Inspector's Report

Report on a Planning Appeal by the written procedure Site visit: Monday 9 December 2024

Appeal made by Mr Euan Paul Hommet Craine against the decision of the Planning Authority to grant planning approval to Mr John Keenan for the erection of a new detached dwelling and realignment of access road at Plot 4, Stable Fields, Ballaugh, Isle of Man, IM7 5AH. _________________________________________________________

Procedural Matters

• 1. The Appellant maintains (below) that previous approvals for the access and Plots Nos 1-3 were not lawfully implemented and cannot be relied upon to create any planning fall-back position and that the application leading to this appeal was not properly considered as being for a discrete proposal, with implications for the validity of the statutory consultations upon it and for its initial determination. Be that as it may, the implementation of previous proposals is not a matter for this appeal, which affords the appropriate opportunity for the development now proposed, at Plot 4, Stable Fields, to be freshly and independently assessed on its individual planning merits, including the physical existence of the established built development at Plots 1-3.
• 2. The application is partly retrospective regarding the access road to the site but this does not affect the consideration of the planning issues arising in this appeal.

Description

• 3. The appeal site is an approximately rectangular plot of land connected to a turning circle at the western end of a three-dwelling residential cul-de-sac off Bayr y Wyllin which connects to Station Road, Ballaugh. Bayr y Wyllin continues to serve around ten other properties including Cronk Beck Cottage and Squeen Lodge to the north west of the appeal site and Mwyllin Squeen to the south west. Mwyllin Squeen is the home of the present Appellant.
• 4. The site is one of four plots originally granted approval in principle for residential development in 2002. The other three plots have since been approved for substantial dwellings, with houses at Plots 1 and 2 occupied and that at Plot 3, immediately adjacent to the eastern appeal site boundary, to be completed.
• 5. The site is bounded by a mature tree belt lining a watercourse to the west and a dense tree line to the north, and by Nos 10 and 12 Faaie Craine, a cul-de-sac bordering the site to the south. Mwyllin Squeen is located beyond the tree belt and watercourse.

• 6. The proposal is to erect a further substantial four-bedroom, detached twostorey dwelling. Its general architectural vernacular and external finishes would largely reflect those at the adjoining Plots 1-3.
• 7. The proposal includes a westward re-alignment of the access, the construction of which has commenced.

Planning Policy and Guidance

• 8. The adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP) contains the following polices of particular relevance to this case.
• 9. General Policy 2 (GP2) includes requirements that (b) development respects its site and surroundings in siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscape, (c) does not harm the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape, (g) safeguards amenity, (h) provides safe and convenient access, and (i) includes sufficient off-street parking.
• 10. Environment Policies 4 and 5 (EP4-5) together protect species and habitats including Areas of Ecological Interest (AEIs). EP10 provides for flood risk assessment and mitigation. EP42 requires development to take account of local character and identity.
• 11. Transport Policy 4 (TP4) requires new and existing highways serving new development to accommodate the journeys generated safely.
• 12. Adopted Residential Design Guidance includes a guideline minimum 20m distance between facing windows.

The Case for the Appellant – Mr Euan Paul Hommet Craine The material points are: Planning History

• 13. The appeal statement sets out at section 4 the long and complex planning history of the development of the four properties sharing access with the appeal site.
• 14. It is maintained, including within the Appellant’s rebuttal statement, that previous approvals for the access and Plots Nos 1-3 were not lawfully implemented and cannot be relied upon to create any planning fall-back position and that the application leading to this appeal was not properly considered as being for a discrete proposal, with implications for the validity of the statutory consultations upon it and for its determination.

Grounds of Appeal

• 15. The appeal is made on the following grounds:

• a. Implied retrospective approval for substandard works,
• b. Inadequate ecological information and implied biodiversity loss,
• c. Inadequate protection to woodland with risk to wildlife,
• d. Excessive built mass leading to overbearing development,
• e. Inadequate drainage details, and
• f. Risk to highway safety.

Substandard Works

• 16. The retrospective element of the appeal proposals, comprising the partcomplete road access to Plot 4, is at variance from the road alignment previously approved. A lack of definition as to what is or is not proposed casts doubt over the approval as a whole.

Ecology and Biodiversity

• 17. The appeal site is an AEI subject to EP5 of the IMSP. It is established practice, supported at appeal, that mitigation against bird strike should be considered with respect to large areas of glazing proposed in proximity to the woodland and water course adjacent to the appeal site.
• 18. Whilst Condition 7 of the disputed approval prevents house extensions, without express planning permission, there is no prohibition of the erection of further greenhouses or other structural additions by permitted development rights, potentially affecting the AEI. Moreover, noise from such as air source heat pumps may add to such impacts. Any such condition should cover the sensitivity of the surroundings of the proposed dwelling itself.
• 19. The submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) fails to cover the retrospective element of the proposed development. The loss of hedgerow involved has eroded visual amenity and resulted in loss of biodiversity, contrary to established planning policy.

Woodland and Wildlife

• 20. The Department does not appear to have consulted with the Agricultural and Lands Directorate regarding the protection of trees adjacent to the proposed development and their root protection areas. Moreover, no arboricultural assessment appears to have been submitted. The PEA notes a risk of tree loss from future cutting and removal of trees and hedges. This is a potential outcome of the southwest front elevation of the proposed dwelling closely facing mature trees and an established cypress hedge. The proposed three-car garage exceeds parking requirements and would compromise tree canopy cover and space for building maintenance.

Built Mass

• 21. Dominance by the dwellings at Plots 1-3 neighbouring the present appeal site has been a main issue of previous appeal dismissals.

• 22. The proposed dwelling would be unnecessarily large with a floor area of 759sqm, well over twice the size of the next largest neighbouring house. Any suggestion that the mass of the proposed building is commensurate with those at neighbouring plots, let alone adjacent bungalows, is simply untenable.

Drainage

• 23. The roof and paved areas of the appeal proposal exceed those on which previous drainage designs were based. The road realignment is inconsistent with the route of the sewers previously approved. No new consultation appears to have taken place with the relevant statutory consultee regarding the amended proposals. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would be capable of being drained of foul and surface water in a safe convenient and environmentally acceptable manner.

Highway Safety

• 24. No construction details of the access road have been provided and it has not been demonstrated that service vehicles could negotiate the tight bend into the site from the turning circle and could be forced to undertake dangerous manoeuvres on the access roads.
• 25. No evidence is produced to show the base and surface courses or manoeuvring space being completed to requisite standards.
• 26. Further, Station Road opposite the Bayr y Wyllin junction is often busy with parked vehicles during events at Ballaugh Parish Hall, increasing risk where visibility is already limited. However, no road safety audit has been completed such as might have indicated a need for street lighting, signage, road-marking or suspension of parking adjacent to the junction.
• 27. Visual inspection alone demonstrates considerable surface irregularity at this location.
• 28. As the road is not lit and a footpath is only provided on the side adjacent to the development, there would remain significant risk to pedestrians.

Conclusion

• 29. There thus remain significant questions over the acceptability of the appeal proposals which merit further assessment.

The Case for the Planning Authority The material points are: Issues

• 30. The main issues were visual impact, neighbouring amenity and highways and parking.

Visual Impact

• 31. The proposed dwelling is of a notably substantial footprint and includes a variety of architectural features. The general vernacular and form of the dwelling would however largely replicate those of the adjacent three plots and take inspiration from The Old Rectory on the opposite side of Station Road.
• 32. Whilst significant in size, the dwelling would incorporate single-storey elements and gabled dormers spanning the eaves to provide first-floor accommodation for much of the property. Such elements aid in reducing the apparent bulk and massing of the dwelling and, in combination with feature towers, are reminiscent of the Arts and Crafts architectural vernacular from the early 1900s.
• 33. The site is notably well-enclosed and screened by mature trees along the western and northern boundaries, whilst being significantly recessed at the end of the access road from the principal street scene of Station Road. Therefore, the dwelling would not be particularly visible in the context of primary public vistas, if at all. It would only be visually evident within the immediate access road serving the row of four properties and from the rear of No 10 Faaie Craine to the south.
• 34. Existing trees along the site perimeter, particularly along the western boundary, would be retained, with additional tree planting proposed along the northern site boundary, in front of the exiting Leylandii hedging.
• 35. Overall, the proposed dwelling is considered to be acceptable from a design standpoint, such that the wider landscape and streetscape character would not be adversely impacted as a result of the development. The appeal proposals are therefore deemed compliant with GP2 (b) and (c) of the IMSP.

Amenity

• 36. Whilst substantial in footprint, the proposed dwelling would be centrally located within the plot and sited a reasonable distance from neighbouring properties. The dwelling would however include a variety of fenestration that has the potential for impact upon the amenities of surrounding dwellings, particularly with regard to privacy.

• 37. Concerns have been raised by the Appellant in relation to privacy and natural light. The proposed dwelling would include various window openings serving bedrooms and non-habitable rooms, together with a cantilevered first-floor balcony, facing the corresponding rear elevation of Mwyllin Squeen.
• 38. Nevertheless, separation distances, in excess of 50m, would be retained between the new dwelling and the rear elevation of the neighbouring property, with dense mature tree planting further restricting views and any material impact upon light levels. Whilst it is recognised that the presence of intervening trees should not be solely relied upon to mitigate overlooking, particularly as they could be cut back or die due to disease, the separation distances are considered to be more than sufficient to prevent any demonstrable levels of harm. Such separation distances substantially exceed the 20m guideline of the RDG.
• 39. With respect to No 10 Faaie Craine, the first-floor element of the proposed dwelling would be a minimum of 15m from its rear elevation at the closest point. The two windows in the proposed southern side elevation would serve a bathroom and a secondary bedroom window. The latter would be in excess of 20m from the facing rear elevation of No 10. Such levels of separation are considered to be acceptable.
• 40. Finally, the first-floor windows serving bedroom 4 in the principal elevation of the proposed dwelling would be 13m from the corresponding windows of the master bedroom of the house at Plot 3. Whilst this is less than the 20m RDG guideline, it is recognised that both areas of living space comprise bedrooms where activity is likely to be limited to night hours. It is also reasonable to expect blinds or curtains to be installed at such windows, limiting overlooking. Such a relationship is considered to be acceptable in this instance and unlikely to result in a harmful impact on living conditions.
• 41. The appeal proposals are considered to be acceptable in the context of safeguarding neighbouring amenity, whilst providing a high standard of amenity for future occupants, in compliance with GP2(g) of the IMSP.

Highways and Parking

• 42. Following the submission of additional information and accurate plans that reflect the current alignment of the access road, previous concerns raised by Highway Services have now been resolved. The proposed development would provide sufficient levels of on-site parking, with an appropriate access route and driveway that would connect to the existing cul-de-sac serving all four residential plots.

Other Matters

• 43. The Ecosystem Policy Team has confirmed that a suitable level of assessment has been undertaken by way of the submitted PEA (below). The recommended mitigation measures can be secured by planning condition.

44. With respect to flood risk, the mitigation details contained within thesubmitted Flood Risk Assessment have been found acceptable by the FloodRisk Management Division.

Response to the Appeal

45. There appear to be six issues raised by the Appellant:

• a. Concern that there is a lack of clarity or definition of the application site and an implied approval for incomplete or substandard works;
• b. The submitted PEA did not cover the entirety of the site and therefore the development could result in a net loss of biodiversity;
• c. Existing trees would not be afforded adequate protection during construction and post-construction, therefore resulting in a potential impact upon wildlife;
• d. The proposed massing is excessive, out of keeping with surrounding dwellings and would result in an overbearing presence in the context of neighbouring properties;
• e. No drainage details have been provided demonstrating sufficient capacity in the public sewer network; and
• f. Potential highway safety risk, particularly in the absence of a road safety audit and the relaxation of highway standards.

Application Site

46. The site and location plan, Ref 23 1783 01 Revision A, clearly denotes theapplication site in red, including the existing access, as built up to the mainroad. The plan makes a further clear distinction between the access road asbuilt and the alignment previously approved.

Ecology and Trees

47. The PEA covers the entirety of the site proposed to be developed. Only therealigned access is omitted together with the mature tree belt to the westof the proposed dwelling. Given that the access has already been built, it isunclear how it would result in a material impact on the content andoutcomes of the submitted PEA. Indeed, the findings and mitigationmeasures put forward in the PEA and the submitted ecological landscapingplan were found to be acceptable by the Ecosystems Policy Officer.Likewise, the existing mature trees are proposed to be retained. Thefootprint of the dwelling would not intrude into their root protection areas.Additional tree planting is further proposed to the north of the dwelling.

Design, Scale and Massing

48. The design, footprint and massing of the proposed dwelling is consideredabove and found acceptable.

Drainage and Highways

• 49. Surface and foul water drainage would be discharged into existing drains on the estate road, with no comments having been received from Manx Utilities objecting to the drainage proposals. Detailed matters relating to drainage would be dealt with under separate Building Regulations.
• 50. From a highways standpoint, no concerns have been raised by Highway Services.

Conclusion

• 51. The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in principle by providing a new dwelling of a high standard of design, without detriment to the character of the wider street scene or landscape setting. The development would also provide a high standard of living for future occupants, without detriment to the amenity of surrounding properties. The development is further considered to be acceptable with respect to highways impacts, flood risk and ecological matters.
• 52. The appeal proposal is therefore deemed compliant with SpP4, GP2, EPs 4, 5, 10 and 42, and TPs 4 and 7 of the IMSP.
• 53. It is therefore recommended that the initial approval be confirmed.

The Case for the Applicant – Mr J Keenan The material points are: The Site and the Proposed Development

• 54. The site is one of four approved plots south of the existing access to Cronk Beck Cottage and Squeen Lodge which now share an access onto Station Road with the approved new development. The shared section extends approximately 35m from Station Road where the new cul-de-sac turns off to serve Plots 2-4.
• 55. The western boundary of the appeal site is marked by established planting, mainly of conifer trees, with a watercourse beyond. The conifers appear to have been managed on the side of the water course but not on the side of the appeal Plot 4, where they overhang. Many of these conifers are understood to be outside both the appeal site and the ownership or control of the Applicant, albeit the Applicant enjoys the right to trim and prune overhanging vegetation. Similar conifers at the north western boundary are also in the ownership and control of others.
• 56. The proposed two-storey detached dwelling would feature a tower, characteristic of all the approved dwellings at Plots 1-3, and would be finished in similar render and brickwork, with decorative detailing to the

• tower and windows. There would be a single-storey, triple garage at the rear.
• 57. The proposed dwelling would be larger than those on Plots 1-3, albeit positioned further from the estate road. Its private access would be from the existing turning circle via a drive about 3.5m wide, turning sharply left into the site along the boundary with Plot 3.
• 58. The alignment of the shared estate road differs slightly from that previously approved and hence this application is partly retrospective for the road as built, as shown on initially approved plan Ref 23 1783 01A.
• 59. A submitted Flood Risk Assessment confirms that the site lies outside any identified area of flood risk. Closest locations at risk from fluvial flooding are 8m from Plot 4 and 11m from the garage as the nearest proposed building. Nevertheless, the design of the dwelling incorporates precautionary flood barriers to external doors together with other floodresilient measures.
• 60. A submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, dated August 2024, reports that no Schedule 7 rare and protected plants were recorded or observed during the walk-over survey. The PEA makes recommendations including minimisation of habitat loss, tree protection and surface water bunding along the western boundary to intercept and trap surface water run-off and potentially provide a vegetated habitat feature. It is not proposed to remove any trees. Any lighting towards ecological habitat would be avoided. There would be some 850sqm of open private garden around the house, none of it abutting the estate road, as is the case at the other approved plots which have front gardens against the access road.
• 61. For comparison, Plot 4 at 1,616sqm is some 60% larger than the next largest of the four, at Plot 3 adjacent, and although the proposed dwelling would have a footprint twice as large, it would have slightly larger total garden areas.

Response to the Appeal Principle

• 62. The site is subject to approval in principle in an area designated for residential development within the settlement of Ballaugh, where existing character should be maintained by development of appropriate scale to meet local housing needs. The principle is established and it is reasonable to assume that a development commensurate with and complementary to what already has permission within the other three plots alongside will be acceptable, subject to compliance with development plan policy and taking account of the views of statutory consultees.

Visual Impact

• 63. The appeal proposal is similar in design, finish and impact to that already approved at Plots 1-3 and, whilst different from dwellings to the north and south east, the proposed dwelling would clearly be part of a modest development of houses within a single row. Thus, criticism of the proposal and its use of painted render, with the suggestion that this would make the property stand out unacceptably in the landscape, is neither reasonable nor supported by evidence, other than the personal opinion of the Appellant.
• 64. The proposed house would not exceed reasonable proportions compared with those at Plots 1-3. It would have a similarly acceptable impact on the neighbouring bungalows and would not be overbearing.
• 65. The trees surrounding Plot 4 are mostly outside the site and the ownership of the Applicant. The submitted drawings show that the trees would remain to screen the proposed building from property to the north and west. It is questioned whether the house would be any more prominent in the wider landscape than existing houses, being part of an established built up area.
• 66. It is submitted that the development proposed will continue the design and finish already established by the existing and approved dwellings within this modest group of buildings, with no adverse impact on the landscape or street scene. Indeed, there has been no objection to this effect by any other local resident or the local authority.

Highway Safety

• 67. It is highly relevant that there is no objection to the application nor any concern expressed by the statutory highway authority on the standard of work undertaken to date. Whether or not the road is adopted is not a reason for refusal.
• 68. Whilst the application seeks a further modification to the alignment of the access road, there is nothing in law or procedure to prevent the modification or amendment of an approved scheme. In this proposal, the access road is moved towards the proposed dwellings and is no closer to any other existing property, whilst sufficient access is retained in accordance with highway authority requirements and without disadvantage to any existing resident.
• 69. There is no question that the Applicant seeks to gain through stealth anything they would not have originally obtained, as inappropriately implied and ultimately irrelevant to this appeal.
• 70. There is no reason for the application to be considered objectionable in highway safety terms nor for any further highway information to be required.

Impact on Neighbours

• 71. Residential amenity is an important material planning consideration which caused earlier proposals for Plots 1-3 to be refused on grounds of perceived adverse impact on residents of the bungalows in Faaie Craine. In the present case, there are no local objections, save by the Appellant at Mwyllin Squeen.
• 72. The two-storey southern elevation of the proposed dwelling would have two relatively small windows on the first floor, serving a bedroom as a secondary light source, and a bathroom. The boundary between the southern elevation and the rear and side elevations of Nos 10 and 12 Faaie Craine is formed by a tall dense hedge understood to be the ownership of those properties. The hedge is currently approximately the height of the top of the ground floor windows of these bungalows.
• 73. The southern elevation of the proposed dwelling would be a minimum of 23m from the side of No 12, and 13m from the rear of No 10. Whilst the latter distance is less than the 20m RDG guideline, the angle of any view towards these windows, together with the height of the hedge, would not result in any unacceptable impact on the privacy or outlook of this or any other neighbouring property.
• 74. With respect to Mwyllin Squeen, it is noted that an application submitted in respect of that property in 2009, under Ref 09/00357/B, shows the curtilage and land ownership as extending no further north east than the watercourse, suggesting that neither the section of land wrapping around the application site to its north west and south west nor the access lane are within that ownership.
• 75. The proposed dwelling would be a significant distance from the closest part of the Mwyllin Squeen built group, with the intervening conifer hedge and woodland on the western side of the watercourse preventing any intervisibility.
• 76. Three of the first floor windows on the proposed western elevation and a small balcony serve two bedrooms. There is also a bathroom and a dressing room window within this elevation. These windows are 36m from the closest building at Mwyllin Squeen and 55m from the nearest part of the principal dwelling.
• 77. Given the distance between the existing and proposed properties, the orientation of Mwyllin Squeen and the intervening woodland, it is submitted that there would be no adverse impact on living conditions at that property.

Drainage

• 78. The adequacy of the foul and surface water drainage of this site was dealt with in previous applications, which established the acceptability of the land for residential development, specifically the erection of a dwelling on Plot 4. Plots 1 and 2 have been occupied for some time, with no apparent drainage

issues, and the connections for Plots 3 and 4 are in place and ready for use. If a pumped system is necessary to enable Plot 4 to connect successfully to the existing sewerage system, this is not considered to be objectionable.

Ecology

• 79. It is alleged that the PEA is deficient as it does not include all of the site. However, the PEA has been deemed acceptable by the statutory consultee and covers all the relevant ecological aspects of the application. The access layout previously approved in 2015 would also have removed the hedge between the estate road and the lane. So the arrangement now proposed would have no greater impact. This is not therefore a relevant consideration for the current application or this appeal.
• 80. As the site is already the subject of approval in principle for residential development, there is no reason in ecological terms for the application to be refused. Biodiversity net gain is not yet a legal requirement and this proposed development would not result in any biodiversity net loss. No trees would be removed and the various features identified in the PEA would contribute to the enhancement of the biodiversity of the site, as noted by the Ecosystems Policy Team (below). This would more than compensate for any loss of habitat due to the building works already approved in principle. Furthermore, the trees immediately surrounding the site are not to be regarded as woodland but simply a row of rather unnatural conifers planted around the development plot. The more natural woodland is mostly on the other side of the watercourse and in the ownership and control of others.

Conclusion

• 81. This is an approved plot within a residential development in an identified settlement where further development is acceptable and indeed to where new development should be directed rather than built in undesignated countryside.
• 82. There are no objections to the application from any statutory consultee, or any of the people with property immediately adjacent to the site.
• 83. Whilst the Appellant maintains the sole local objection, all the issues raised have been addressed in the processing of the application and there are no material grounds for refusal.
• 84. The approval sought in this appeal would enable this modest development of interesting houses to be completed, to the benefit of the surrounding area.
• 85. It is accordingly requested that the appeal be dismissed and the approval of the application confirmed.

Other Representations Received The material points are:

• 86. DOI Highway Services have no significant concerns with the layout of the access road and driveway and did not oppose the application, subject to access, layout and parking being implemented before first occupation of the dwelling.
• 87. The DEFA Ecosystems Policy Team confirms that the Ecology Vannin PEA is in order and that a suitable level of assessment has been undertaken. Ecology Vannin identify a number of features which could be negatively impacted, including: the tree-lined water course and mature trees, nesting and foraging bird habitat, roosting, foraging and commuting bat habitat, terrestrial common frog habitat, and habitat suitable for a range of invertebrates. Ecology Vannin recommended avoidance and mitigation measures, as incorporated into the submitted Ecology and Landscaping Plan (Drawing No. 231783 06). These measures include: the retention of existing trees, protection of the stream and sod hedge, new native landscaping, bird and bat bricks, and responsible working methods. Conditions are necessary for the development to be undertaken in full accordance with those details and for sensitive low-level lighting.
• 88. The DEFA Flood Risk Management Division is content with the flood mitigation measures set out in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment.

Assessment by the Inspector Main Issues

• 89. I have taken fully into account all the written representations including rebuttal statements by the Appellant and Applicant and, on that basis, I consider that the main issues in this appeal relate to:

• a. concerns regarding the retrospective nature of variations to the previously approved access route and the safety and adequacy of the access arrangements now proposed;
• b. concerns regarding trees, hedges, wildlife, ecology and biodiversity;
• c. the scale, massing and design of the proposed built development and its effect on neighbouring amenity; and
• d. the adequacy of the drainage arrangements for the development.

Access

• 90. The fact that this application includes retrospective alterations to the access serving the Plots 2-3 Stable Fields, as well as the appeal site, might be confusing and concerning to other residents who are dependent upon the route from Station Road. However, it is not in itself objectionable in planning terms, provided the development proposed in this appeal would be served by safe and adequate access without, detriment to other interests.

• 91. The Appellant raises road safety concerns at the junction of Bayr y Wyllin with Station Road due to on-street parking during events at Ballaugh Parish Hall, as well as restricted visibility, lack of street lighting, limited footways and carriageway surface irregularity.
• 92. However, the question for this appeal is whether the traffic from a single additional dwelling would make these matters significantly worse. It is my view that the net potential effect on road safety would be minimal and does not warrant substantive planning objection on highway grounds.
• 93. Moreover, it appears to me that the shared access layout now proposed would provide a clearly defined route for all users, maintaining adequate width and alignment, without undue traffic conflicts, given that the use of this essentially residential access can be assumed to continue at a relatively low level.
• 94. The private drive within the appeal site itself, with a right-angle bend around the boundary with Plot 3, does appear somewhat tortuous, especially for delivery vehicles larger than a private car. However, that is largely a matter for potential occupiers. There would be more than sufficient vehicle parking space on-site and, in the event of an occasional delivery having to be made from the shared turning circle, there would appear to be acceptable scope there for manoeuvring.
• 95. There is no objection by the highway authority, subject to Conditions 2 and 3 of the initial approval, to secure the timely completion of the appeal site access and parking arrangements to an acceptable standard of construction. On the evidence to the appeal, I consider that the access arrangements put forward in this application are compliant with the aims of GP2(h-i) and TP4 of the IMSP to provide safe and convenient access to the development.

Trees, Hedges, Wildlife, Ecology and Biodiversity

• 96. At first sight of the submitted plans, the large proposed dwelling, with its attached triple garage, appears to fit tightly within its boundaries. However, the measured footprint of the building and available outdoor space within the site are in reasonable proportion, compared with the approved developments at Plots 1-3.
• 97. In its ecology and landscaping details, the appeal scheme recognises the importance of retaining existing trees on the site, where possible, as ecological features, and of safeguarding protected Manx sod banks at the western boundary. New tree planting is proposed within the site.
• 98. Notably, existing trees and hedges at the boundaries are evidently outside the defined application site and beyond the direct control of the Applicant to lop or prune them outside the residential curtilage. That is not to say that their protection is any less important. However, it appears unlikely that the lines of trees immediately surrounding the site, or the more extensive

• woodland beyond, would be disturbed by the development. Within the site, there is no evidence that the footprint of the proposed building would harmfully overlap the root protection areas of the existing trees.
• 99. In connection with an Area of Ecological Importance covering the site, the Appellant references potential bird strike due to the extensive glazing of the proposed elevations, as well as the prospect of any such effect being increased by the future addition of greenhouses or other outbuildings to the property. The possibility of noise from such as air source heat pumps is also mentioned.
• 100. There is no doubt that these factors can be problematic in the protection of wildlife. However, the submitted preliminary ecological appraisal, extending to all but the largely completed revised access road, identifies no species, habitats or vegetal features likely to require any greater level of protection than is described in the ecology and landscape details that form part of the appeal proposals. Whilst there is no separate arboricultural assessment, all these details have met with approval of the DEFA Ecosystems Policy Team.
• 101. With no loss of trees and additional landscaping, the development is likely to result in an overall biodiversity enhancement to the site.
• 102. I consider that, subject to Condition 5 to secure the ecology and landscaping details and the further Condition 6 requiring any external lighting to be of low level to protect bats, the proposed development would comply with EPs 4-5 of the IMSP in relation to ecology and biodiversity.

Scale, Massing, Design and Amenity

• 103. There is no doubt that the proposed dwelling and its triple garage would be of comparatively large scale in the local context. However, any question of whether the amount of accommodation to be provided is necessary is not primarily a matter for this appeal, which turns on the practical planning effects of the development.
• 104. Although larger in mass than its neighbours at Plots 1-3, the proposed dwelling would nonetheless follow their example in its architectural detailing and finishes.
• 105. I do not consider that the building would look conspicuous or out of place in views from the surrounding area, given its visual association with the surrounding established built settlement.
• 106. As for its effect on neighbouring amenity, there may be some degree of perceived intrusion in terms of overbearing or reduction in privacy at nearby dwellings. I consider that generally, intervening distances are sufficient to prevent any undue feeling of overshadowing or overbearing, despite the higher level of the appeal site compared with that of Faaie Craine or Mwyllin Squeen. Similarly, I consider that overlooking between facing windows would be acceptably mitigated by separation distances well in excess of the 20m RDG guideline. The new house would stand closer to

• Nos 10 and 12 Faaie Craine but, even here, there is good screening and, notably, no objection from that quarter.
• 107. Condition 4 would ensure suitable construction and finishing materials and Condition 7 would prevent unduly intrusive extensions to the building. With those stipulations in place, I consider that the appeal development would respect the site and the distinct character of the surrounding area in scale form, design and with respect to amenity. I therefore regard the proposals as compliant with GP2 (b), (c) and (g) and EP42 of the IMSP in these respects.

Drainage

• 108. There appears to be no question, taking account of the past approval in principle, that the appeal development can be served by foul and surface water drainage acceptable to Manx Utilities as statutory consultee, including private pumping if necessary. Where rainfall run-off from increased impermeable roof or paved surfaces might require detailed enlargement of proposed pipework, or where the routeing of sewerage would need to follow the revised access road alignment, these are matters also for building control under separate legislation.

Other Matters

• 109. There is no evidence of flood risk according to the submitted flood risk assessment, albeit the appeal proposals include some precautionary flood mitigation measures to the satisfaction of the DEFA Flood Risk Management Division. On that basis, the development would accord with EP10 of the IMSP in taking account of flood risk.
• 110. From all that I have read and observed, I find no other matter to affect my decision.

Conclusion

• 111. For the reasons explained above, I conclude that this appeal should fail and the approval be upheld.

Conditions

• 112. All the conditions imposed on the initial approval and referenced above should be repeated in any approval granted following this appeal. An additional Condition 8 is suggested to specify the approved plans.

Recommendation

• 113. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed, with the effect that the decision of the Planning Authority be upheld and planning approval granted for the erection of a new detached dwelling and realignment of access road at Plot 4, Stable Fields, Ballaugh, Isle of Man, IM7 5AH, subject to compliance

with the conditions set out in the Appendix to this Report and for the reasons there stated.

B J Sims

B J Sims BSc (Hons) CEng MICE MRTPI Independent Inspector 10 February 2025

APPENDIX List of Recommended Conditions and Reason for Approval Conditions

• 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.

• 2. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the means of vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, and shall thereafter be retained for access purposes only. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
• 3. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.

• 4. No development shall commence until a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

• 5. The development shall be undertaken in full accordance with the details contained in the approved Ecology and Landscaping Details Plan (Drawing No. 231783 06) prior to the occupation of the development and maintained thereafter, save that all planting is to be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwelling site, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from the completion of the development, die or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species. Reason: In the interests of the landscape and ecology.

• 6. No external lighting shall be installed save in accordance with a sensitive lowlevel 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 the Department and approved in writing. All works must thereafter be undertaken in full accordance with this plan. This must include measures such as lighting avoidance areas (watercourse, boundary trees and hedging), suitable lighting temperatures, use of timers and passive infrared sensors. Reason: In the interest of the protection of bats
• 7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (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, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, 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.

• 8. The development shall be carried out in accordance with following approved plans:

23 1783 06 - Ecology landscaping details and plan

• 23 1783 01 Revision A - Site and location plan 23 1783 05 Revision A - Site plan Received 24.04.24
• 23 1783 02 - Ground floor plan
• 23 1783 03 - First floor plan, elevations and sections
• 23 1783 04 - 3D visuals

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

This decision has been made for the following reasons:

The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in principle by providing a new dwelling of a high standard of design, without detriment to the character of the wider street scene or landscape setting. The development would further provide a high standard of living for future occupants, without detriment to the amenities of surrounding residential properties. The development is further considered to be acceptable with respect to highways impacts, flood risk and ecological matters.

The proposals are therefore deemed compliant with Spatial Policy 4, General Policy 2, Environment Policies 4, 5, 10 and 42, and Transport Policies 4 and 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.