SOC DEFA Planning Officer - SOC
Please reply to the signatory
Our Ref: AP26/0007 Planning Appeals Secretary Cabinet Office Government Offices Buck’s Road Douglas IM1 3PN Dear Ms Milestone,
Tel: (01624) 685950 Email: [email protected]
Russell Williams Senior Planning Officer
24 March 2026
PA No: 26/90196/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 Please find a statement that sets out the position of the Department in respect of the above planning application.
The application was determined by the Planning Committee on 26 January 2026. This statement relies upon the Planning Officer’s original report which is online and forms part of the planning file and the minutes from the Planning Committee meeting which are provided at the end of this statement.
The enclosed statement comprises the following parts:
- 1. Appendix 1 – Statement of Case
- 2. Appendix 2 – Copy of Planning Committee Minutes dated 26 August 2025.
In the event that the appointed Planning Inspector is minded to recommend that the application be approved, then the conditions set out on the original Decision Notice remain supported.
Yours sincerely, Russell Williams
Appendix 1 – Statement of Case STATEMENT OF THE Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Planning & Building Control Directorate
Planning statement on behalf of the Department relative to:
26/90196/B Appeal against the refusal for the construction of 14 bungalows including vehicular access and associated infrastructure Land Adjacent To Ginger Hall Hotel ,Ballamanagh Road, Sulby Prepared on behalf of the Planning Department by Russell Williams Senior Planning Officer
1.0 Appeal against the approval of PA 26/90196/B
The application was refused by Decision Notice dated 25 February 2026 for the following reason:
“The density of the development and its relationship with the bungalows to the West results in a development which does not reflect the local character and causes visual harm. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that adequate drainage could be provided. It is considered that the proposed access onto the A3, which would require vehicles turning right to cross the flow of traffic close to a bend, would be unsafe. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to Strategic Plan (2016) General Policy 2 (b, c, h, i and j).”
2.0 Legal and Policy PositionIn accordance with S10 of the Town Country Planning Act the application has been considered;
S(4) In dealing with an application for planning approval or an application under subsection
(3), the Department shall have regard to —
- (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application; (ab) any relevant national policy directive under section 2A;
- (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.
There is a statutory duty to take into account the above, and while it is recognised that weight to be given is a matter for the decision maker.
That being said, it shall be noted that the Development Plan and other Adopted Policies do not have primacy as they do in the UK. The Isle of Man is also different from the UK as there is no presumption in favour of development as set out in the NPPF, and there is no 5-year land supply requirement.
In this application, the most weight has been given to the Strategic Plan and the Sulby Area Plan 1998, which includes evidence base and public consultation process, and are adopted by Tynwald.
Other material considerations are referred to in the Officer report to Committee. It is not considered that the other material considerations outweigh that set out above.
3.0 Response to Reasons for Appeal
This report addresses those issues directly cited by the Appellants, the reason for refusal and the minutes from the Planning Committee meeting.
From reviewing the submitted reasons for appeal, there appear to be three issues raised by the appellants as taken from the reason for refusal. The reasons for the appeal can be summarised as follows:
- 1. Density and character of the area;
- 2. Drainage;
- 3. Highway safety
FOLLOWING SECTION ADDRESSES THOSE ISSUES DIRECTLY
3.1 ISSUE 1 – Density and character of the area
- 3.1.1 The Appellant’s state that:
“Residential development of this site is firmly established in principle, including extant consent for seven dwellings served from the A3. The Officer concluded that the revised proposal represents a proportionate increase in built form, retains a single-storey character consistent with surrounding development, and causes no identifiable amenity or townscape harm. The refusal identifies no measurable design failure or objective departure from General Policy 2”
Response to issue:
- 3.1.2 Notwithstanding the assessment of the Appeal development set out in the Officer report to Committee, members were concerned that the development of 14 dwellings on a site of this scale would be disproportionate to the character of the wider area and built environment, including the residential estate at Carrick Park.
