Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90196/B
Page 1 of 16
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90196/B Applicant : Mr Frank Sweeney Proposal : Construction of 14 bungalows including vehicular access and associated infrastructure Site Address : Land Adjacent To Ginger Hall Hotel Ballamanagh Road Sulby Isle Of Man
Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 04.02.2026
Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the materials as indicated on the approved drawings, referenced as follows:
7241-001-01C PLOTS 1 AND 2 PLANS AND ELEVATIONS 7241-003-01C PLOTS 3 AND 4 PLANS AND ELEVATIONS 7241-005-01C PLOTS 5 AND 6 PLANS AND ELEVATIONS 7241-007-01A PLOT 7 PLANS AND ELEVATIONS 7241-008-01B PLOT 8 PLANS AND ELEVATIONS 7241-009-01B PLOT 9 PLANS AND ELEVATIONS 7241-010-01C PLOTS 10 TO 14 PLANS AND ELEVATIONS
Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
C 3. No development shall take place until full details of soft and hard landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Details of the hard landscaping works shall include footpaths and hard surfacing materials and boundary treatments including fencing or walling. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority, any parts of the
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90196/B
Page 2 of 16
approved hard and soft landscaping works or boundary treatments within or enclosing the curtilage of an individual dwelling shall be completed prior to the occupation of that dwelling, and the full landscaping works for the whole site shall be completed in accordance with the approved details in the first planting and seeding season following completion of the development. 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.
Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development and suitable mitigation for the impact upon trees and wildlife on the site.
C 4. Prior to the commencement of any development or construction work there shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority details of working procedures and protective measures for all existing trees to be retained on the site and adjacent to its boundaries within adjoining property, including construction details for the estate road turning head, foundations to Plots 08 and 14 and footpath connection through the LAP, to prevent damage to tree roots. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details or any variation as may subsequently be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the areas to be landscaped and existing trees and planting.
C 5. No works, including site clearance work, shall commence on the site until an updated Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report and an Ecological Mitigation Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Thereafter, the recommendations of the Ecological Mitigation Plan shall be completed on the site prior to the occupation of the 14th dwelling hereby approved.
Reason: To ensure a favourable conservation status for wildlife in the area.
C 6. No permanent outdoor lighting shall be installed until a sensitive low level lighting plan, following best practise as detailed in the Bat Conservation Trust and Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidance Note 8/12 on Bats and Artificial Lighting (2023), has been submitted in writing to the Department for approval. All works must then be undertaken in full accordance with this plan.
Reason: In the interests of biodiversity.
C 7. No development shall commence until full design and construction details of the system of surface water drainage to serve the development, including the means of regulating outflows from the site to existing levels and prevention of sediment entering the drainage system, and the replacement culvert in the highway, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests ensuring adequate surface water drainage.
C 8. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted, the access to Lezayre Road must be completed in accordance approved plan Ref 7241-000-06A, including visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 90 metres in both directions. The visibility splays shall thereafter be kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1.05m height above adjoining carriageway level.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90196/B
Page 3 of 16
C 9. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted, the approved the garage and/or car parking areas for that dwelling shall be provided and remain free from obstruction thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are provided.
C 10. The estate road, including footways, shall be constructed so as to ensure that, before it is completed, each dwelling has been provided with a properly consolidated and surfaced footpath and carriageway to at least base course level between the dwelling or unit and the existing highway at Glenfaba Road.
Reason: To ensure that the development is served by an adequate means of access
C 11. No dwellinghouse hereby permitted shall be occupied until the overhead line that crosses the site between pole 07072 on the A3 and pole 07069 on Ballamanagh Road, has been removed and placed underground through the development site.
Reason: In the interest of public safety and the amenity of the area.
C 12. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2025 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling, hereby approved shall be carried out without the prior written approval of the Department.
Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
C 13. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2025 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no free standing buildings shall be erected or container for domestic heating purposes for storage of oil of liquid petroleum gas, within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, without the prior written approval of the Department.
