Lucy Kinrade Senior Planning Officer Date 09.12.2024 Dear Mr Johnstone, PA No: 23/00606/B Proposal: Construction of 3 garages to plots 4 and 5 and foul drainage connection of previously approved and commenced development PA 20/00787/B and PA 19/01324/B Address: Field 314758 and 312909, Main Road, St Johns, Isle of Man Please find a statement that sets out the position of the Department in respect of the above planning application.
The statement relies upon the Planning Officer’s original report which was determined by delegated powers and the decision notice issued dated 07th October 2024 which is online and forms part of the planning file.
The enclosed statement comprises the following parts:
Appendix 1 – Statement of Case
In the event that the appointed Planning Inspector is minded to recommend that the application be approved, then the four-year expiration condition should be attached along with consideration to all the original conditions forming part of the original decision notice.
Yours sincerely,
Lucy Kinrade
Appendix 1 – Statement of Case
STATEMENT OF THE
Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Planning & Building Control Directorate
Planning statement on behalf of the Department relative to:
Construction of 3 garages to plots 4 and 5 and foul drainage connection of previously approved and commenced development PA 20/00787/B and PA 19/01324/B
Field 314758 and 312909 Main Road St Johns Isle of Man PA Reference: 23/00606/B Prepared on behalf of the Planning Department by Lucy Kinrade Senior Planning Officer
1.0 Appeal against approval for PA 23/00606/B
1.1 The reason for approval:
“The application is considered to be acceptable subject to conditions relating to the watching brief and CEZ's to best ensure meeting with the tests of Strategic Policy 4, Environment Policies 40 and 41, and Environment Policy 4 in protection of the cairn and ecology. The design of the garages is considered to have acceptable visual and neighbouring amenity impact in line with General Policy 2 and has been provided with sufficient information to demonstrate drainage and accepted by Manx Utilities and within bounds of section 11.8 of IOM Strategic Plan.”
2.0 Legal and Policy Position
2.1 In accordance with S10 of the Town Country Planning Act the application has been considered;
S(4) In dealing with an application for planning approval or an application under subsection
(3), the Department shall have regard to —
(a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application; (ab) any relevant national policy directive under section 2A;
(b) any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3;
(c) such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and
(d) all other material considerations.
There is a statutory duty to take into account the above, and while it is recognised that weight to be given is a matter for the decision maker.
2.2 It shall be noted that the Isle of Man Development Plan and other Adopted Policies do not have primacy as they do in the UK. The Isle of Man is also different from the UK as there is no presumption in favour of development as set out in the NPPF, and there is no 5-year
land supply requirement.
2.3 In this application, the most weight has been given to the Strategic Plan and the relevant St Johns Local Plan as they have been through a statutory process, which includes evidence base and public consultation process, and are adopted by Tynwald.
2.4 Other material considerations referred to in the officer report include the Residential Design Guide (RDG). The RDG is not a Planning Policy Statement (as per Section 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999) but is capable of being an ‘other material consideration’ (as per Section 10(4)(d) of the Act) although not formally adopted it was subject to public consultation and adopted by the Minsiter. It is not considered that this other material consideration outweighs the Strategic Plan and Local Plan documents set out above.
3.0 Response to Reasons for Appeal
3.1 This report addresses those issues directly raised in the reasons for appeal. For the full assessment of the initial application please refer to the original case Officer’s Report on the application file.
3.2 Reasons for appeal as stated in the appeal form:
“The boundary as represented on plan 0725/PL103 Rev C12B that separates both plots 1& 2 from Mr & Mrs Davies's approved plot (plan 24/00276/REM) is incorrect. The legal document that establishes the boundary was requested by the planning officer to substantiate access for 24/00276/REM. As drawn 0725/PL103 Rev C12B has our garage partially on plot 1. The applicant has had sufficient time and notice to correct the plan. There is also a clear gap between the access to plots 1&2 and Mr & Mrs Davies's private access lane to their plot which was not on earlier site plans which may also compromise their development. We consider this prejudices our approved application and is contrary to: Part (k) of GP2.”
3.3 They key issues relate to boundary details and land ownership matters and the potential of 23/00606/B to prejudice the development of a dwelling and garage under PA 24/00276/REM.
3.4 Red lines for planning applications relate to the site of works area and do not dictate land ownership.
3.5 Landownership and boundary disputes are a civil matter outside the remit of planning. They are listed as non-material planning considerations within online guidance: https://pabc.gov.im/pbc/planning/planning-process/material-planning-considerations/
3.6 In this case the proposed garages for 23/00606/B are far enough away not to be impacting or prejudicing the development works approved under 24/00276/REM. Similarly, the proposed foul drainage for 23/00606/B runs through Plot 1 and connecting to manhole MH9701, part of this drainage route also falls within the red line for 24/00276/REM as that dwelling is also to be connected into MH9701. The site and distance of the proposed foul drainages works are not considered to impact or prejudice the development of 24/00276/REM.
3.7 On review of the comparison provided in the appellants comments on the original planning application dated 29/04/2024 (figure 1), the only potential overlay between the two may be the proposed surface water soak away for Plot 1. Soakaways for plots have been shown throughout 20/00787/B and 23/00569/REM applications and these demonstrate how surface water will be dealt with. Aforementioned boundaries and land ownership are not a planning matter, but should the works be located within land not owned by the applicant then permission would be required from the other land owner in order to undertake the works. If this permission is not given, it might be that the applicant has to reconsider the siting and location of the soakaway and this might require being subject to a separate planning application and assessed accordingly.
3.8 It’s not quite clear what the appellants issue is with respect of the access lane into their plot, this application relates to garages are foul drainage, but the route to the appellant plot is still shown on PA 23/00606/B (figure 2) and works not expected to impact or prejudice the development of 24/00276/REM.
Figure 1. Snip of plan overlay from objectors formal comment 1.3 dated 29/04/2024
Figure 2. Snip from 23/00606/B drawing no: 0725/PL103 C-12-B
A technical site plan showing building footprints, red boundary lines, and a labeled access lane with dimensions.A detailed site plan showing property boundaries, existing approved plots, drainage features like a soakaway, and landscaping elements.
4.0 Potential Conditions
4.1 In the event that the Inspector is minded to recommend approval it is recommended that consideration be given to all those conditions as originally set out in the original decision approval notice.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
