Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90328/A
Page 1 of 10
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90328/A Applicant : Mr Chris Bell Proposal : Approval in Principle (including details of means of access) to erect detached dwelling and garage Site Address : Silver Beech Glen Road Colby Isle Of Man IM9 4HW
Planning Officer: Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken : 13.05.2025 Site Visit : 13.05.2025 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 17.06.2025 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. Application for approval of all of the reserved matters shall be made to the Department before the expiration of two years from the date of this approval. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice or the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters, whichever is later.
Reason: To comply with article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019
C 2. Approval of the details of siting, internal layout (inside buildings), drainage, design, landscaping, external appearance and site layout (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Department in writing before any development is commenced.
Reason: To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019.
C 3. The means of vehicular access hereby approved shall be constructed in full accordance with drawing no. 1 prior to the first occupation of any dwelling erected on the site. The access shall thereafter be retained for access purposes only.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
C 4. The visibility splay(s) identified on drawing no. 1 shall be constructed in full accordance with the approved plans prior to the first occupation of any dwelling on the site and thereafter kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1050 mm in height above adjoining carriageway level.
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90328/A
Page 2 of 10
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
C 5. Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in Condition 2 shall also include but are not limited to:
(a) the provision to be made for the parking and turning of vehicles within the site and ability of vehicles to exit in forward gear; (b) surface water drainage (c) existing and proposed ground and floor levels; (d) any landscape mitigation
Reason: This is an approval in principle and these matters have been raised by consultees and require detailed consideration by the Department.
C 6. As part of the submission of the Reserved Matters, information relating to cut and fill of the site shall be provided, including a method statement for movement of materials on the site. Any works undertaken shall be carried out in full accordance with details approved.
Reason: In the interest of those comments raised by DEFA Minerals team and any potential removal of materials from the site.
N 1. The applicant is to be reminded of their separate obligations under the Highways Act 1986 in respect of surface water, and that any works within the highway may require a separate S109 agreement and advice should be sought from Dept. of Infrastructure.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The approval in principle for a single property on the site is considered acceptable, and the means of access is also considered to be acceptable in full detail in terms of its visual impact and highway safety impact. Suitably worded conditions for the reserved matters will be added, along with conditions relating to the access being provided in full accordance with the plans. The application is considered to accord with General Policy 2 and Section 8.8 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan Strategic Plan 2016 and not to undermine Environment Policy 1, and Paragraphs 2.5 and 2.5.1 of the Area Plan for the South 2013.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the following plans all date published online 26/03/2025: Drawing no. 1 Drawing no. 2 Drawing no. 3 Drawing no. 4
__
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal on the basis that they have submitted a relevant objection: o Arbory and Rushen Commissioners
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: o Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - No objection subject to conditions which have been applied. o Department of Infrastructure Highway Drainage - No objection
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90328/A
Page 3 of 10
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: o No. 2 Ballachrink, Glen Road, Colby o No. 3 Ballachrink, Glen Road, Colby o No. 4 Ballachrink, Glen Road, Colby o Glen Arm, Glen Road, Colby. __
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE APPLICATION HAS RECEIVED FOUR OBJECTIONS FROM THIRD PARTIES ALL RAISING MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS, AND THE APPLICATION HAS RECEIVED OBJECTION FROM THE LOCAL COMMISSIONERS.
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application relates to a parcel of land sitting along the western side of Glen Road, Colby between the main road and the rear of a number of houses forming the Ballachrink estate.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Approval in Principle is sought for the erection of a new dwelling and garage. The application seeks only to determine now the principle and detailed in full is the means of access. All other matters relating to siting, internal layout, drainage, design, landscaping, external appearance and site layout to be reserved for later consideration as part of a separate application.
2.2 The proposed access measures approx. 8.6m wide along the main road, and with curved walls reducing the access point to 4.3m wide with two pillars set back 2.5m from the front edge of the boundary wall facing the road.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site has been subject to a number of previous applications. Most relevant in this case: o 22/00958/B - Erection of detached single storey dwelling, detached garage, creation of vehicular entrance and associated works - WITHDRAWN. o 98/01490/A - Approval in principle for erection of two dwellings to replace existing dwelling - REFUSED o 07/01687/B - demolition of existing dwelling and erection of detached dwelling and garage- APPROVED o 06/00941/B - demolition of existing bungalow and outbuilding and erection of a dwelling and garage - REFUSED AT APPEAL (AP 07/0020) refused as proposed dwelling would adversely affect the living conditions of residents of Glen Arm and would be out of character, due to its size, with the neighbouring dwellings.
3.2 This withdrawn application received concerns from DOI in respect of access, visibility splays and lack of manoeuvrability within the driveway and was opposed. The officer also had concerns with the design of the house and its mono-pitched roof indicating a more traditional/conventional design being more appropriate. A number of residents also objected to the application on the basis of its close 15m proximity to their dwelling, negative impact on outlook, loss of light, impact on privacy and substandard highway safety. A similar application for two dwellings was refused previously for overdevelopment 98/01490/A.
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90328/A
Page 4 of 10
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 Site Specific 4.1.1 The site is outside of the settlement boundary of Colby, but is designated as 'residential' on Area Plan for the South 2013 map 6. The site is not recognised to be at any flood risk. There are no registered trees on the site and the site is not a conservation area.
4.2 Relevant policies of Area Plan for the South 2013 o Paragraph 2.5 and 2.5.1 - Colby is a village and "Development should maintain the existing settlement character and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities. The Area Plan will define the development boundaries of such settlements so as to maintain their existing character." o Landscape Proposal 16: Any new residential development in the settlements of Colby and Ballabeg should include tree-planting designed not only to soften the impact of the development, but also to enhance the landscape.
4.3 Relevant policies of IOM Strategic Plan 2016: o Strategic Policy 1 - best and efficient use of sites, existing infrastructure and re-use of existing materials o Strategic Policy 2 - new development within existing towns and villages, if in countryside 6.3 applies o Strategic Policy 4 - protect and enhance landscape and nature conservation value o Strategic Policy 5 - new development (including individual buildings) should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment (and in some cases a Design Statement will be required) o Spatial Policy 4 - Colby recognised as village o Spatial Policy 5 - new development directed to existing defined settlements and only in countryside in line with GP3. o General Policy 2 - general development standards including visual, amenity, highways and landscape o Environment Policy 1 - countryside protected for its own sake o Environment Policy 42 - new development to take account local character and identity o Housing Policy 4 - new housing directed to towns and villages or sustainable urban extensions. Only allowed in countryside in exceptional circumstances. o Housing Policy 6 - development on land zoned for residential must be undertaken in accordance with the brief of that area, or paragraph 6.2 General Policy 2. o Paragraph 8.8 - Groups of Houses in countryside o Paragraph 7.34.1 - individual character and settlement identity and reference to infill, back land and tandem development o Community Policy 7 - designing out crime o Community Policy 11 - prevention of outbreak and spread of fire o Infrastructure Policy 5 - water conservation and management measures o Transport Policy 4 - new highways o Transport Policy 7 - parking standards
4.4 Reference any relevant PPS or NPD 4.4.1 None
5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Legislation o None
5.2 Policy/Strategy/Guidance o Manual for Manx Roads - access standards o Residential Design Guide - Sections 1 on local distinctiveness and 7 on neighbouring amenity
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90328/A
Page 5 of 10
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 DOI Highway Services - do not oppose subject to condition (22/04/2025). o Access is to be taken off Glen Road which is subject to 30mph speed limit. This area is moderately built up with residential development. o For 30mph visibility requirements are 43m in both directions, however some relaxation has been applied. o Offset of the southern visibility means that bicycles and motorcycles are obscured as they approach, but given the uphill direction of travel are unlikely to be at 30mph and with vegetation and boundary walls less likely to travel close to the edge of the carriageway. To the north visibility is to the centreline and this can mean overtaking manoeuvres obscured, however on street parking and bends in the road mean overtaking is less likely to occur. o The applicant has made all reasonable attempts to gain visibility including acquisition of land to create the splays. o The visibility achievable from the access and location of the access are acceptable to highways. o The access is considered sufficient width to accommodate the expected movements from the development. o Other driveway details and internal movement are details to be reserved for future application and should include highway drainage details. o The proposal raises no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues. All access arrangements including visibility slays are to accord to Dwg No. 1. o The Applicant is advised that a S109(A) Highway Agreement is needed after the grant of planning consent.
6.2 DOI Highway Drainage - comments (06/05/2025) - Allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads.
6.3 Arbory and Rushen Commissioners - Objection (24/04/2025) - the access point to the main road is dangerous. The Commissioners note the endeavours to provide sufficient visibility splays but these require works to be undertaken on land not owned by the applicant. The Commissioners feel that if this application were to be approved a condition should be placed on the development that no works on the property should be allowed until the visibility splay has been properly developed.
6.4 DEFA Minerals and Properties - (10/04/2025) the ground is sloping. When detailed landscaping plans are submitted they should include cut and fill drawings and a method statement for the movement of materials. Any minerals to be removed from site are subject to licensing and a royalty payment. The landowner must contact DEFA if any materials are to be removed.
6.5 DEFA Ecosystems - no objection subject to condition (14/04/2025) priority should be given to the retention and protection of boundary vegetation including trees and hedges. Any removal should be suitable compensated for by condition for the detailed application to be accompanied by a soft landscaping plan.
6.6 The following were consulted but no comments received at the time of writing the report 20/05/2025:
o Manx Utilities - electricity
6.7 The owners of No's 2, 3 and 4 Ballachrink, and Glen Arm have written in dated 19/04/2025-22/04/2025. Their comments have been summarised as follows:
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90328/A
Page 6 of 10
6.7.1 No. 4 o PA 98/01490/B was refused for two properties and this would be overdevelopment too, having residential amenity impact and impact on the amenity and character of the area. o The proposed outline dwelling appears large for the plot. o The new dwelling would be approx. 15m away and will affect character and potential loss of privacy. o The additional strip of land for sight lines does not appear in their ownership o Access was originally pedestrian and the applicant create a wider access when building the new dwelling Silver Beech. o The entrance is just beyond a blind bend and impossible to see. It's near the bus stop where there is no pavement. Although including mitigation it will remain dangerous and visibility partly obscured by the telegraph pole next to the entrance.
6.7.2 No. 3 o The additional strip of land for sight lines does not appear in their ownership o The submitted plans are not accurate - missing sun lounge, conservatory and previous building line of No.2 o The access is retrospective and already in place. Previously access was pedestrian gate only o Issues with advertised description, gaining permission for a means of access must not incorporate permission for a dwelling and garage too. o Majority of trees have already been removed from the site o The proposal can achieve the required visibility and is near a blind bend with views further obscured by the telegraph pole o Increased risk to children using the bus stop o Lowering the wall might improve some vision, but not for anyone reversing from the site on to the main road. o Removing the aged stone wall will have further detriment to the area. o Why are new or amended services sought if only an application for access. o The Residential Design Guidance sets guide for good neighbourliness. The proposed development would cause significant loss of light during the morning, would severely impact on outlook, would result in loss of privacy due to windows, the proposed dwelling and garage would have detrimental effect on outlook and character. o Overdevelopment was an issue in 1998 and still remains an issue now.
6.7.3 No. 2 o Boundary differences between submission and land registry o A second dwelling is an overdevelopment of the site and would have detrimental impact to their property o The access cannot achieve the required lines of sight, is close to a blind bend and views obscured by the telegraph pole. o There is risk to the bus stops and where there is no pavements o All trees have already been removed from the site
6.7.4 Glen Arm o Overdevelopment by creating a second dwelling and dangerous access o Was once a nice garden with important habitat and mature trees which have already been removed. o The proposal would have significant adverse landscape and visual effect o Land drainage was requested to be installed to protect plot from slippage o New access sits on blind bend and would create hazard on a road which has vast traffic increase o There are no footpaths and it's close to school bus stop. The telegraph pole blocks views. o We don't feel lowering the wall will improve sightlines enough
==== PAGE 7 ====
25/90328/A
Page 7 of 10
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The application seeks approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling and garage on the site with only the general principle and full detailed matters of the means of access to be considered and determined now. All other matters relating to siting, internal layout, drainage, design, landscaping, external appearance and site layout to be reserved for later consideration.
7.2 Therefore the key considerations in this case are whether the general principle of residential development is acceptable, and whether the proposed access works are considered to have an acceptable highway safety impact and acceptable visual and amenity impact.
7.3 Principle 7.3.1 Environment Policy 1 indicates that the countryside is considered all land outside of settlements or land which is not designated for any future use. In this case, while outside of the settlement boundary of Colby, the site is clearly designated for 'residential' development. General Policy 2 states that development which is in accordance with the land use zoning and policies within the appropriate area plan and strategic plan will normally be permitted provided it meets with the general development criteria listed within a-n of GP2. Given this land use designation of the site there is a general principle accepted towards some kind of residential development here.
7.3.2 Paragraph 2.5 and 2.5.1 of the APS2013 indicate that Colby is a village and that any "development should maintain the existing settlement character and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities. The Area Plan will define the development boundaries of such settlements so as to maintain their existing character." Although outside of the settlement it would be appropriate to have regard to this, along with Landscape Proposal 16 to ensure suitable landscaping.
7.3.3 Ballachrink is not recognised in the APS2013 as a group of houses in the countryside, but we could lean on guidance under 8.8 of the Strategic Plan in understanding impact of development in small clusters of dwelling. It states "many small groups of dwellings which, whilst not having the character of, or the full range of services usually provided in a village, nevertheless have a sense of place and community. These groups are found variously at crossroads, in places sheltered by trees or topography or around chapels, abandoned mills or smithys."... "adding further dwellings to these groups may not accord with our strategic objectives relating to settlements and sustainability but may assist in meeting the need of rural areas; may maintain social and family associations and assist in sustaining the rural economy; and may reduce the pressure for purely sporadic and isolated development which the Department would not support. Such additions would also need to be sensitively related to the existing settlement pattern and the landscape."
7.3.4 A number of neighbours raise concerns in respect of overdevelopment and with reference to previous applications. Looking at the proposed site and plot size put forward in this application, its overall size is not so out of keeping with other dwellings in the immediate surrounding area including Glen Arm and those dwellings forming the Ballachrink estate. When travelling in this area the character from public view is formed by dwellings clustered around the bends in the road and located on the upper side so as to maintain views down and over the open fields to the south east.
7.3.5 The proposed plot would sit amongst this cluster of development and would not break from the typical character formed by the residential development around this bend in the road. Activity associated with one dwelling is not considered to be so harmful in this instance given the nature and density of residential development along this site of the road already, and a single dwelling is not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts on neighbours to warrant a concern in this case.
==== PAGE 8 ====
25/90328/A
Page 8 of 10
7.3.6 No specific siting, design or appearance of the dwelling is presented as part of this application and so no assessment can be made on the impact of any physical works on this site and its visual impact on the character and appearance of the site, streetscene and surroundings, nor its impact on neighbouring amenity. However, in principle, the size and scale of the proposed plot size to accommodate a single property would not be out of keeping and accords with the land use designation weighs in favour of residential development in this case. The success of any physical works for the property will fall to subsequent application and assessed accordingly.
7.4 Access 7.4.1 This Application in Principle seeks to determine, in full, the proposed access works for the site. The key matters to consider are the visual, amenity and highway safety impacts of the proposal.
7.4.2 It would not be unreasonable to have an access associated with a dwelling and so a new access is acceptable in principle. It was evident when visiting the site that the proposed location sat between two bends in the road and where there was unrestricted on street parking.
7.4.3 DOI Highways have commented on the application indicating a slight relaxation to the 43m visibility standards given the situation of the site being between bends where overtaking is less likely and where uphill cyclists are less likely to be travelling 30mph or hugging the edge of the road. Highway comments rely upon the applicant acquiring the sliver of land south of the site for the improved visibility and the access and visibility splays being provided in full accordance with the plans submitted.
7.4.4 A number of neighbours have raised concerns about the lack of ownership of the sliver of land south of the site. A phone call with the agent confirmed that the applicants do not own this part of the land yet as they did not want to purchase if the application was to be refused. The agent confirmed that there is a contract to buy the land, which is in place subject to planning approval.
7.4.4 Highways have accepted the highway safety of the application on the basis that the access is provided in full accordance with the submitted plans including the visibility splays. Suitably worded conditions will be added to ensure that access is provided in full accordance with the plans submitted, and which will also ensure the applicant is in full ownership/control of that part of the site to safeguard its provision long term. Any reserved matters should ensure suitable internal parking and tracking to show access and egress can be achieved in forward gear.
7.5 Any other matters 7.5.1 A number of neighbours have raised concerns about matters outside the scope of this application which relate to overlooking, outlook, privacy etc. While the very nature of any new dwelling or development here will likely result in changes compared to the currently vacant nature of the site, and so until such a time that detailed plans are brought forward we cannot assess the impact on the nearest neighbours No's 2, 3, 4 Ballachrink and Glen Arm.
7.5.2 Comments have been received in respect of ecology, landscaping, surface water and site levels. Landscaping and ecology will be a matter forming part of subsequent application along with site levels. A note in respect of surface water will be added to remind the applicant of their separate obligations under the Highway Act 1986 not to allow surface water on to the highway.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 Although outside of the Colby settlement boundary, the land is designated for residential development on the Area Plan for the South 2013 and so there is a principle in
==== PAGE 9 ====
25/90328/A
Page 9 of 10
favour of residential development. The plot size for the single property is considered to be in keeping with the general plot sizes of the area and so development for a single property is considered acceptable in principle in line with Environment Policy 1 and aligning with General Policy 2 and Section 8.8 of the Strategic Plan and Paragraphs 2.5 and 2.5.1 of the Area Plan for the South 2013.
8.2 The means of access has been considered in full and subject to suitably worded conditions is considered to be acceptable from a highway safety perspective for a single property to accord with General Policy 2 (h and i). The proposal is also considered to have an acceptable visual impact on the overall character and appearance of the area minded of other accesses and openings along the Glen Road associated to other dwellings as to meet with General Policy 2 (b, c, g).
9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 9.1 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).
9.2 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.
9.3 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.
9.4 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.
9.5 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 10 ====
25/90328/A Page 10 of 10
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made: Permitted Date: 30.06.2025
Signed : Presenting Officer
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal