21 June 2022 · Head of Development Management (Stephen Butler)
Westwood, Douglas Road, Ballabeg, Castletown, Isle Of Man, IM9 4ef
The proposal involved approval in principle for erecting a dwelling on a site to the rear of Westwood, an existing property, with part of the existing driveway shared for access; indicative plans showed a 10m by 7m building with a large front driveway.
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 officer assessed the proposal under General Policy 3 due to the majority of the site being in an area 'not designated for development', establishing a presumption against new residential developme…
General Policy 3
Requires acceptable development in areas not zoned for development only under strict exceptions like agricultural need, replacement dwellings, or special circumstances. The officer applied this as the primary test due to the site's zoning, finding no evidence of exceptions provided; applicant's argument for GP2 instead was rejected based on consistent historical non-zoning.
Environment Policy 1
Protects the countryside for its own sake. The proposal failed as it lacked overriding national need to justify countryside incursion, representing unwarranted development.
Spatial Policy 5
New development only in defined settlements or countryside per GP3. Site's countryside location outside settlement triggered GP3 assessment, which was not met.
Strategic Policy ST2
Focuses new development in existing settlements unless GP3 complied with. Non-compliance with GP3 meant failure here.
Strategic Policy 10
Promotes integrated journeys and minimises car use. Cited in refusal but access found acceptable by highways.
Housing Policy 4
New housing primarily in existing towns and villages. Countryside site did not align.
Transport Policy 4
Requires safe and appropriate journey provisions. Acceptable per Highway Services response.
Transport Policy 7
Parking standards. Existing parking at Westwood and no highway objection supported acceptability.
The proposal raises no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues. Accordingly, Highway Services Development Control raises no objection to the proposal subject to the relevant legal agreements to maintain the visibility splays free from obstruction for the lifetime of the development being granted.
Do not oppose to the application.
Highways Development Control and Highways Drainage raised no objections subject to conditions on visibility splays, legal agreements, and surface water drainage; Arbory and Rushen Parish Commissioners objected due to unsuitable access onto a busy road.
Key concern: unsuitable access onto fast and busy A-road requiring legal agreements over third-party land for visibility splays
HIGHWAYS DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
Conditional No ObjectionThe setback should be taken from 2.4m.; they must gain a legal agreement with ‘Brookfield’ to ensure there will be no obstruction within the visibility splay area over 1.05m for the lifetime of the development.; Highway Services Development Control raises no objection to the proposal subject to the relevant legal agreements to maintain the visibility splays free from obstruction for the lifetime of the development being gained.
Conditions requested: legal agreements to maintain visibility splay areas free from obstructions above 1.05m for lifetime of development; lower boundary walls and vegetation to maximum height of 1.05m
Highways Drainage
No ObjectionA means of intercepting surface water runoff from the driveway before it drained onto the highway will need to be included in the detailed planning application
Conditions requested: means of intercepting surface water runoff from the driveway before it drained onto the highway
Arbory and Rushen Parish Commissioners
ObjectionIt was felt that the access to an already fast and busy road was not suitable for this proposed new dwelling.
