Loading document...
Our Ref:
Planning Appeals Secretary Cabinet Office Government Offices Buck’s Road Douglas IM1 3PN
Dear Sir/Madam,
Tel: (01624) 685950 Email: [email protected]
Tom Sinden Senior Registered Buildings
Officer
12th August 2025 PA No: 25/90285/B Proposal: Installation of two boreholes Address: Bishopscourt Mansion House, Bishopscourt, Kirk Michael 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 Head of Development Management on 18.6.2025 which is online and forms part of the planning file.
The enclosed statement comprises the following parts:
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 any potential conditions included at 5.0 of the Statement of Case.
Yours sincerely, T Sinden 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:
Installation of two boreholes Bishopscourt Mansion House, Bishopscourt, Kirk Michael PA Reference: 25/90285/B Prepared on behalf of the Planning Department by Tom Sinden Senior Registered Buildings Officer
The reason for approval was:
“It is judged that the application complies with environment policy 1, strategic policy 4, general policies 2 and 3, and energy policy 4 as the proposed works would protect the setting of the registered building, would not harm the wider environment, are sited so as to respect the site and its surroundings, and would have due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption. The application is therefore judged to be acceptable.”
S(4) In dealing with an application for planning approval or an application under subsection
(3), the Department shall have regard to —
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 Isle of Man Renewable Heating Scenarios (January 2022); Isle of Man Future Energy Scenarios (2020); Climate Change Act 2021; and the Climate Change Plan 2022-2027.
It is not considered that the other material considerations outweigh that set out above. Although ‘Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man’ includes sections in relation to the protection of the setting of heritage assets, the most recent policy with regard to this issue is found in Strategic Policy 4 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016.
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.
While the main reason given for lodging this appeal appears to be the lack of a structural survey, other issues were raised by the appellant that will also be addressed below.
FOLLOWING SECTION ADDRESSES THOSE ISSUES DIRECTLY
The appellant raised concerns regarding the significant disruption that is occurring in the land behind their property as a result of the large-scale construction works that are being undertaken at the Bishopscourt site.
Although the presence of the site compound behind their property and the ongoing works on the adjacent site will undoubtedly be causing noise, disruption and a reduction in the appellant’s quality of life, these issues are as a result of the works approved under numerous other applications on the site, and not as a result of this application. Temporary issues as a result of the implementation of previously approved works should not, in the Officer’s opinion, warrant refusal of this application.
The appellant raised concerns that drilling and other groundworks had resulted in damage to their property, and that drilling for boreholes could result in more issues of a similar nature.
The structural report by Curtins submitted in support of this appeal states that it is the Engineer’s view that ground vibration does not appear to have affected the external wall structure of Garden Cottage, and that whilst vibration may have caused other cracking, this cracking is in a location where normal shrinkage and ageing of finishes can result in cracking. Clearly existing cracking or subsidence cannot be the result of the works within this application, as these works have yet to occur. In terms of potential damage as a result of the proposed boreholes, at approximately 50m away, in considering the application the Officer judged that any borehole works would be sufficiently distant to not impact the adjacent properties. The Curtins report also states that they do not envisage that the installation would have any significant adverse effect on the structure of the property. Given the distance involved and the advice from the appellant’s own Structural Engineer, I do not consider this matter to warrant refusal of the application.
The appellant states that Garden Cottage and The Lindens were part of the original Bishopscourt estate and that they should be given the same respect.
It is acknowledged that the two properties mentioned are part of the historic Bishopscourt Estate. In terms of statutory protected, these properties do not form part of the Registered Building, and therefore do not have the same protection. However, I agree that as part of the historic estate, these properties are historic assets and consideration should be given to protecting their significance within the policy guidelines. General Policy two calls for development to respect the form, scale and design of its site and surroundings. As this application only proposes very modest 1m high cylindrical covers to the boreholes, and the siting of the nearest borehole is proposed to be approximately 50 metres away, I have judged that the works within this application would meet the tests of General Policy 2 and respect the site and its surroundings. Any further cover or structure that may impact either of these two properties would be subject of a further planning application and assessed accordingly.
The applicant’s statement includes reasons for wishing to install boreholes. This includes the passage “The restoration of the buildings and gardens – which includes modernisation and rationalisation of the water supply, drainage, rainwater goods and rainwater harvesting – would benefit from the extra provision of bore-hole water, relieving consumption of mains water and taking responsibility for Bishopscourt’s own supply.”
The provision of mains water from centralised reservoirs, through treatment works and piping the water to all properties on the island is obviously something that consumes electricity. Whilst drinking water has obvious needs for this process in terms of public health, water being used to irrigate garden estates has no such need, and using such water for estate management purposes is therefore something that can be avoided by an on-site supply. I have therefore judged that the provision of boreholes to assist in the water needs of the estate would comply with the various climate change and renewable energy targets within the Government’s Climate Change Act and like-minded plans/objectives listed in section 2 of this statement.
The appellants raised concern that the works could result in impacts including groundwater contamination and disruption to local wildlife. The appellants also note the loss of 21 mature trees.
A risk assessment was submitted in support of the application that sought to analyse the likely impact of the proposed boreholes on the groundwater in the surrounding area. The assessment concluded that it was unlikely that the proposed boreholes would lead to any measurable impact on the adjacent unnamed watercourse or Bishopscourt Glen.
While the Ecosystems Policy team were consulted on this application, no comments were received and it is therefore assumed that no Ecosystems had no concerns. Across the many recent applications on and around the Bishopscourt site, Ecosystems have made detailed comments. As a result of these comments there have been mitigation measures and monitoring procedures put in place in respect of various wildlife. The works within this application are judged to be modest and very focussed in comparison to those taking place around the site currently. With this in mind, together with the absence of any concerns from
the Ecosystems Policy Team, it was not judged that any environmental concerns were sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.
With regard to the loss of trees, no trees have been proposed to be lost as a result of this application.
Finally, the Head of Energy Policy highlighted the requirements under the Isle of Man Minerals Act 1986. While it is not the role of the Town and Country Planning Act to police other pieces of legislation, a note was added to the approval notice that highlighted the applicant’s need to comply with this legislation when undertaking the works.
In the event that the Inspector is minded to recommend approval it is recommended that a slightly amended condition be added to that attached to the initial approval. Condition 2 of the approval notice stated:-
“For the avoidance of doubt, no approval is hereby given for the construction of any aboveground works in relation to the two boreholes. Any associated works constituting development will require planning consent in their own right. Reason: Only permission for the two bore holes has been sought.”
This failed to take account of the 1m high and 1.2m diameter capping elements that would be above ground over each borehole. The intention of the condition was to make clear that any additional buildings designed to mask the borehole capping would be the subject of further applications. It is therefore suggested that this condition should be amended to read as follows:-
“For the avoidance of doubt, no approval is hereby given for the construction of any aboveground works in relation to the two boreholes other than the 1m high capping elements shown on drawings 6296 1004 (B) and 6296 1005 (B). Any associated works constituting development will require planning consent in their own right. Reason: Only permission for the two bore holes has been sought.”
In addition to the condition above, is also recommended that the two notes added to the initial approval notice be included in order to make the applicant aware of the requirements of the other items of legislation listed.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown