SOC DEFA Planning Officer Appeal Statement

Please reply to the signatory

Our Ref: 23/01285/B

Mr. A. Johnstone Planning Appeals Secretary Cabinet Office Government Offices Buck’s Road Douglas IM1 3PN

Tel: (01624) 685950 Email: [email protected] Toby Cowell Principal Planning Officer

18th December 2024 Dear Mr Johnstone, PA No: 23/01285/B Proposal: Erection of a new detached dwelling and re-alignment of access road (part retrospective) Address: Field 224255 Station Road Ballaugh 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 the Department on 29th October 2024 which is online and forms part of the planning file.

The enclosed statement comprises the following parts:

1. Appendix 1 – Statement of Case

Yours sincerely,

Toby Cowell 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:

Erection of a new detached dwelling and re-alignment of access road (part retrospective) Field 224255 Station Road Ballaugh Isle Of Man PA Reference: 23/01285/B Prepared on behalf of the Planning Department by Toby Cowell Principal Planning Officer

• 1.0 Reason for Approval

The application was recommended for approval by the Planning Officer and subsequently determined under delegated authority. The application is noted as having been approved on the decision notice for the following reason:

“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 streetscene or landscape setting.

The proposals 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 Strategic Plan.”

• 2.0 Legal and Policy Position

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.

That being said, it shall be noted that the 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.

In this application, the most weight has been given to the Strategic Plan and the 1982 Development Plan as they have been through a statutory process, which includes evidence base and public consultation process, and are adopted by Tynwald.

Other material considerations referred to in the officer report include the Residential Design Guide (RDG) which followed targeted consultation and adoption by the Minister and has therefore been afforded greater weight.

It is not considered that the other material considerations outweigh that set out above.

• 3.0 Response to Reasons for Appeal This report addresses those issues directly, for a full assessment of the initial application please refer to the original Officer’s Report which would have been supplied with the initial documentation. There appears to be six issues raised by the appellants;

• 1. Concerns raised over the lack of clarity or definition of the application site and the implied approval for incomplete or substandard works;
• 2. The submitted preliminary ecological appraisal did not cover the entirety of the site and therefore the development could result in a net loss of biodiversity;
• 3. Existing trees would not be afforded adequate protection during construction and postconstruction, therefore resulting in a potential impact upon wildlife;
• 4. The proposed massing is excessive, out of keeping with surrounding dwellings and would result in an overbearing presence in the context of neighbouring properties;
• 5. No drainage details have been provided demonstrating sufficient capacity in the public sewer network;
• 6. Potential highway safety risk, particularly in the absence of a road safety audit and the relaxation of highway standards;

FOLLOWING SECTION ADDRESSES THOSE ISSUES DIRECTLY

3.1 Application site confirmation

The revised site and location plan (drwg. no. 23 1783 01 RevA) clearly denotes the application site in red which includes the existing access as built up to the main road. The plan further makes a clear distinction between the ‘as built’ access and the access alignment as approved in previous applications.

3.2 Ecology and trees

The preliminary ecological appraisal covers the entirety of the application site which is proposed to be developed, with only the realigned access having been omitted together with the mature tree belt to the west of the proposed dwelling. Given that the access has already been built, it is unclear how its absence would result in a material impact on the content and outcomes of the submitted PEA. Indeed, the content of the PEA, including the proposed mitigation measures and submitted ecological landscaping plan, were found to be acceptable by the Ecosystems Policy Officer. Likewise, the existing mature trees are proposed to remain in situ with the submitted landscaping plan noting that the footprint of the dwelling would not impede upon the root protection areas of retained trees. Additional tree planting is further proposed to the north of the dwelling.

3.3 Design, scale and massing

The design, footprint and massing of the proposed dwelling has been fully considered within Section 6.3 of the officer report and found to be acceptable. Particular attention is drawn to paragraphs 6.3.2 and 6.3.3 in this respect.

3.4 Drainage and highways

Surface and foul water drainage would be discharged into existing drains on the estate road, with no comments having been received from Manx Utilities Authority objecting to the principle of drainage. Detailed matters relating to drainage would be dealt with at the Buildings Regulations stage under separate legislation.

From a highways standpoint, no concerns have been raised by Highway Services on the basis of amended plans submitted which clarify the realignment of the end of the estate road and turning circle. A S109 Highway Agreement would be required for the access road to be constructed to adoptable standards and formally adopted by Department of Infrastructure, which falls outside of the planning process.