Rebuttal Statement on Behalf of the Appellant

·

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE) ORDER 2019

Rebuttal Statement

APRIL 2026

APPEAL REFERENCE: AP 26/0007 APPLICATION REFERENCE: PA 25/90196/B PROPOSAL: FULL APPLICATION FOR 14 BUNGALOWS, INCLUDING VEHICULAR ACCESS ADDRESS: LAND ADJACENT TO GINGER HALL HOTEL, SULBY

Architecture.im Limited, trading as arc.im Company Number 135236C (Isle of Man) Directors: E. P. H. CRAINE, J. F. CRAINE Reg. Office: Mwyllin Squeen, Ballaugh, I.o.M. IM7 5AH

Chartered Architect

Architects Registration Board

Isle of Man Society of Architects +44(0)76 2422 2422 architecture.im [email protected]

• 0.0 CONTENTS

• 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3
• 2.0 Density and Character ................................................................................................ 3
• 3.0 Drainage and Flood Risk ............................................................................................ 4
• 4.0 Highway safety ........................................................................................................... 5
• 5.0 Refuse Collection and Late-Raised Matters ................................................................... 6
• 6.0 Commissioner Representations .................................................................................... 7
• 7.0 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 7

• 0.1 DEFINITIONS

Act ....................................................................... Town and Country Planning Act 1999 Agent ............................................................................. arc.im / Architecture.im Limited AOD .................................................................... Above Ordnance Datum (Douglas02) Appeal ............................... this appeal, put before CabO for determination under the Act Appellant / Applicant .............................................................................. Foxfield Limited Application ................... PA 25/90196/B, put before DEFA for determination under the Act Area Plan ........................................... the Sulby Local Plan 1999 (Planning Circular 1/99) CabO .......................................................................... Cabinet Office (of the IOMGov) Extant Approval ........................... the planning approval under reference PA 22/01112/B FTB .................................... First Time Buyer (Shared Equity Purchase Assistance Scheme) FRMD .......................................................................... Flood Risk Management Division DEFA .......................... Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (of the IOMGov) DoI ............................................................ Department of Infrastructure (of the IOMGov) Development Plan .......................................... the IMSP and the Area Plan in combination DPO ........................... Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 HSDC .......................................... Highway Services Development Control division of DoI IMSP ........................... the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 – Towards a Sustainable Island IOMGov ............................................................................. the Isle of Man Government LAP ................................................................................................. Local Area for Play Local Authority ................................................................. Lezayre Parish Commissioners MfMR ............................................................................. Manual for Manx Roads, 2021 PABC ............................................ the Planning and Building Control Directorate of DEFA Planning Statement ........... accompanying the application bundle (rev. A, dated May 2025) POS ................................................................................................ Public Open Space Proposal ................................................. the development as proposed in the Application Rebuttal Statement .......................................... this document, together with its appendices Site ....................................................................... the land that the Application concerns SOC / Statement of Case .............. the preceding statement to this document (April 2026)

• 1.0 INTRODUCTION

• 1.1 This Rebuttal Statement responds to representations made by DEFA, the Local Authority, and occupiers of Carrick Park. It should be read alongside the Appellant’s SOC.
• 1.2 It is respectfully submitted that the issues raised do not introduce novel or untested planning considerations. Rather, they relate to issues previously examined and accepted in principle under the Extant Approval, which remains capable of lawful implementation irrespective of the Appeal’s outcome.
• 1.3 In this context, concerns advanced should be supported by clear and substantive evidence of materially different or additional planning harm. No such evidence has been identified. Certain submissions, including third-party correspondence relating to refuse collection, are noted. These are, however, not supported by technical analysis demonstrating any departure from established standards or previously accepted conclusions of the relevant authority. They do not therefore alter the evidential position. The Appellant maintains that the Proposal, assessed against the Extant Approval, delivers a measurable improvement in planning terms overall.

