**Document:** Owners of Balladoyne Farm Appeal Statement
**Application:** AP24/0047 — Appeal against the approval for 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
**Decision:** Appeal dismissed - PA APPROVED
**Decision Date:** 2025-02-11
**Parish:** German
**Document Type:** appeal / appeal_statement
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/88393-german-main-road-st-johns-appeal-against-approval/documents/1142210
---
# Owners of Balladoyne Farm Appeal Statement
Cabinet Office Government Office Douglas IM1 3PN Chief Secretary
## Redacted
Struan Beg Main Road Lower Foxdale IM4 3AY
11th December 2024
Re:PA 23/00606/B Appeal against approval for construction of 3 garages to plots 4 & 5 and foul drainage connection of previously approved and commenced development PA/2000787/B & PA 19/01324/B Field 314758 & 312909 Main Road St,Johns Isle of Man. Statement of Case
We are owners of Balladoyne Farm and the Western plot in field 312909 which forms part of Area 1 in the St Johns Local plan. On the Western plot we have full planning permission for a dwelling PA 24/00276/REM for PA 21/00365/A. The Eastern boundary of our Plot is contiguous with Plots 1&2 of the Applicants site. Evidence #1
In 2022 the field 312909 was legally partitioned to form the Western plot and Ravenhill Resources’ Development of 6 Bungalows. In addition to the Western plot an access lane was transferred to Mr & Mrs Davies’s ownership in consideration for the use of the Access route from Peel Road to the development site. Evidence #2.
### Issue #1 Boundary
In June 2223 Ravenhill/M Pearce submitted a planning application 23/00606/B. The proposal was as described above. The boundaries on the plan did not conform to the agreement of July 22. We wrote to planning explaining the issue. For the planning Application 21/00365/A we were required to present a copy of the agreement to demonstrate our boundary and prove a right of access to the Balladoyne estate. 24/00276/REM for PA 21/00365/A. is approved, and the plans were drawn by a reputable architectural firm. Our approved plan now places our garage partially in what the applicant had drawn as Plot 1 which we are informed is sold. We have approached the applicant several times but as yet he has not amended the submitted drawing.
The underlying issue with the current application from Ravenhill stems back to the Appeal for 21/00787/B. During the final appeal process under the Wheatcroft Principle (our limited
understanding is: In England this allows a further plan to be submitted on an application refused by the planning department to address issues) in this case an agreed (not including the 3rd party although we were tenants in common at that time) solution of an access to Plot 6 which was partially out of plot 6 and into plot 5 (which was not part of the application) to protect the Archaeological site and was permitted by the Independent Planning Inspector. The appeal was dismissed; however, conditions were applied which protected the Archaeological site from intrusive works such as Roads and sewers to plot six. The Wheatcroft plan Rev J1 had the road and sewer to the south of the cairn site and we have never seen the plan again. Plot 6 was approved with no road access.
The current plan initially contravened the conditions 21/00787/b and the Wheatcroft plan, with a road to the North of the cairn site. It has evolved to its current form, maintaining the incorrect boundaries. It has become exhausting for us screening the applications for small changes to our boundary. The latest in September 0725/PL103/Rev C12B had another anomaly whereby the eastern end of our access lane was no longer continuous with the Road leading to the turning head and onto the Balladoyne estate Road in effect a ransom strip. The September plan was to address environmental issues but still the subtle changes to the Road which if unchallenged would have a real impact on our progress in all aspects.
Issue #2 Drainage & Access Our issue with the drainage is one of confusion deciding what drainage plan is being approved’ St Johns Local Plan Development brief
c. No detailed application for development of any dwelling will be approved until such time as a detailed application for the installation of roads and sewers together with the indication of plots and landscaping, has been approved by the Planning Committee.
This approval is allowing a dwelling to be built without an approved access The planning officer has explained this to the applicant and Mr Pearce has accepted the risk. On this basis the applicant has been allowed to erect garages for Plot 5 which prevent the proposed and agreed solution under Wheatcroft. Plot 5 which is under a different approval from Plot 6 had previously agreed to the access proposal under Wheatcroft.
Officers report 3.2 Conditions 20/00787/B (in part)
C20. No Access or Drainage services shall be constructed to plot 6 until alternative access details have been approved in writing by the department and plot 6 shall not be occupied until access and drainage services have been provided in full accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter. Reason To ensure sufficient construction detail is provided for any access (including footpaths) and drainage services to plot 6 in the interest of appropriately safeguarding the archaeological remains of the C
This approval is allowing a dwelling, to be built without an approved access and garages to be built where the previous appeal indicated the road and sewer should be on the Wheatcroft Plan Rev J1. It is also allowing a sewer to be constructed without an approved access to a plot where the dwelling is half erected. This contradicts C20 above. The original drawing for this application clearly showed the boundaries of Plot 5 & 6 This is clearly documented in the Appeal Inspectors report for 21/00787/B
- 5.4.2 The applicant should enter into a section8 adoption agreement for public adoption of wastewater sewers before starting work.
- 6.4.1
The foul route has been accepted by MU. They have highlighted that a separate section 8 adoption agreement for waste water sewers should be entered into before works start. Until such a time the foul and surface water systems would remain as private and to be maintained by individuals within the site or perhaps a management company. Any un-adopted system is not the responsibility for MU and so any system issues would be a private matter to overcome. Finished floor levels of the plots must be confirmed to ensure proper drainage.
- 7.0 Conclusion
MU have accepted the drainage plans reaffirming their unadoptable status and potential need to be a privately pumped system and that both foul and surface water drains and soakaway shall remain privately maintained unless applied to be adopted (separate adoption process outside remit of planning).
Email MU 8/8/24 The finished floor levels of each of the proposed plots on the development will need to be confirmed to ensure that the proposed private lateral drains can be connected via gravity and achieve the required building regulation gradients. If this cannot be met, individual private pumps may be required. Details of each plot drainage must be indicated on subsequent applications
## Why would subsequent applications be required?
We would state it is very difficult for anyone to follow what is occurring with the drainage with so many revisions. In the current September Layout plan, which is after Ian wade’s (MU)August email, the drainage system remains the same.
We have attached a report which we were given by the applicant and informed it was presented to Ian Wade MU in April 2024. This report and drawings specify a different layout and gradients to the one submitted to planning in September 2024 rev 0725/P103 C-12-B.
The report gives an ideal engineering solution to the drainage reducing the gradient thereby allowing all 6 plots to achieve a gravity system. We believe it is this report Ian wade has based his acceptance on.
We are the end user of this drainage system and currently there is no access agreement for maintenance or any other access than the initial connection to the sewer at MH 9701. We consider it should be compulsory in developments to build to an adoptable standard. It would be difficult for anybody to follow the trail of this layout let alone referring back to 21/00787/B. Evidence 3
## Summary
Boundaries should be respected especially when conflicting with existing approved plans and accurately drawn. The applicant has been approached and requested to address the matter which he agreed to do but did not submit.
Potential residents need to understand the issues with an unadopted sewer. Developers should be further encouraged present plans that are engineered and built to adoptable standards and are approved by MUA.
The Planning Department has approved the application which, if it complied with all the conditions from 23/00606/B C2. Cannot commence building garages on plot 5 until the dwelling is up to the eaves C4. Has no permission to construct an access route to plot 6 C5. Has no approval for any access from Peel Road C6 No Construction access through the Balladoyne estate road.
PA 21/00787/B C19. No Construction access through the cairn site and the Northern boundary. C20. No access or drainage services to plot 6 until alternative access details have been approved.
PA 19/01324/B C4 Programme of works including timing, remediation scheme for the removal of the temporary access. Restored to open space in accordance with the approved timing and scheme of remediation We consider C20 has not been applied to the application and that undermines the original purpose of protecting the cairn 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.3.7 Indicates the Applicants true objective which is reasonable.
What we fail to understand is, why an updated plan with the sewer and Road to the North has not been submitted with proper mitigation for the Cairn site which, we understand has already been undertaken.
Based on the above evidence we respectfully request the appeal be upheld.
Yours Sincerely
## Redacted
### Evidence #3
|Technical Note
|Project number: AX0360-NOT-1|Project number: AX0360-NOT-1|
|---|---|---|
|Technical Note
|Project: Balladoyne Drainage|Project: Balladoyne Drainage|
|Technical Note
|Client: MP Associates Ltd.|Client: MP Associates Ltd.|
|Technical Note
|Engineered by: TC|Checked by:|
|Technical Note
|Date: 05/04/2024|Date:|
## Contents
- 1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................2
- 2 Relevant Standards ...................................................................................................................................................3
- 3 Drainage Calculations................................................................................................................................................4
- 4 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................................5
- 5 References ................................................................................................................................................................5
- Appendix A – Drainage Arrangement Sketch....................................................................................................................6
- Appendix B – Butler Chart Extract ....................................................................................................................................7
|Technical Note
|Project number: AX0360-NOT-1|Project number: AX0360-NOT-1|
|---|---|---|
|Technical Note
|Project: Balladoyne Drainage|Project: Balladoyne Drainage|
|Technical Note
|Client: MP Associates Ltd.|Client: MP Associates Ltd.|
|Technical Note
|Engineered by: TC|Checked by:|
|Technical Note
|Date: 05/04/2024|Date:|
## 1 Introduction
Axis Consulting Engineers Ltd have been requested to appraise the proposed foul drainage system at the Balladoyne development in St Johns, where 6 dwellings are being constructed.
The foul system connects into an existing Manx Utilities foul sewer system (at Manhole 9701), with invert level 41.01mAOD. The proposed system is intended for adoption.
Levels at the site are relatively flat and the distances to the existing sewer preclude a 1:60 fall across all runs on the new system, without significantly raising the proposed plots.
Figure 1 – extract from developer’s plans showing proposed development.
|Technical Note
|Project number: AX0360-NOT-1|Project number: AX0360-NOT-1|
|---|---|---|
|Technical Note
|Project: Balladoyne Drainage|Project: Balladoyne Drainage|
|Technical Note
|Client: MP Associates Ltd.|Client: MP Associates Ltd.|
|Technical Note
|Engineered by: TC|Checked by:|
|Technical Note
|Date: 05/04/2024|Date:|
## 2 Relevant Standards
Manx Sewers for Adoption [1] states the following:
Other relevant standards and code of practises are:
- - BS EN ISO 752-4 “Drain and sewer systems outside buildings” [2]
- - Sewers for Adoption 7th Edition (relevant code of practice England & Wales) [3]
## 3 Drainage Calculations
[Table omitted in markdown export]
Calculations have been undertaken in line with BS EN 752-4 and in accordance with Spons Urban Drainage Second Edition [4], flow rates have been calculated in accordance with discharge units [2] with associated probability factors.
Min flow for self-cleansing (0.75 m/s) using Butler charts ~ 2.6l/s [5] [Table omitted in markdown export]
## Notes
1. "MH 5.1" are junction connections into run 1.3 rather than MH
2. Blue highlighted manholes are proposed for adoption
3. Grey text is proposed private drainage
4. Yellow highlighted falls - ran at 1:60 as insufficient flows to justify 1:80
5. Green design flow rate - sufficient design flow to achieve 0.75 m/s
In summary where 4 or more houses are served calculations can justify a 1:80 fall at design flow. Where there is a lower flow than this it is recommended that a 1:60 fall should be implemented.
(All adoptable runs taken as 150mm minimum)
It should be noted that this is based on design flow rather than one third design flows (MSfA) and therefore may occur less frequently, although the proposed falls would be acceptable under Sewers for Adoption 7th edition with a smaller pipe diameter (higher frictional losses), based on empirical evidence.
|Technical Note
|Project number: AX0360-NOT-1|Project number: AX0360-NOT-1|
|---|---|---|
|Technical Note
|Project: Balladoyne Drainage|Project: Balladoyne Drainage|
|Technical Note
|Client: MP Associates Ltd.|Client: MP Associates Ltd.|
|Technical Note
|Engineered by: TC|Checked by:|
|Technical Note
|Date: 05/04/2024|Date:|
## 4 Conclusion
Based on the calculations it is proposed that runs 1.8, 1.7, 1.6, 1.5 & 1.4 could be laid at 1:80 falls whilst achieving selfcleansing velocities at design flows.
Consideration of floor levels in Plots 5 & 6 is required, and/or areas of private drainage may require concrete encasement to meet required levels – the developer has advised it is possible to accommodate proposed drainage levels. It is recommended that all private drainage and laterals are set to suitable falls to ensure a self-cleansing regime.
Adequate construction controls should be undertaken to ensure falls are maintained and there are no shallow areas or areas of settlement that may subsequently impact on the efficiency of the proposed drainage system.
## 5 References
- [1] D. D. Division/WRc, “Manx Sewers for Adoption,” 2003.
- [2] B. Standards, “BS EN 752-4 Drain and sewer systems outside buildings. Hydraulic design and environmental considerations,” 2017.
- [3] WRc, “Sewers for Adoption 7th Edition - A Design & Construction Guide for Developers,” 2012.
- [4] Spons, “Urban Drainage, 3rd Ed,” 2017.
- [5] D. B. a. R. Pinkerton, Gravity flow pipe design charts, Thomas Telford.
|Technical Note
|Project number: AX0360-NOT-1|Project number: AX0360-NOT-1|
|---|---|---|
|Technical Note
|Project: Balladoyne Drainage|Project: Balladoyne Drainage|
|Technical Note
|Client: MP Associates Ltd.|Client: MP Associates Ltd.|
|Technical Note
|Engineered by: TC|Checked by:|
|Technical Note
|Date: 05/04/2024|Date:|
## Appendix A – Drainage Arrangement Sketch
**M P Associates**
AWAYS, NEW ENGLAND
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
www.anways.com
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.
|Technical Note
|Project number: AX0360-NOT-1|Project number: AX0360-NOT-1|
|---|---|---|
|Technical Note
|Project: Balladoyne Drainage|Project: Balladoyne Drainage|
|Technical Note
|Client: MP Associates Ltd.|Client: MP Associates Ltd.|
|Technical Note
|Engineered by: TC|Checked by:|
|Technical Note
|Date: 05/04/2024|Date:|
## Appendix B – Butler Chart Extract
---
*Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).*
*Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/88393-german-main-road-st-johns-appeal-against-approval/documents/1142210*