Approval in principle for residential development, with access taken from main road

Refusal Reasons

• ✗While the site is designated as a "Strategic Reserve" site under the Area Plan for the East 2020, which may be suitable for future development, this is on the sole basis that the area will be held 'in reserve' until the need for such development has been established. It has not been demonstrated that there is an immediate need of the site for residential development as the Strategic Reserve Release Mechanism Proposal 1 has not been commenced by the Cabinet Office. Accordingly, given these points, the site is neither within a settlement boundary nor is the area designated for development at this time. Therefore, the proposal is judged to constitute unwarranted development in the countryside, and would be contrary to the Area Plan for the East 2020, Environment Policy 1, General Policy 3, Strategic Policy 2 and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• ✗The application fails to comply with the requirements of the Development Brief outlined within the Area Plan for the East, including, but not limited to; the submission of a travel plan; that there should be no net loss of biodiversity in the development of this site; and that an Environmental Impact Assessment will be needed for any development proposed on this site, and therefore the proposal cannot be adequately considered to be appropriate for this site. It is also considered that the scheme as proposed would result is an ad hoc and premature development which would be against all the aims of the Area Plan for the East 2020 and General Policy 2 (a) of the Strategic plan.
• ✗Whilst the soil classification of the site is not Class 1 and 2 which is prioritised for protection, the development would result in undue loss of Class 3 Agricultural soils which are summarised as land with moderate limitations which restrict the choice of crops and/or demand careful management, and currently support agriculture, as the development is not justified, and would constitute unwarranted residential development in the countryside. The proposal would also fail to safeguard a prime agricultural resource (soil), by facilitating the siting of new buildings in the countryside where need is not established. Therefore, it is, considered that the scheme as proposed would be averse to the requirements of Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan, the principles promoted by Paragraphs 7.13.1 of the Strategic Plan.
• ✗It has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed development of the site would not result in unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or offsite, and that the development would not increase flood vulnerabilities and intensity of flooding in the area, or create significant drainage issues. Therefore, the scheme is considered to fail the requirements of Environment Policy 13 and General Policy 2 (l).
• ✗Insufficient information has been provided to support that the proposed development would not result in significant adverse impacts on the ecology of the site, or on locally important habitats or species, and/or result in net loss of biodiversity, and as such the development is considered to be contrary to Environment Policy 4, Strategic Policy 4 (b & c), and General Policy (d) of the Strategic Plan.
• ✗Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that surface and foul water can be adequately drained from this site as part of the development of the site, without impacting drainage downstream and therefore the proposal is contrary to General Policy 2 and Paragraph 11.8.1 & 11.8.5 of the IOMSP.