• 2.0 DENSITY AND CHARACTER

• 2.1 On density and character, DEFA relies in part on the opinion of certain Committee members that the development would appear out of keeping. That view is not supported by any objective or evidence-based assessment.
• 2.2 The Site benefits from the Extant Approval for residential development of a form and disposition which establishes the acceptability of built development on the Site, including its relationship with Carrick Park and the surrounding context. The officer’s assessment concluded that it represented “a high quality of design and layout without detriment to the visual amenities of the locality.” The acceptability of comparable built form, including its relationship with Carrick Park and local character, is therefore established and carries material weight.
• 2.3 As set out at §8.5.2 of the Appellant’s SOC, when compared to the extant scheme, the Proposal increases separation between built form and adjoining highways through the introduction of Public Open Space. This enables structured landscaping, reducing visual impact whether actually or subjectively perceived.
• 2.4 The Residential Design Guide (2021) “sets out how the Department will interpret and apply the Development Plan policies in relation to residential design” within towns and villages. We refer to §5.2 and §8.2 of the Appellant’s SOC. Sulby is characterised by a varied, mixed edgeof-village context, rather than a uniform or homogeneous enclave. Within this setting, the Proposal (representing a 12% increase in footprint) will introduce traditionally styled, high-quality dwellings. It achieves a modest increase in density without adverse effects on residential amenity. This approach aligns with the Residential Design Guide’s clear position against rigid or mechanistic density standards, and accordingly represents an efficient and appropriate use of land consistent with Strategic Policy 1, Spatial Policy 4, Environment Policy 42 and General Policy 2(a), (b), (c) and (g).

• 2.5 DEFA’s own assessment concludes that the Proposal is “a high quality proposal that will not give rise to any unacceptable impacts upon the character or appearance of the area”. This reflects the findings reached in respect of the Extant Approval. The pertinent consideration is therefore not whether the current scheme differs in numerical terms, but whether it results in materially greater planning harm. No such harm is identified. There is no evidence of unacceptable impact upon residential amenity, no conflict with the spacing standards set out in the Residential Design Guide or the Isle of Man Affordable Housing Standards Design Guide, and no inconsistency with the policy framework of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
• 2.6 Assertions of overdevelopment, without supporting analysis, do not outweigh the fallback position. In the absence of demonstrable harm, the conclusion of character impact is not substantiated. The evidence instead indicates a scheme that improves upon what may already be lawfully implemented.

• 3.0 DRAINAGE AND FLOOD RISK

• 3.1 Drainage has been subject to detailed assessment both at the Extant Approval stage and in respect of the current Proposal. The Flood Risk Management Division has confirmed that the proposed culvert provides sufficient capacity for the 1 in 100 year event, inclusive of climate change allowance, and has raised no objection.
• 3.2 It is accepted that the adequacy of drainage is a material planning consideration. The relevant distinction, however, is between the acceptability of the drainage strategy in principle, and the detailed engineering design required to implement it. The former has already been assessed and accepted through the Extant Approval, with the Flood Risk Management Division confirming that the proposed culvert provides sufficient capacity for the 1 in 100 year event including climate change. The latter is properly secured through the separate statutory approval process under the Flood Risk Management Act 2013, as was expressly recognised when the Extant Approval was determined. We refer to §8.3.1 of the Appellant’s Statement of Case.
• 3.3 Matters governed by separate legislation do not constitute material planning considerations within the meaning of §10(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, as also reflected in guidance published by the Planning and Building Control Directorate, who confirms that “matters controlled under building regulations or other nonplanning legislation e.g. structural stability, drainage details, fire precautions, matters covered by licences, etc.” are not relevant to the determination of a planning application.
• 3.4 The Proposal incorporates a drainage strategy centred on a new culvert beneath Lezayre Road, the principle and capacity of which have already been accepted and remain capable of implementation under the fallback position. The Site’s area (and therefore the overall volume of rainfall falling upon it) remains unchanged. The only variation is a proportionate increase in attenuation reflecting the impermeable areas of the Proposal, confirmed as acceptable by the Flood Risk Management Division. The supporting technical evidence demonstrates that surface water discharge rates will continue to be effectively controlled. In this context, references to an alleged impact arising from additional surface water flows appear to be based on a misapprehension that such effects have not been addressed. The modest uplift in built footprint (12%) has, however, been fully incorporated within the drainage calculations.

• 3.5 The presence of a water main, now cited as a source of uncertainty, was identified and accepted at the time of the Extant Approval. It does not preclude development. The strategy is not dependent on a single arrangement; alternative configurations of pipe or box culvert(s) will achieve equivalent hydraulic performance. This is a matter of detailed design, not principle.
• 3.6 Local concerns, including those from Carrick Park, are noted. These do not, however, constitute hydrological or engineering assessments and are not supported by modelling or analysis capable of displacing the conclusions of the Flood Risk Management Division. Those conclusions are clear and remain unchallenged by any competent authority. In these circumstances, the representation cannot reasonably be afforded weight greater than that of the statutory consultee and does not demonstrate any basis upon which the established position on drainage could be revisited.
• 3.7 Without the development, current concerns regarding ditch performance and maintenance would persist without a clear delivery mechanism. The culvert and associated works provide a coordinated, engineered solution that is only realistically achievable through the development. This represents a clear net improvement.
• 3.8 The scheme also refines the approved position. The downstream end of the ditch and the culvert inlet will be located within accessible Public Open Space, facilitating inspection and maintenance. This is a tangible improvement over the fallback and secures a more robust long-term outcome.

• 4.0 HIGHWAY SAFETY

• 4.1 The refusal relies in part on concerns regarding right-turn movements from the A3. This matter has been subject to detailed and repeated scrutiny. In the earlier appeal proceedings, the Minister concluded the earlier proposal was acceptable in highway terms, having particular regard to the professional advice of Highway Services.
• 4.2 That position was reaffirmed at the Extant Approval stage. Highway Services reviewed the scheme, including a Road Safety Audit response, and raised no objection, confirming that no significant safety or network issues would arise.
• 4.3 The current Proposal retains the same access position and geometry as that already approved. Drawing 7241-000.06 demonstrates that vehicles turning right into the development will benefit from equivalent stopping sight distances past the Ginger Hall Hotel as those exiting the Site, with visibility splays of at least 90 metres in both directions. This substantially exceeds the stopping sight distance set out in §5.2.18 (Table 5.6) of the Manual for Manx Roads (reflecting Manual for Streets) which requires 43 metres at 30mph (rising to 59 metres at 37mph).
• 4.4 Visibility therefore comfortably exceeds the standard necessary for safe vehicle response, including to vehicles travelling in considerable excess of the speed limit. Highway Services has confirmed that visibility remains acceptable and that the highway operates within capacity. The Proposal accords with Strategic Policy 1 and General Policy 2(h) and (i).

• 4.5 No new technical evidence has been presented to justify departing from these established conclusions. The concerns expressed do not arise from any updated assessment or identified deficiency in the scheme, but instead reflect a perception of risk not supported by the available evidence.
• 4.6 In the presence of an extant permission confirming the acceptability of the access, and in the absence of objection from the competent authority, there is no substantiated basis on which a conclusion of highway danger can be maintained.

• 5.0 REFUSE COLLECTION AND LATE-RAISED MATTERS

• 5.1 Concerns regarding refuse vehicle manoeuvrability have been advanced most prominently at the appeal stage and did not form a determinative issue at the point of decision. The issue therefore arises against an established position in which the scheme has been assessed against the relevant highway standards.
• 5.2 The matter relates to potential variability in on-street parking and its effect on operational tolerance. It does not identify any failure to comply with adopted design guidance or highway standards.
• 5.3 The Proposal was reviewed in detail by Highway Services. Initial comments led to refinements to the parking strategy, addressing the risk of underused garages and ambiguity in lay-by parking. The revised layout was accepted, with a reduced likelihood of on-street parking.
• 5.4 In addition to these design refinements, the scheme was tested using accepted swept path analysis to assess refuse vehicle movements. This exercise considered a robust scenario in which each dwelling on the principal access route accommodates a visiting vehicle concurrent with refuse collection. Even under these deliberately onerous assumptions, the analysis demonstrates that a refuse vehicle can safely and effectively navigate the access road. No objection has been raised by the highway authority, which remains the appropriate technical arbiter of such matters.
• 5.5 The suggestion that refuse collection may, in certain circumstances, be subject to minor inconvenience does not amount to a material planning harm. Such conditions are inherent in residential environments and are routinely managed within the parameters set by the Manual for Manx Roads, with which the Proposal is fully compliant.
• 5.6 The issue’s late introduction does not alter the underlying position. The development meets the relevant standards and has been accepted by the competent authority. In the absence of evidence demonstrating a material deficiency, there is no basis upon which this matter can reasonably weigh against the Proposal.

