31 October 2024 · Planning Committee
Field 320653, Main Road, Crosby, Isle Of Man, IM4 2ee
The proposal sought permission for 18 houses including a terrace of 2-3 bed dwellings (Plots 33-39), 3-4 bed detached houses and dormer bungalows, with associated parking, temporary Bio Disc sewage treatment, landscaping, open space and connections to the Heritage Trail on land zoned predominantly residential in Crosby…
Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.
See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.
The Planning Committee refused the application despite the officer's recommendation to approve, finding that Plots 37, 38 & 39 represented overdevelopment due to their close proximity to existing sout…
General Policy 2
Requires development to safeguard amenity, character and highway safety. Committee found breach due to overdevelopment and amenity harm from close plot separations (16.6-20.9m). Officer considered acceptable with mitigations like no rear windows on Plot 39 and screening.
Strategic Policy 4
Requires development in Crosby to maintain existing settlement character within defined boundaries. Committee found private sewers northwest of Plots 33-39 outside boundaries on Area Plan East Map 10. Officer viewed amendments as resolving via realignment and minor grasscrete footpath incursion.
Environment Policy 1
Protects defined settlement boundaries. Cited alongside SP4 for sewers outside designated land.
Housing Policy 5
Requires 25% affordable housing for 8+ dwellings. Officer noted shortfall of 0.5 units from 22 total (including prior PA 20/01511/B) but acceptable via £20,000 commuted sum and Section 13 agreement for 5 on-site units.
5 affordable units (Plots 34-38) acceptable; 4.5 units (25% of 18) required but accepted applicant's offer of 5
No objection subject to highway conditions
Supports provision for first time buyers and bungalows for older residents near bus and facilities
Multiple consultees including Marown Parish Commissioners object strongly to the development citing policy non-compliance and land boundary issues, while DEFA Biodiversity requests specific ecological conditions, DOI Highways ultimately offers conditional no objection, and utilities/flood management raise drainage concerns requiring further information.
Key concern: Non-compliance with Eastern Area Plan due to cartographical error and boundary extension beyond designated land
1 Eyremont Terrace
Objection"the approved plan and comments from the inspector clearly indicate opposition to further development in Crosby"; "I recommend against the allocation of Site MM001 in the Area Plan"; "Our living conditions will be adversely affected, increased noise, increased light pollution, reduced privacy"
Conditions requested: Extra heavy standard or advanced heavy standard trees for replanting; Retention and protection of existing trees providing screening
DEFA Biodiversity
Conditional No Objection"I still want to see some type of landscaping concept drawings... prior to determination"; "This should be avoided in any future planting scheme"; "request that a condition is secured for a reedbed creation and management plan"
Conditions requested: Landscaping scheme including species list as condition; Retention and protection of specific vegetation areas; Reedbeds creation and management plan by qualified ecologist; Avoid Schedule 8 invasive species
DEFA Biodiversity
Conditional No Objection"retention of an existing bank is preferable... over bank or other habitat replacement"; "CEMP will need to contain details of the roles, responsibilities, training, procedures and monitoring on site"; "strictly followed throughout the works on the balancing pond"
Conditions requested: Condition to retain and protect hedgebank and trees; Detailed landscaping plan with native species prior to works; Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) with Reasonable Avoidance Measures (RAMs) for Common Frog; Re-consult Manx Wildlife Trust/Ecology Vannin for basin options
Marown Parish Commissioners
Objection"It was resolved to OPPOSE the Application inter alia on the following grounds"; "the junction will become unsafe and request that the Highway Division of Dol undertake monitoring"
Marown Parish Commissioners
Objection"it would be unjust for the Applicant to benefit from this error"; "the instant proposal would increase the number of dwellings by some 78%"
Marown Parish Commissioners
Objection"continue to OPPOSE the Application"; "there have been two extensions to the area previously zoned already. If this is approved now, why stop there?"
DOI Highways
Conditional No Objection"A revision would be necessary to overcome these concerns with a swept path analysis"; "Recommendation: Additions and revisions"
Conditions requested: Swept path analysis; Forward visibility checks; Cycle parking storage; Electric vehicle charging points
DOI Highways
Conditional No ObjectionHighways Services HDC now do not oppose (DNOC) the application subject to suggested conditions
Conditions requested: Site access and layout to 22-01-PL02 Site Plan 7 Mar 23; Boundary frontages no more than 1m height; Driveway gradients max 15% first 5m, paths 7%; Surfacing and drainage prior to occupation; Roads/footways completed before occupation; Retain parking for plots 33-39; Cycle sheds for non-garaged units; Footpath links to Heritage Trail completed before occupation
Manx Utilities Drainage
Objection"MU will not permit the connection of such flows at this time"; "No details have been submitted indicating that the basin has been designed... in accordance with CIRIA C753"
Conditions requested: Full maintenance & operational plan for treatment works; Long term maintenance plan per SUDS guidance; Details of pond and outfall ownership
DOI Flood Risk Management
No Comment"DIFFER - A further request for information"; "we would object to the culverting of the watercourse"
The original application for construction of 18 houses and associated infrastructure at Crosby Meadows Estate, part fields off Main Road Crosby, was refused by the Planning Committee despite officer recommendation for approval. The appellant challenges the refusal reasons as inaccurate, misleading, and opinion-based rather than factual planning criteria. Key arguments include acceptable separation distances under the non-statutory Residential Design Guide with precedents of reduced distances, dispute over site red line and village boundary interpretation with misleading evidence presented to committee, and adequate garden sizes for affordable housing compliant with or marginally varying from guidance. The appeal requests assessment of the original officer-approved scheme. No inspector's analysis or decision is provided in these submission documents.
Precedent Value
No inspector's decision available, so no precedent set. Future applicants can learn to challenge non-statutory guides, cite officer recommendations against committee refusals, dispute boundary interpretations with evidence, and reference comparable precedents for flexibility in design standards.
