Loading document...
ANZIIF (Senior Assoc.) HM, CIP, MAIRM, CD (W.A.) Risk & Insurance Consultant
CABINET OFFICE Government Office, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 3PN
Reference: NEIM/AP26/0007
Dear Sir,
Re: Planning Application 25/90196/B
Proposal: Appeal against the refusal for the construction of 14 bungalows including vehicular access and associated infrastructure Address: Land Adjacent To Ginger Hall Hotel Ballamanagh Road, Sulby, Isle Of Man
As outlined in my previous correspondence to dated 15th March 2025 and 21st June 2025, wherein I objected to the above Planning Application. In respect of this Appeal against the refusal for the construction of 14 bungalows including vehicular access and associated infrastructure, I remain opposed to planning permission being given as requested by the appellant.
Copies of my earlier correspondence are attached for your review and consideration and I refer you to points 1 and 2 and point 3 (in its entirety) in my letter dated 15th March 2025 and risk of inundation of water to Carrick Park and the potential liabilities rising therefrom as stated in my correspondence dated 21st June 2025.
In respect of the last paragraph of my correspondence dated 21st June 2025, you may wish to consider the potential application of ‘Rylands v. Fletcher’ (which case established the principle of strict liability in tort law) in this matter.
Yours faithfully Philip R McDonald
ANZIIF (Senior Assoc.) HM, CIP, MAIRM, CD (W.A.) Risk & Insurance Consultant
21st June 2025
Planning & Building Control Directorate Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas Isle of Man, IM1 2SF
Attention Jason Moore
Dear Mr Moore,
Re: Planning Application 25/90196/B Proposal to build 14 dwellings on the land the proposed building site (the “site”) between ‘The Shop’ and the Ginger Hall
Thank you for your letter dated 3rd June 2015.
Further to my previous correspondence (dated 15 March 2025), I believe it appropriate that, you understand my history regarding Carrick Park. Whilst living in Carrick Park my home has flooded twice (in the space of two years). It should be noted that each of these flooding events were considered to be ‘1 in 50 year events’. These two events, have resulted in my holding the view that ANY planning permission should be refused on this “site” unless and until it can be established by the planning committee that development of this particular site will not cause an increase in the risk of any form of flooding or inundation of water into properties situated in Carrick Park.
If development is to proceed, the number of houses permitted to be built should be as few as possible with no more than three to five properties or perhaps seven properties as an absolute maximum, subject always to comprehensive works being put in place to prevent any increase the risk of any of flooding or inundation of water into properties situated in Carrick Park. My rationale is that we currently live in a world where it is now likely that climate change will result in significant variations to our climate here in the Isle of Man. This may result in longer dry spells possibly followed by longer and heavier spells of rainfall by thereby accentuating run off.
Note that, in my view, every property in excess of three would probably have an exponential effect of the risk of flooding or inundation of water in Carrick Park. Further, each additional property built would similarly increase the risk of a Motor Vehicle Accident at the junction of the proposed development and the A3.
ANZIIF (Senior Assoc.) HM, CIP, MAIRM, CD (W.A.) Risk & Insurance Consultant
I would suggest that it is the responsibility of the Planning & Building Control Directorate to ensure that, if planning permission is to be considered, they must also look to the future to ensure that, inter alia, the potential flooding risks arising from prospective climate changes has been fully explored and that substantive appropriate measures will be put in place to prevent flooding risk to adjacent locations such as Carrick Park arising from any application(s) to build on the proposed building site between 'The Shop' and the Ginger Hall.
Additionally, I believe that the Planning & Building Control Directorate should also consider the issue of potential liabilities arising out of any failure to identify risks of this nature and thereby failing to ensure that appropriate and robust measures were put in place to prevent water run-off from such a development contributing to or even causing flooding to an adjacent location.
I would suggest that surface water flowing from a higher ground, particularly where the higher ground has been developed and caused an increase in such water flow, there is a potential duty of care on the owner(s) of the higher ground to take reasonable steps to prevent such water from happening. This in turn raise the question as to where liability lies for damage to properties and/or injuries caused by this flow of water.
Interestingly, potential liabilities might not just be restricted to aspects such as those outlined above but could arise from any aspect of planning pertaining to this site.
Whilst I have not reviewed case law as it applies to liabilities or responsibilities of various parties under Common Law or the extent of legislation providing protection to local and/or central government departments, I would suggest that, if a local or central government department was or became aware of any potential risks prior to the development taking place on this site and failed to properly ensure that appropriate substantive measures had been incorporated into any such planning permission and ultimately completed, a responsibility/liability may attach to such local or central government department.
Yours faithfully
Philip R McDonald
ANZIIF (Senior Assoc.) HM, CIP, MAIRM, CD (W.A.) Risk & Insurance Consultant
Planning & Building Control Directorate Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas Isle of Man, IM1 2SF
Dear Sir,
Re: Planning Application 25/90196/B Proposal to build 14 dwellings on the land the proposed building site (the “site”) between ‘The Shop’ and the Ginger Hall
Over the years various applications have been submitted in respect of this plot of land commencing with 88/01528A. Various application were refused, one of which being 17/00462/B for the construction of 7 bungalows and 6 garages, including vehicular access. This planning application was refused on appeal, the Inspector having recommended that the appeal be allowed and planning permission refused on highway safety grounds. This was ultimately overturned by the Minister who concluded that the proposals would not be unacceptable on such grounds particularly in view of the support of the Highway Services.
It should be noted that these many of these earlier applications were refused on various grounds and not a single application was made for there to be more than 7 dwellings. It should also be noted that where planning permission was granted the ‘dwelling to land ratio’ was similar to the existing Carrick Park estate.
I make the following observations:
ANZIIF (Senior Assoc.) HM, CIP, MAIRM, CD (W.A.) Risk & Insurance Consultant
3.3 Whilst the factors identified in 3.1 and 3.2 apply to the site irrespective of the size of the development, the number of dwellings compound the accident risk by virtue of the number of vehicles likely to enter and or exit the site. A development of this size will invariably mean that there will be at least one vehicle per dwelling resulting in 14 ‘resident’ vehicles. Observation of other developments suggest that there will be likely to be 18 to 22 resident vehicles. This is in addition to any commercial vehicles entering and exiting the development.
Clearly, any development of this site, vehicles entering or exiting the site to/from the A3 poses a risk, but any development increasing the likely number of vehicles likely to enter/exit the site makes that risk exponentially more dangerous.
3.4 In addition to the above factors, there is then a private driveway just beyond the bus stop and then the entrance to/from the larger Carrick Park Estate. Directly opposite the entrance to the Carrick Park there is another road and Bus Stop, On the Carrick Park side of the A3 there is then another private dwelling and driveway.
3.5 The A3 is busy road, there are Bus Stops on both sides of the road. During school term, children wait at the Bus Stop opposite Carrick Park (note there is no shelter or pavement area here). This is also a ‘peak’ traffic time.
I respectfully submit that planning permission should not be given for any greater number of dwellings than 7, that the applicant be required to commence building of the dwellings as per any planning permission approval and complete the development within a specified period. In the event that the current applicant wishes to sell or transfer the development site undeveloped, the ‘current’ planning approval should automatically become void ab initio.
Philip R McDonald
cc Lezayre Parish Commissioners
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown