Neither expressed the figure as a maximum. They set a target which had to be met. In any event, it was not being said that the target of 6000 would be breached, but that the 1000 figure for the west of the island would be exceeded. This figure was contained in Housing Policy 3, but again it was not expressed as a maximum. The issue was not a matter of numerical compliance, but whether harm would arise from granting permission. No objector was arguing that harm would arise if permission was granted. Indeed, significant harm would arise if development was not permitted, since it was the only way of producing affordable housing.
2. The housing policies of the SP sought to ensure that the needs of the island would be met by making provision for suitable development opportunities to enable the identified number of dwellings to be built. The Inspector's recommendation on application 09/00521 was relevant to this application. In particular, he had observed that market forces had an important impact in determining the provision of housing. If there was no need or demand for housing in the west it was unlikely that a builder would build unnecessary houses. Furthermore, another Inspector had considered development of approximately 30 ha west of Ramsey , where the proposal had been refused on the grounds that it would far exceed the housing targets. He concluded that there was nothing in the SP to suggest that the target figure was a limit, and that if at any time there was an oversupply the developer would presumably wait for market equilibrium to be restored before starting the next phase of development.
3. The SP could not make a precise forecast of the number of dwellings required to meet housing demand on the Island. The overall figure of 6000 included some arbitrary figures, and an element of rounding. The Plan stated that it was not intended to make specific provision for a total number of houses in the Plan Period, but to adopt an approach of Plan, Monitor and Manage. Similarly, the policy of distributing 1000

[^0] [^0]: Including standards for public open space - Doc 2(ii)

dwellings to the west of the Island had been formed in a general manner, and there was no policy in the plan which stated that this figure should not be exceeded.

1. Housing Policy 2 stated that the Department will seek to ensure the availability of land currently allocated for residential development in current local plans; no Area Plan was currently under consideration for the west which might alter this. Peel was identified in the SP as a service centre on which development would be concentrated.
2. The current supply of housing land showed 965 dwellings having been approved, with a take up level of 889 , or . This was an extremely high percentage when compared with the island wide take up rate of , but even if all permitted dwellings were to be taken up, the proposal would lead to an excess supply of only 66 dwellings. Projections for windfall and conversion development had fallen sharply since 2009, from 100 to 64 . The SP did not suggest that these permissions should take precedence over development of allocated sites, and the Inspector who considered the adjacent proposal had considered that to do so would be a strange approach to the Island's housing provision, because of the lack of affordable housing provision in windfall and conversion development.
3. Housing Policy Review Progress Reports prepared by the Department indicated population growth between 2001 and 2006 at , observing that the number of households grew at a greater rate, which itself was likely to have a significant impact on housing demand. The report envisaged that past construction levels may not be maintained, which was consistent with a reducing level of approvals, which in 2009 was about of that allowed in 2007. The insufficiency of allocated land in areas of high demand had been recognised as a key factor in potential lack of supply, making it all the more important that land allocated should be developed.
4. Objectors referred to a statement made by the Chief Minister in Tynwald on 2 February 2010 which stated that the housing supply figure of 6000 set out in the SP for the period 2001-16 was a maximum figure . Nevertheless, Inspector's considering the western area alone after that statement had been made, had concluded that the figure for the western area should not be seen as a maximum, and that no harm would arise from allowing further housing. Their conclusions had been accepted by the Minister.
5. On this basis the proposal was in accord with relevant housing policies.

Drainage

1. Drainage for 39 of the 43 dwellings constructed under phase 1 of the development was the subject of consideration at appeal , and subject to legal agreements, the Minister has stated that he was minded to grant approval. The site topography allows 11 of the dwellings now proposed to connect by gravity flow to the public system at Reayrt Ny Keylley, and this has been agreed with the Water and Sewerage Authority. The drainage from the remaining 90 dwellings would be added to that from the initial 39 dwellings and taken to the underground standalone treatment plant. The discharge would then be pumped back through the adjoining Reayrt Ny Keylley

[^0] [^0]: E.g. Doc 10. Application 10/01124/B; 10/01123/C; Appeals 10/0148, 0149. Document 2(i) App3

development and into the mains system. By this means it would avoid the section of existing public sewer in Derby Road, which had limited capacity. Ultimately the flow would reach the existing sea outfall. This would avoid the previously proposed outfall to the watercourse adjacent to the treatment plant.

1. The approach was the same as that considered at appeal. The Inspector assessed the proposals in paragraphs 29 and 30 of his report, including the relative weights to be given to professional expertise and lay objections. Even so, third parties maintained objections to the present proposals. The drainage authority had analysed the proposals, and concluded that the total amount of effluent could be accommodated within the existing sewers. Furthermore, although there were capacity problems in the combined sewer at East Quay during times of exceptionally heavy rainfall, the additional dry weather flow of from the proposed development would have no material impact surcharging or flooding in this area.
2. It had been agreed that there would be no material impact on the bacterial loading of the discharge to the sea; and in any case such flows required licensing from the Environmental Protection Unit, a process separate from planning.
3. The security of operation of the plant was an important consideration. It would not result in noise or odour nuisance, and a maintenance regime would be in place through on Island agents. To guard against the plant being out of operation a supply of spares which could not normally be sourced on the island would be kept on site. The plant would continue working in the event of a power failure, but as a precaution, connection could be made to a standby generator. There were standby pumps installed, and the plant could store over 2 days flow from the dwellings to be connected. In total, the plant had been designed to a standard which enabled adoption by the sewerage authority.
4. Surface water flows from the site would be attenuated by the use of storage tanks so that there would be no greater rate of run off from the land at times of heavy rain than there would have been prior to development.

Traffic

1. The road network in the proposal would entail the construction of a roundabout at the present priority junction with Oak Road . From this the initial 60 m of a distributor or bypass road would lead into the site, with the aim of eventually connecting to Douglas Road. The proposals incorporated footpath links to existing development to the north and west, including the schools, the neighbourhood centre and bus routes along Poortown Road. All design standards met those of Manx Roads, Strategic Plan parking standards , and British government advice on accessibility.
2. The site was a part of a wider area allocated for development in the Peel Local Plan. The Transport Assessment analysed not only the traffic flows from the development proposed, but also that from the 43 dwellings already under construction, and the possibility that a further 140 dwellings would be constructed within the allocated land east of the application site. Analysis had been based on standard approaches to trip

[^0] [^0]: BGH 4 Plan 2312.2.135 (iii)