Reason: To prevent overdevelopment of the site and to control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
__
Rights to Appeal - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
DOI Highway Services No objection and conditions applied
DOI Flood Risk Management No objection and conditions applied
Manx Utility Authority No objection and condition applied
It is recommended that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal on the basis that they have submitted a relevant objection:
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90196/B
Page 4 of 16
Lezayre Parish Commissioners Objection
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given the Right to Appeal as they have submitted an objection that meets the specified criteria:
26 Carrick Park, Sulby, IM7 2EY 28 Carrick Park, Sulby, IM7 2EY 40 Carrick Park, Sulby, IM7 2EY 41 Carrick Park, Sulby, IM7 2EY The Shop, Sulby, IM7 2EZ
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS BEFORE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A LEGAL AGREEMENT AND COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
THE SITE 1.1 The application relates to land adjacent to the Ginger Hall Hotel, Ballamanagh Road, Sulby. The site is located to the eastern edge of the village of Sulby. The site is currently only accessed from River Meadowland, a rural lane passing along the south side of the village. The entrance to the site is from the north side of the lane, not far from the junction with Ginger Hall corner. 1.2 The site is bounded on its north side by the rear of a row of detached bungalows on Carrick Park. On the east side, the site extends to the west side of the A3 main road and then tapers inwards where it adjoins the Ginger Hall Hotel and its car park. To the south is River Meadowland Lane. On the west side, the site adjoins the rear of two detached houses on a small residential cul- de-sac to the west. 1.3 The site has an area of approximately 0.55 hectares (ha) and is broadly square shaped although it tapers inwards on its south east side. The site is undeveloped land and is mostly overgrown. There are a number of trees and bushes along the west boundary. The site falls in a north westerly direction towards the rear of the houses on Carrick Park. There is a low fence on the north side and the site is relatively open to the rear of the properties on Carrick Park. 1.4 There is a drainage ditch on the inside of this north western perimeter of the site which then runs underneath the A3 main road to the east. On the east side, next to the Ginger Hall Hotel, there is a high fence. On the south side, next to River Meadowland Lane, is a roadside lane with a field gate where the access to the development will be located.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks planning permission for the erection of 14no. 2 bedroom dwellinghouses with access, public open space, play area, drainage and landscaping. 2.2 The development comprises a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced properties, with ten being bungalows and 4 plots have rooms within the roof space (Plots 1, 5, 6 and 7). The maximum height to ridge of the proposed dwellings will be 6.5m. The appearance of the dwellings will vary across various plots to offer visual interest, with finished materials comprising white painted render and horizontal cladding to walls, dark (grey) uPVC windows, rainwater goods and fascias. The roofs will be of fibre cement roof tiles with flush fitting PV panels as indicated. 2.3 Access will be derived off Lezayre Road (A3) to the northwest boundary of the application site. The site access affords visibility splays in both directions across the site frontage of 90m, with pedestrian access also provided from the proposed POS and local area play (LAP) to River Meadowland to the southeast boundary. All dwellings will benefit from 2 parking spaces, with Plots 6 and 7 having single garages and the remainder of parking is on plot. Sheds are provided for each property, serving as cycle storage. 2.4 The application proposes a total of 1173 m2 of POS, which includes a LAP. The proposed LAP has an area of approximately 200sq.m and all of the 14no. proposed dwellings are within 100m
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90196/B
Page 5 of 16
of the LAP. The LAP will provide a minimum of double cradle swings, play tower, climbing frame and picnic benches. 2.5 The application includes detailed soft landscaping, including 177m2 of wildflower meadow, mixed species hedgerows and trees. Gardens to the properties will generally be enclosed by timber board fencing and hedgerows. 2.6 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. 2.7 Foul drainage will connect into the mains system, the route of which runs east-west through the middle of the application site.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The land is zoned under the Sulby Local Plan Order 1998 as being 'Predominately Residential Use & Woodland'. The site is not within a Conservation Area, nor is it within an area zoned as High Landscape Value or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. 3.2 Due to the site's location, land use designation and the type of development proposed, the following Planning Policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Sulby Local Plan 1998 are relevant when determining the application:
Strategic Policy 1 Development to make the best use of resources 2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages 3 To respect the character of our towns and villages 5 Design and visual impact Spatial Policy 4 Development in Remaining Villages General Policy 2 General Development Considerations Environment Policy 10 Development and flood risk 42 Designed to respect the character and identity of the locality Housing Policy 1 Housing need Transport Policy 4 Highway safety 7 Parking
3.3 Sulby Local Plan (NO.2) Order 1998 - Development Brief states: "3.15. It is recommended that the development of this area shall be undertaken in accordance with the following brief.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The following applications are most pertinent to the proposed development: PA14/01198/B - Erection of five dwellings - approved 03/07/2015.
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90196/B
Page 6 of 16
PA17/00462/B- Erection of seven dwellings - approved 13/02/2017. AP18/0009 - Appeal against the approval of PA 17/00462/B - appeal dismissed 19/07/2018. PA22/01112/B - Amended scheme for seven dwellings (PA17/00462/B) - approved 09/05/2024.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 The following Statutory Consultees have been consulted and their responses can be summarised as follows:
Lezayre Commissioners -Objection: The Commissioners have paid particular attention here to the access to properties by the refuse wagons. They are of the opinion that the roads are too narrow on the proposed estate to enable the refuse wagons to operate easily, especially when vehicles are parked on the road. They are also concerned about the tightness of the turning circle for the wagons.
The Commissioners reiterate that they still consider this planning application to be over-intensive development of the site and continue to object to it unanimously.
DOI Highway Services - First consultation response - Additional information required and summarised as follows: Overall highway safety and access remain broadly acceptable - The junction layout, visibility splays (2.4 m × 90 m), priority junction onto the A3, and ownership/highway envelope are consistent with previously approved schemes and meet highways requirements.
Increase in dwelling numbers (7 to 14) is material and heightens risks - This substantial uplift materially increases trip generation, conflicting movements, and potential for safety/operational problems (parking, turning, bus interactions), warranting design changes even where prior approvals existed.
Parking provision meets minimum standards but is vulnerable to underuse and overflow - All dwellings get 2 spaces per Strategic Plan requirements (Isle of Man), but garages are prone to conversion to storage (especially in less urban settings), laybys risk misuse as communal/visitor parking, and on-street overflow is inevitable (visitors, extra cars); design must actively minimise safety-impacting on-street parking.
Bus stop location creates an unacceptable safety conflict with the increased scale - A stationary bus will obstruct the visibility splay when exiting the junction, drivers may emerge blind or be deterred; temptation to exit unsafely rises with more residents/trips relocation (at least to north- western edge of ownership) is strongly requested to allow pull-in space behind a bus. Pedestrian connectivity and accessibility at the site entrance need improvement - Tapered footways/level access should connect directly to the shared-use street rather than forcing pedestrians via tactile crossing near turning vehicles or across private gardens.
Turning/headroom and service vehicle access risk obstruction - Underuse of garage/drive spaces (especially at the three end dwellings P.05-P.07 and near P.01) could block the turning head or force large vehicles (refuse/delivery) to reverse long distances or onto the highway - needs mitigation.
Other detailed design elements are mostly acceptable or fixable - Upgraded bus stop with Kassel kerbs/hardstanding is welcomed; pedestrian access to Ny Claddagh is adequate (2 m footway, chicane barriers, low hedging max. 0.6 m); bicycle sheds meet MfMR dimensions but preferably should be within curtilages; refuse reversing manoeuvre needs waste team confirmation.
If issues cannot be resolved through redesign, a reduction in dwelling numbers may be necessary - This is presented as a last-resort option to control parking/movement/turning risks.
==== PAGE 7 ====
25/90196/B
Page 7 of 16
In order to complete the assessment of the application, Highways Development Control request the following information / revisions to be provided:
Secondary response - No objection subject to conditions, which can be summarised as follows: Previous highway concerns have been satisfactorily addressed through design revisions and dialogue - All major issues flagged in the earlier response (21/03/2025) have now been resolved via alterations made by the applicant/agent.
Bus stop relocation improves (but does not eliminate) the visibility conflict - Moved to the furthest western extent of the ownership → increases available stopping sight distance and provides overtaking space for left-turning vehicles from the junction (mimicking A3 overtaking behaviour), making the arrangement safer and more acceptable despite a stationary bus still partially obstructing visibility.
Pedestrian access and junction transitions have been improved - Tapered/level footway ends added at the shared-use street junction → provides direct, level access for pedestrians entering/exiting without forcing them onto the tactile crossing near turning vehicles or across private land. Parking layout revisions reduce (but do not eliminate) on-street overflow risk - Key changes:
Plots 1 and 5 converted from garage to additional external driveway space (Plot 1 closer to junction but judged lower overall on-street risk; Plot 5 spaces relocated opposite dwelling, moving potential overflow away from turning head).
Plots 6 and 7 retain garage provision (no change) but updated tracking demonstrates forward-gear entry/exit remains possible even with on-street parking in turning head or along street → no increased safety risk.
Overall highway safety, access, and network efficiency are now acceptable - With the revisions, the proposal raises no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues.
Ecosystem Policy Team- No objection subject to conditions: Detailed Comments Given that the Manx Wildlife Trust have been approached to update their Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report (PEAR), but do not have availability at present, we would be content in this instance to request that an updated report and accompanying mitigation plan is secured via a condition on approval.
We are content with the proposal to replace Prunus lusitanica with Corylus avellana, though we suggest that a condition is secured on approval for a soft landscaping plan to be provided, so that landscaping plans can take into account any potential recommendations made in an updated PEAR.
Despite the fall-back position regarding the proximity of Plot 14 to the retained trees, it would still be our recommendation that Plot 14 is removed from the plans.
Potential conditions Should this application be approved, we recommend that conditions are secured for: No works to commence unless an updated Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report and an Ecological Mitigation Plan has been submitted to Planning and approved in writing. No works to commence unless a soft landscaping plan has been submitted to Planning and approved in writing.
==== PAGE 8 ====
25/90196/B
Page 8 of 16
No external lighting to be installed unless a sensitive lighting plan, following best practise as detailed in the Bat Conservation Trust and Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidance Note 8/23 on Bats and Artificial Lighting (2023), has been submitted to Planning and approved in writing.
DOI Flood Risk Management: No objection: Upon review of the drawings and calculations we are satisfied the 600mm dia culvert is sufficient for the 1 in 100 plus climate change event. The developer must be aware they may find it difficult to lay the 600mm dia pipe or two 450mm dia pipes if laid at the same level as the existing 3 x 225mm dia pipes due to the 6" cast iron water main running in the road. It may worth liaising with Manx Utilities to see if the water main can be relocated. Due to the proposed culvert being shallow we would recommend concrete protection above it.
The details for the inlet and outlet must be provide in the Flood Risk Management Act 2013 Section 20 application for the works. All design must be carried out to CIRIA guide C786 Culvert Screen and Outfall Manual.
If the 600mm dia pipe cannot be constructed, then a pipe or culvert that is capable of conveying the same flow as the 600mm pipe must be installed. This must be discussed and agreed prior to commencement of the site.
Arboricultural Officer - Objection: Thank you for consulting with us on this current application. We have now had an opportunity to undertake a cursory desktop review and have the following comments. We are aware of previous permissions on this site but this applications has been looked at on its own merits and the previous impacts of permitted development not undertaken largely ignored.
There are registered trees impacted and some other trees of note. It is proposed to lose several Cat B trees, some parts of groups and some individual and this in itself is contrary to our policies in such matters but aligned with the removal of more than 50% of the trees and no meaningful mitigation this is clearly an issue for us.
The impact on retained trees we also consider to be unsustainable and the TPP does nothing to alter this as the root loss on certain species is certain to lead to the death of the trees and at least one of these is registered. It would appear the Arboriculturalist was not listened to. The TPP does not contain access details, areas for delivery, storage, fuelling etc. Fence lines are within 2m of structures, and no shadow assessment provided. An AMS is also required to support the TPP.
On landscape grounds we note there is very little in the way of usable amenity space. There are a number of trees indicated to be planted but no details of this and 50% appear to be from one horticultural family, which is not diverse enough.
Additionally there are no details of the drainage system and how the additional storm water load will be dealt with on site following the conversion of a permeable site to an impermeable site. This on such a densely developed site will be a very important constraint for both tree retention and planting.
Therefore on the grounds of sustainability we cannot support this proposal in its current form and register our objection to this on the grounds of tree loss. If this matter were to proceed we would expect to see a redesigned site to remove the impact of tree loss, detailed service info, and the points above addressed.
Manx Utilities Authority: No objection: Manx Utilities notes that the number of properties on this development has increased from the previous application. There is an existing live overhead line which crosses the site including wood poles and stay wires which are located within the site boundary. The increased size of development
==== PAGE 9 ====
25/90196/B
Page 9 of 16
now encroaches on this overhead line and associated equipment; specifically the corner of plot 14 and children's play area. From a health and safety perspective this is far from ideal.
Manx Utilities request that a condition is placed upon the development that the overhead line is removed and placed underground through the development site between pole 07072 on the main road and pole 07069 on Ballamanagh Road. This work is to be undertaken at the developers cost.
6.2 4 representations have been received from members of the public to the original submission, which can be summarised as follows: The planning application was granted on the previous application for 8 bungalows (and nothing was progressed with construction etc); this time a new application is being sought to increase the 8 bungalows to 14 bungalows and am unsure if the field is large enough to support such a large number now. The increase in dwellings is excessive. The sewage system is struggling to keep pace and requires investment There is no clear pathway for the storm water system to function until the 600mm pipe is installed. Use of the ditch cannot be an option. The ditch has been maintained by adjoining owners for 27 years. The ditch can become blacked and takes water from The Grange Farm Hill, the mountain and Ballamanaugh Estate. Who will be responsible for maintaining the ditch? Carrick Park already has drainage issues. Even allowing for the proposed attenuation tank, surely introducing additional storm water discharge will have a negative impact in any future flood event? Relying on the use of three soakaways to reduce surface water run-off will only work until they silt up. Who will maintain/replace them? If the ground permeability is acceptable for soak aways, is there scope to enhance onsite water retention by installing permeable block paving to the parking bays rather than Bitmac? Will introducing the foul water from this development into the head of the Carrick Park system have a negative impact on its existing poor drainage? There are five vehicular access roads within a few metres of one another: Carrick Park, Mill lane, Ginger Hall car park, River meadow land and Narrowdale. Introducing a sixth will not enhance road safety. The service road looks narrow, making reversing out of individual driveways difficult and there's no footpath provision. With no serious turning head at the end near plots 8 and 14, refuse lorries will need to reverse for some distance creating a safety hazard. Play area - What safety surface, if any, is proposed beneath the play equipment?
6.3 3 representations have been received from members of the public to the amended/updated plans and reports, which can be summarised as follows: Amended plans show chalet type dwellings not in keeping with the area. Responsibility for ditch maintenance remains unclear. Home in Carrick Park has experienced two 1 in 50 year flood events in the past two years and so any development of the site should be refused. House numbers should be as few as possible and no more than 7 as a maximum to prevent flood risk increasing. The development will increase flood risk to Carrick Park. Flood prevention measures should be put in place to prevent flooding of Ginger Hall and Carrick Park. Provision of the 600mm dia pipe for surface water must be installed if permission is granted.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The key considerations in the determination of the application are: o Principle of development o Design and impact upon the character and appearance of the area o Transport and highway safety o Flood risk
==== PAGE 10 ====
25/90196/B Page 10 of 16
o Residential amenity o Ecology and Trees o Affordable Housing o Public Open Space
PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT 7.2 The application site is located within the plan boundary for Sulby and it has been established through the historical grant of planning consents that residential development of the site would be a sustainable form of development, broadly compliant with housing delivery and land zoning policies within the Development Plan. 7.3 It is recognised that within the 1998 Sulby Local Plan, the land is designated as predominantly residential for no more than 2 dwellings. A development of 14 dwellings as proposed therefore conflicts with the provisions of the Local Plan. However, material to the consideration of this application is the previous grants of planning permission on the site, which since 2017, has included two applications that were each permitted for the development of seven dwellings and associated garaging and access of the A3 in the same position as this proposal. 7.4 The Strategic Plan indicates at Strategic Policy 1 that development should make the best use of resources by using unused and under-used land and buildings. Accordingly, while the proposed development constitutes a significant increase on what has previously been approved and what the Sulby Local Plan permits, the increase in dwellings is not an automatic reason to refuse the application. 7.5 Notwithstanding the fact that the 1998 Local Plan identifies the site for two dwellings only, with the land identified as being suitable for housing and it having been acknowledged on several occasions in the past that the site is within an accessible and sustainable location for new housing, the principle of development is considered to be acceptable. The proposed development of fourteen dwellings would make and efficient use of the land and is therefore assessed as according with the housing delivery aims of Strategic Polices 1 and 2 and Housing Policy 4. 7.6 In pure land use planning terms, there is no differentiation between a residential development of 7 dwellings or 14, as the principle of the land use remains the same. The key consideration is the impact of the more intense development scheme upon the area. Those material considerations and policy assessments are made in the subsequent sections of the report.
DESIGN AND IMPACT UPON THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE AREA 7.7 The application site is an undeveloped parcel of land that has been left to nature and does not appear to have been regularly maintained. It is bounded by tree planting and domestic fencing in sections, with residential development to the west/northwest and Ginger Hall to the northeast corner of the site. The site is therefore partially framed by built form as seen from public vantage points. 7.8 The proposed development has doubled the number of dwellings on the site, but physical built form is not significantly greater than the previous approval for 7 dwellings. That development, of fewer but larger bungalows, had a GIA of approximately 1009sqm and the development of 14 smaller bungalows has a GIA of 1164sqm, an increase of some 155sqm, or 15%. 7.9 The layout of the estate creates active street frontages with dwellings fronting on to the main highway. The layout is relatively uniform and is largely reflective of the estate to the northwest at Carrick Park. Each dwelling is served by suitable parking provision and private amenity space, with plots and gardens being generally reflective of the pattern of development in the immediate area. The site layout is legible and offers free movement through the site, with pedestrian access onto the highway also provided around the play area. 7.10 The proposed house types are largely of a traditional style, with front elevations incorporating recessed elements to further break up their already modest forms. The use of render and horizontal cladding creates an attractive finished appearance across the site that will work well with the dark coloured window frames, rainwater goods, and roof finishes. The design approach is considered to be of a high standard and reflective of other modern housing in the area and being developed across the Island. 7.11 The overall design scheme is considered to be well considered and although the number of dwellings has increased, the overall extent of built form is only marginally greater than what has
==== PAGE 11 ====
25/90196/B Page 11 of 16
been approved previously. A denser development makes a more effective use of land and can be achieved without compromising living conditions of design quality. On this basis, the development is considered to comply with Strategic Policy 1, Spatial Policy 4, General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan.
TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAY SAFETY 7.12 The application site will be served by a new vehicular access off the A3, Lezayre Road, with visibility splays extending to a minimum of 90m in both directions along the road frontage. Although forming part of the main TT course, the site is located within a 30mph zone and vehicle speeds are generally tempered by the two beds within the road to the north and east of the site. The section of highway along which the access is proposed, is well aligned with good forward visibility. 7.13 The positioning of the access to the application site, directly onto the A3, has been a contentious issue historically with one Planning Inspector finding that such an arrangement would cause sufficient harm to highway safety as to refuse the planning application. Notwithstanding, the recommended decision was not upheld by the Minister and permission was subsequently granted for 7 dwellings. 7.14 The application provides a suitable location for the relocated bus stop on the A3 and the access design provides for tactile crossing. Parking provision was amended during the process to ensure that the likelihood of vehicle sparking along the new road is minimised, acknowledging that garages are rarely used for vehicle parking today. The updated vehicle tracking plans show that even with the presence of on-street parking within the turning head and along the street, the required movements to enter and exit in a forward gear are achievable and do not cause any increased road safety risk. 7.15 The proposals include bicycle storage within new sheds to each property which is suitable, and waste storage can be provided to private garden areas. 7.16 It is acknowledged that the proposed development seeks to double the previously permitted number of dwellings on the site and such will represent a significant intensification in vehicle movements to and from the site. Notwithstanding, the site is accessed of a primary A road which has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional movements without causing direct harm to highway safety. The access design meets the necessary safety standards and previously identified concerns regarding the bus stop and its impact upon vehicles entering/existing the site have now been addressed. 7.17 Although there have been objections on the grounds of highway safety, it is pertinent to note that Highway Services do not object to the proposed development and it is therefore concluded that the impact of the development upon highway safety is acceptable and the development therefore complies with General Policy 2 and Transport Policies 4 and 7 of the Strategic Plan.
FLOOD RISK 7.18 The application site is largely located on land not at risk of flooding, though a very small section is within an area of medium risk. Environment Policy 13 states that "development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted." There have been objections on the basis of flood risk and concerns over the impact of the development upon the existing drainage networks and private properties. 7.19 The application has assessed the drainage options and due to ground conditions, infiltration is not feasible. As such, it is proposed to capture and attenuate surface water from the site in below ground tanks, which will then discharge water into the adjoining ditch before it enters an upgraded culvert beneath the A3, in order for it to have sufficient capacity to deal with the increased flows. 7.20 The principle of attenuating surface water on the site was previously approved under the 2017 application and the development now seeks to following the same drainage principles. Concern has been raised by objectors with the laying of the new culvert, but as noted by Flood Management, the deliverability of this needs to be demonstrated and thus a condition should be applied requiring the submission of the final drainage design scheme, prior to any works commencing. 7.21 Regarding foul drainage, it is proposed to connect the development into mains foul via a new connection. There has been no objection from consultees and capacity is not known to be an issue, despite this being raised by one objector.
==== PAGE 12 ====
25/90196/B Page 12 of 16
7.22 As noted above, the site is partly located in the flood zone. Finished floor levels will be raised for the dwellings, being over 1.0m above existing ground levels. These levels are very similar to the last permission granted on the site and the residential development of the land at risk of flooding was considered to be acceptable on the basis that accommodation would be above the flood level. 7.23 No previous application on the site has been refused on drainage grounds and the previous Inspector noted that surface water drainage could be resolved by a condition. This situation remains the same now and whilst there will be a need for a larger attenuation tank to serve the higher number of dwellings, discharge rates into the ditch will remain the same as previously approved. As such, subject to conditions, the development will not give rise to any unacceptable impacts upon flood risk or drainage infrastructure and the proposal therefore complies with General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 10.
RESIDENTIAL AMENITY 7.24 Objection has been received from local residents concerned, in part, with the impact of the development upon amenity, however, the development proposes the erection of buildings that are single storey in scale, though some roof space accommodation is proposed in limited number of the dwellings. 7.25 The relationship between individual dwellings on the site and neighbouring properties has been considered and in general, separation distances are such that there will be no material loss of light to gardens or habitable rooms and similarly, due to the single storey nature of the dwellings, no windows are proposed that would cause any overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring to existing properties. 7.26 The site is relatively well screened from neighbouring houses and the overall relationship between the proposed development and existing properties is considered to be acceptable. The amenity of future occupants will be protected by the undergrounding of the overhead electricity line as requested by MUA, and a condition is recommended in this regard. The development will not give rise to any unacceptable loss of light, privacy outlook or other forms of potential nuisance. The development therefore complies with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.
ECOLOGY 7.27 The application is not supported by an up-to-date ecological appraisal of the site, but it is noted that the Ecosystem Policy Officer is content for an updated PEA to be secured by way of a condition. This seems to be a reasonable approach given that the extant planning consent identified there to be no discernible impact of developing the site upon protected species, though inspections of trees for bats prior to felling would be necessary. 7.28 The proposed site layout includes areas of landscaped POS with wildflower planting and a fair degree of hedgerow and other planting. Bat and bird box provision can be secured by condition and any impact upon trees. 7.29 The site has been shown to have limited ecological value and through approval of suitable mitigation measures as recommended by the Ecosystem Policy Team, the impacts upon ecology will be acceptable.
TREES 7.30 The application is supported by an Arboricultural Impact Assessment which has assessed the quality of trees within the application site and the likely impacts of the proposed development upon trees. In total, the removal of one category-B tree, one category-C tree, two category-C groups, and the partial removal of one category-B group and one category-C group is required to facilitate the proposal. The report recommends that irrespective of the proposed development, category U trees should be removed anyway due to their poor health. 7.31 Trees within the Southern part of the survey area are registered under the Tree Preservation Act 1993. The majority of the trees on the site are category C and U, with only 3 trees being category B. The trees are understood to be registered primarily due to their group amenity value. 7.32 It is recognised that the Arboricultural Officer has objected to the proposed development due to the impact of the development upon trees, particularly those that are Registered. They have stated that the "TPP does not contain access details, areas for delivery, storage, fuelling etc. Fence lines are within 2m of structures, and no shadow assessment provided. An AMS is also required to
==== PAGE 13 ====
25/90196/B Page 13 of 16
support the TPP." All of these matters can be dealt with through planning conditions. The concern raised over the drainage system is not accurate as a detailed drainage strategy and design scheme has been submitted, which indicated that no works will be taken in proximity to RPAs of retained trees. 7.33 Whilst the Arboricultural Officer has not taken into consideration the impact of the extant planning permission, it is important to do so, having regard to any potential fall back position. The key impact of the development upon trees is to the southern side of the application site, around Plots 8 and 14. It is acknowledged that the impact of the development will harm the root system and subsequent health of the retained category B Beech tree adjacent to Plot 14 and the removal of a category B Elm, adjacent to Plot 8. 7.34 Removal of the category-B elm (1829), two category-C groups (G3 & G5), and partial removal of the category-C group (G1) was approved under planning consent number 22/01112/B. 7.35 These trees have similarly been identified under the extant permission for removal and the impact of the extant permission compared to this is demonstrated on the submitted site layout plan that overlays the extant layout with this latest scheme. This plan indicates that Plot 14 will be further from tree 6689 than what was permitted for Plot 2 of the extant permission. Similarly, the now proposed Plot 8 is no neared to the retained trees than the previously approved Plot 7. 7.36 The AIA report notes that the impacts of this development will be different to the extant consent, but it remains the case that the impact upon trees, both to be removed and retained, will be very similar. It is on this basis that the impact of the development upon trees, whilst regrettable, is acceptable when regard is had to the previously approved scheme. 7.37 Mitigation for tree loss will be partially covered with detailed landscaping and ongoing tree protection measures will be secured by conditions.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING 7.38 Housing Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan indicates that the Planning Authority will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more.
7.39 A development of 14 dwellings will require a contribution of 3.5 affordable houses. The applicant has begun discussions with the Public Estates and Housing Division of the DoI and have identified plots 11, 12, and 13 as the most suitable for being affordable homes, with a commuted sum being secured to address the half-unit deficit. 7.40 The applicant will be required to enter into a Section 13 Agreement with the Department to provide affordable housing to secure the proposed 3 units and commuted sum. 7.41 Overall the affordable housing provision is acceptable and will assist in addressing the shortfall of Affordable Housing in the area.
PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 7.42 The application provides Public Open Space (POS) in the form of formal and landscaped amenity space within the site. Appendix 6 of the Strategic Plan states that public open space should be allocated as approximately 56% formal open space, 19% children's play space, and 25% amenity space. 7.43 The POS will be landscaped in areas and served by pedestrian footways, benches and general amenity areas with play equipment to the Local Area of Play. The amount of land being provided for POS exceeds the minimum requirement requirements of Appendix 6 of the IOMSP. Across the site a total of 1176 sqm of POS will be provided, with 1024 sq.m being the policy requirement. This includes a Local Area of Plan with an area of 233sqm, and will include play equipment as set out in the detailed design. 7.44 The overall provision of public open space and play space is considered to be acceptable, subject to its inclusions in a S13 and it being transferred to the local authority or DOI/DEFA for future management. 7.45 Overall, the proposal would provide more be an over provision of Public Open Space. Further the open space is well placed within the site and easy access for new residents and for existing residents in the area and therefore complies with Recreation Policy 3 4 & 5.
8.0 CONCLUSION
==== PAGE 14 ====
25/90196/B Page 14 of 16
8.1 The development will deliver 14 small dwellinghouses together with affordable housing for the local community. The proposed development is considered to amount to a sustainable development on the whole and will make an efficient use of a vacant site which is designated for development. 8.2 The submitted design is considered to constitute a high quality proposal that will not give rise to any unacceptable impacts upon the character or appearance of the area. 8.3 The proposals are further deemed to be acceptable with respect to highway safety, flood risk and ecological matters. Whilst the harm arising to trees weighs against the development proposals, the benefits of the scheme, which include a policy compliant mix of open and affordable housing, public open space and a local area of play, are considered to weigh heavily in favour of granting planning permission, particularly when regard is had to the extant planning consent and the impact upon trees that has already been permitted. 8.4 Having regard to the above matters, the proposals are considered to comply with Strategic Policy 5, Spatial Policy 4, General Policy 2, Environment Policies 10 and 42 and Transport Policies 4 and 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). The application is therefore recommended for approval.
9.0 S.13 REQUIREMENTS 9.1 It is recommended that Planning Committee approve the application subject to a S.13 Legal Agreement containing the following (and that if the S.13 agreement is not completed within 6 months of the date of this Committee, that it be brought back before the Committee for reconsideration): Public Open Space Local Area of Play Affordable Housing - 25% (3 units and commuted sum)
10.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 10.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted). 10.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to: o Applicant (in all cases); o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria. 10.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10. 10.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required): o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant); o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area; o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and o in the case of a petition, a single representative. 10.5 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given the Right to Appeal.
==== PAGE 15 ====
25/90196/B Page 15 of 16
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : ...Refused.. Committee Meeting Date:...16.02.2026
Signed : Russell Williams Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required
See below
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
==== PAGE 16 ====
25/90196/B Page 16 of 16 PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 16.02.2026 Application No. : 25/90196/B Applicant : Mr Frank Sweeney Proposal : Construction of 14 bungalows including vehicular access and associated infrastructure Site Address : Land Adjacent To Ginger Hall Hotel Ballamanagh Road Sulby Isle Of Man Planning Officer Russell Williams Reporting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer’s Report The committee overturned the officer recommendation and voted to refuse the application 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). Reason for Refusal R 1. The committee overturned the officer recommendation and voted to refuse the application 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).
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal