**Document:** Interested Party Status Report July 2005 **Application:** 05/00455/B — Erection of dwellings to plots 3 and 5 of approved residential estate (02/0712/B), **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2005-05-24 **Parish:** Malew **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/78127-malew-poachers-pocket-bridge-road-dwelling/documents/1440207 --- # Interested Party Status Report July 2005 ## Department of Local Government and the Environment Report to: Planning Committee Date: 29th July 2005 From: Director of Planning and Building Control Subject: Interested Party Status: Poachers Pocket, Ballasalla. 1. Purpose of The Report 1.1 To advise the Committee of a request made for Interested Party Status from Mr D Allesbrook of Ballasalla House in respect of applications 05/0454, 455, 457 and 458, Plots 4, 3 & 5, 6 and 20 respectively at Poachers Pocket, Ballasalla. 2. Background 2.1 Members may recall that I raised this issue at the meeting on 21st July 2005. I am reporting back as it transpires that the information provided to the Committee was incorrect. 2.2 Mr Allesbrook has written requesting Interested Party Status in respect of the above applications. At your last meeting I mistakenly reported that he had already been given Interested Party Status in respect of other applications on the site i.e. 04/1660, 1661 and 1673 for Plots 2, 1 and 19 respectively. After checking the application database it appears I misunderstood the information on the working file. Mr Allesbrook has not been given Interested Party Status in respect of those applications. 2.3 Mr Allesbrook's Advocates have written to the Secretary of the Planning Committee challenging the initial response of the Committee that he had insufficient interest and therefore status should not be granted. On reporting this challenge to the Committee you asked for legal advice on the arguments. This was sought from the Attorney General's Chambers by letter dated 22nd June 2005. The initial response from the Attorney General's Chambers was that Mr Allesbrook should be afforded status because of (1) proximity to the proposed developments (2) previous grant of status in respect of an Approval in Principle application (3) having a view of the proposed buildings. When this was reported to the Committee, I expressed concern at the implication of the advice both for these applications and for other sites of proposals. The Committee agreed consideration be deferred for me to discuss the issues with the Attorney General's Chambers. This I did on 19th July, hence my report to the meeting on 21st July. 3. Assessment 3.1 Having discussed the issues with the Attorney General's Chambers it is clear that we need to establish a policy in respect of the granting of Interested Party Status. We do not have one at present and in the absence of one, the Attorney General's Chambers advises that this could lead to allegations that any decision on status is arbitrary and unfair but at the end of the day the facts are the key. 3.2 In this case Mr Allesbrook was quite rightly afforded Interested Party Status for the original approval (on appeal) 02/0712/B. That application was for roads plots and sewers for 22 dwellings shown as bungalows. The current demand of applications is seeking to secure approval for the detail of those individual units on plots, the size and location of which has already been approved. The current claim by Mr Allesbrook is in respect of Plots 4, 3 & 5, 6 and 20 all of which are separated from his property by at least 5 other plots. In addition Mr Allesbrook was not afforded Interested Party Status for Plots 2, 1 and 19 which again are separated by at least 5 Plots from his property. On this basis it is considered that Mr Allesbrook "has no interest, or no sufficient interest, in the subject matter of the decision", in all these cases the subject matter in the detailed design of a number of buildings on plots which already have planning permission and which are sited some considerable distance from the edge of his property being separated from it by the river, an area of open space and up to 14 other bungalows. 3.3 The Government Advocate further advises that Mr Allesbrook should be advised in writing of the reasons his request is being declined. 4. Recommendation 4.1 That the Committee confirm that Mr Allesbrook should not be afforded Interested Party Status for the reasons set out in 3.2 above but that he and his advocate be advised of the reason status is not being afforded in these cases. Ian McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control 26th July 2005 --- *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/78127-malew-poachers-pocket-bridge-road-dwelling/documents/1440207*