• 5.7 The Proposal does not rely on any relaxation of parking standards. Each dwelling provides policy-compliant off-street parking for two vehicles, in accordance with Transport Policy 7 and General Policy 2(h). Having regard to the modest scale and nature of the house types, there is no evidential basis to suggest that multiple dwellings would consistently generate demand for three or more vehicles such that on-street parking would materially constrain refuse access. The scheme has been designed in full accordance with adopted policy and accepted standards, reinforcing the conclusion that no material planning concern arises.

• 6.0 COMMISSIONER REPRESENTATIONS

• 6.1 The Parish Commissioners have reiterated concerns regarding flooding, maintenance, parking and development intensity. These matters largely reflect concerns previously raised and considered in detail during the assessment of the Extant Approval.
• 6.2 In that context, the relevant authorities concluded that the Proposal was acceptable. The principle of development, including its associated impacts, is established. No evidence has been presented to indicate that the current Proposal would give rise to materially different or greater effects than the Extant Approval.
• 6.3 The present representations do not engage with the conclusions reached by the statutory consultees, nor do they identify any materially different impact arising from the Proposal when compared with the implementable fallback. In the absence of such evidence, they attract limited weight.

• 7.0 CONCLUSION

• 7.1 The Appeal turns, in substance, on whether any of the matters raised in objection demonstrate any material worsening of the planning position when compared to the Extant Approval. For the reasons set out in this Rebuttal Statement, they do not. Across each topic (character, density, drainage, highways, and operational matters) the evidence consistently confirms that the Proposal either replicates or improves upon a form of development which is already accepted in principle and remains capable of implementation.
• 7.2 On character and density, no objective assessment has been advanced to displace the established conclusion that the Site sits within a varied edge-of-settlement context capable of accommodating development of this nature. The Proposal introduces only a modest uplift in footprint, retains a high standard of design, and, through the integration of Public Open Space, achieves a more considered and less visually assertive relationship with its surroundings than the fallback position.
• 7.3 On drainage and flood risk, the position is unequivocal. The relevant statutory consultee has confirmed that the proposed strategy is acceptable in principle, with capacity demonstrated for the 1 in 100 year event including climate change. The Proposal goes further than the Extant Approval by facilitating access, management and long-term stewardship of drainage infrastructure through the provision of accessible Public Open Space. This is a clear and tangible improvement.

• 7.4 On highways, the competent authority maintains no objection, both historically and in relation to the current Proposal. Visibility, access geometry and network performance have been tested and found acceptable. No technical evidence has been introduced to justify a departure from those conclusions.
• 7.5 Late-raised matters, including refuse collection, do not identify any failure to comply with adopted standards. They reflect, at most, routine operational variability inherent in residential environments and do not amount to material planning harm.
• 7.6 The representations of the Parish Commissioners and local residents are properly acknowledged and have been given careful consideration. However, they do not engage with the technical evidence or the fallback position in a manner that would justify departing from the conclusions reached by the relevant authorities. In planning terms, they cannot reasonably outweigh the established evidential position.
• 7.7 Set against this, the benefits of the Proposal are substantial and carry significant weight. These include:—

• i the efficient use of a sustainably located, allocated site within the settlement boundary;
• ii the delivery of 14 dwellings, including smaller units aligned with identified housing need;
• iii policy-compliant affordable housing provision;
• iv the provision of 1,173m² of well-located and functional Public Open Space, including a Local Area of Play; and
• v the delivery of coordinated drainage infrastructure and landscape enhancements which improve upon the extant position.

• 7.8 These are not marginal gains. They represent a coherent and policy-aligned package of social, environmental and infrastructure benefits, expressly recognised by the Planning Officer, whose recommendation for approval reflected a full and balanced assessment of the Development Plan and all material considerations.
• 7.9 Drawing these matters together, the planning balance is clear. The Proposal accords with the Development Plan when read as a whole. It gives effect to strategic objectives relating to sustainable development, housing delivery and place-making, and it does so without giving rise to any substantiated or material harm. When properly assessed against the fallback position, it represents a clear net improvement in planning terms.
• 7.10 In these circumstances, and having regard to the assessments and consistent conclusions of the relevant authorities, it is respectfully submitted that the Appeal should be allowed and planning permission granted, subject to the conditions and planning obligations previously identified.