- 3.1.3 General Policy 2 (b) and (c) sate that development normally be permitted provided that it:
“(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;”
- 3.1.4 Paragraph 3.1.5 of the Residential Design Guide notes that “The character and context of any residential development is created by the locally distinctive patterns and form of development, landscape, culture, and biodiversity. These elements have often built up over a considerable time and tell a story of the site's history and evolution - the creation of a ‘sense of place’. “
- 3.1.5 There was some concern over the cramped nature of the development and plots being smaller than those within the Carrick Park development to the north, resulting in a higher density development, contrary to General Policy 22 (b) and (c).
- 3.1.6 Furthermore, Members were concerned with the intensity of the development, with 14 dwellings giving rise to a much higher volume of vehicle movements and increased pressure on parking provision, which they considered would result in vehicles being displaced onto the estate road.
- 3.1.7 Overall it was determined that notwithstanding the Officer’s assessment, a development of 14 dwellings on the site would no be reflective of the setting and would be harmful to the character of the area.
- 3.2.1 The Appellant’s state that:
“The drainage strategy was supported by calculations and technical drawings. The competent statutory authority confirmed hydraulic capacity of the proposed culvert solution for the 1 in 100 year plus climate change event. In such circumstances, it is not open to conclude that insufficient information was provided. The matter is one of engineering detail, appropriately controlled by condition (if not by separate legislation) and previously accepted on this site.”
Response to issue
- 3.2.2 As described at paragraphs 2.6 and 2.7 of the Officer report, Surface water drainage will be captures on site and drained via tanking below an area of POS to the Lezayre Road frontage. The attenuation tank will discharge at a controlled flow rate into the ditch running along the western boundary, where a new headwall will be constructed. Works are proposed to replace existing culvert piping below the highway which the ditch then discharges into. Foul drainage will discharge into the existing mains system.
- 3.2.3 It was noted by members that the northern boundary of the site contained a ditch and a local resident has questioned the impact of additional surface water flows from the development upon the flood risk posed to dwellings in the area. The Appeal development proposes to install a new 600mm diameter pipe or pipe work with similar capacity in the highway to upgrade the existing culverted pipe.
- 3.2.4 Notwithstanding the submitted drainage strategy, DOI Flood Risk Management noted during the application process that it may be difficult to lay the proposed pipework due to the presence of a water main in the highway. It was determined that based upon the information available, it was not possible to confirm that a suitable means of drainage could be secured for the development and that such posed a risk to flood risk and amenity in the area, which conflicts with General Policy 2 (j), which stipulates that development will only be permitted where is can be provided with all necessary services.
- 3.3 Issue 3 - Highway Safety 3.3.1 The Appellant’s state that:
“The proposed access achieves compliant visibility splays within a 30mph limit. Following revisions, the Highway Authority raised no objection. No technical evidence has been advanceddemonstrateunsafe operation. A finding of highway danger in the absence of professional objection is not substantiated.”
Response to issues:
- 3.3.2 The reason for refusal states that “It is considered that the proposed access onto the A3, which would require vehicles turning right to cross the flow of traffic close to a bend, would be unsafe.” In regard to the reason for refusal, conflict was identified with General Policy 2 (h) and (i).
- 3.3.3 The development would be served by a new access onto the A3, Lezayre Road, to the northeast boundary of the site. The access benefits from visibility splays of 90m in both directions. The A3 in Sulby forms part of the TT course and the access is located approximately 100m north west of the bend in the road adjacent to the junction between Yn Claddagh and the A3.
- 3.3.4 The Highway Services Team did not raise any objection of points of issue with the final scheme, Members were concerned with the potential use of the access by 14 dwellings, which they considered to be a significant increase over and above the permitted scheme for 7 dwellings.
- 3.4.5 Members were also concerned with the safety for vehicles approaching the site access from the north, whereby vehicles would have to turn right and cross the northbound lane. This manoeuvre was considered to represent an unacceptable danger to road users, with Members concerned over the possibility of vehicles travelling north in excess of the 30mph speed limit which given the curvature of the highway would give rise to an unacceptable risk to the safety of road users. On this basis Members found the identified harm to be sufficient to warrant refusal due to conflict with General Policy 2 (h) and (i)
- 4.1 Potential Conditions
4.1 In the event that the Inspector is minded to dismiss the Appeal, it is recommended that the conditions as set out within the original Planning Officer Report to Committee are applied.
Appendix 2 – Planning Committee Minutes (26.01.2026)
