**Document:** Background Planning Statement
**Application:** 15/00841/B — Erection of a dwelling with driveway and parking (revised planning application for PA 14/00761/B)
**Decision:** Refused
**Decision Date:** 2015-09-22
**Parish:** Malew
**Document Type:** report / planning_statement
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/6353-malew-alderoaks-field-new-build-dwelling/documents/1588646

---

# Background Planning Statement

ERECTION OF RURAL DWELLING WITH DRIVEWAY AND PARKING ,

FIELD 431505 at ALDER OAKS, ST MARK'S ROAD, ST. MARKS, MALEW

## Background

1 A previous application PA 14/00761/B was refused both initially, by the Director of Planning & Building Control on the recommendation of the Planning Officer supported by the Head of Development Management, and at appeal. The reasons for refusal were not the same on both occasions. Following advice from the same planning officer a further application was submitted but the Planning Committee declined to consider it as it was the same as previously submitted.

2 Concerns were then raised about the way the matter had been handled by the Planning Officer, the content of both that officer's report and the Appeal Inspector's conclusions based on that report; concerns were also expressed over the advice given by the Planning Officer following the refusal at appeal and the resubmission.

3 Subsequently the applicant received a letter dated 20th April 2015 from the Hon P. Gawne MHK, Minister (Annex 1) then in charge of Planning Division saying that a further application could be "submitted" provided that it sought to provide sufficient evidence of need for the proposed dwelling. Such an application would again be initially put forward to the Committee for consideration as to whether it could be accepted into the planning application system prior to being subject to the normal processes for determination of planning applications. Further to that letter Mr William Reubens and his agent attended a meeting called for by Minister Gawne and held with himself and Michael Gallagher, Director of Planning (the Planning Division at that time still being within the Department of Infrastructure) to clarify certain issues.

4 This statement accompanying the applicant's proposal provides evidence of need, evidence to counter the reasons for refusal at appeal, more detail in design to counter the reasons for refusal at the initial stage and information to counter the conclusions at appeal stage. As this is a new application, reliance cannot be made on simply referring to old application for supporting documentation; some information will therefore be very similar to that previously produced but it is essential to include it as part of the current application.

5 Much of the evidence is extremely personal. The Director of Planning has indicated that it could be redacted ie albeit available on file in the Department such personal information would not be published on the web site. The applicant wishes this to be undertaken.

## Need

6 Mr & Mrs William & Jane Reubens and their 5 children aged between 6 and 17 years currently live in a 2-storey, 3-bedroom public authority house at Croit-e-Caley, Colby. Currently their 6 year old daughter has to share a bedroom with her parents. Three sons share a second bedroom and the elder daughter who is currently working for her A-levels and needs peace and quiet in which to do so has the third bedroom which is little more than a boxroom in size. Regularly one member of the family may use the lounge as a bedroom. Their house has one bathroom which has a bath and a basin in it and a separate WC which only has a toilet and does not have a basin in it. The bedroom, bathroom and WC are all on the first floor level.

7 Overall the family is living in space which is far too cramped and overcrowded to enable them to live happily as a family and to enable the children to grow up in a relatively stress free environment. In a letter dated 8th May 2015 (Annex 2), Laura Bazille, the Health Visitor from the South Health Visiting Team, has confirmed her advice on the cramped conditions that the Reubens family are living in, the impact that this is having on the family as a whole and her support for the current application to achieve more space for the family.

8 Mr William Reubens has had an operation for a brain tumour which has thankfully proved to be benign but its condition is under regular review. During his operation the acoustic nerve to his left ear had to be divided. Apart from the total loss of hearing on his left side this has resulted in his having lost much of his sense of balance and therefore having to give up his work in the construction industry. It can also impact on his having to cope with stairs in his house. Moreover, again as an after effect of his medical condition, he has been subject to seizures which can happen in the middle of the night. This is not a sight which a 6 year old child should have to see / cope with as a result of having to share a bedroom with her parents. The combination of after effects and coping with the physical design of his public authority house is not safe for Mr Reubens and is adding to the stress that he and his family are visibly under while continuing to live in the property.

9 Noble's Hospital and Mr Reubens's GP have supplied details of his conditions and ongoing treatment (Annex 3); his GP, Dr M Dransfield of the Ballasalla Medical Centre in a letter dated 18th June 2015 has detailed the after effects Mr Reubens is coping with and considers that it would greatly aid the family if they could find a single storey house large enough for their needs (Annex 4).

10 The issue of need and the options available have been thoroughly examined by Mr & Mrs Reubens. They need a 5-bedroom dwelling single storey dwelling.

## Social Housing

11 Para 25 of the Appeal Inspector's report (Annex 5) states

"it seems to me that further representations need to be made to the housing authorities to urgently investigate how the needs of the appellant and his family can be met through social housing or other means which do not conflict with planning policy".

12 A number of issues relating to the possibility of the Reubens family acquiring a larger Public Authority dwelling have been the subject of a number of e-mails dated 18th June 2015, June 3rd 2015, 1st June 2015, 2nd

April 2015, between the applicant, agent and the Housing Authority (Annex 6) and Environmental Health Division. This exchange of emails also clarifies some factual queries arising from the previous application. Ian Mansell of Environmental Health Division has assessed their current accommodation in terms of overcrowding. Nigel Cubbon, Housing Officer and Kenny Valerga, Housing Manager have visited Mr & Mrs W. Reubens at their home and been given copies of the supporting letters from their Health Visitor and GP for their housing application.

13 While there has been considerable mix-up over the fact, the Housing Authority has confirmed that the Reubens family have made a housing transfer application for a larger dwelling (18th June 2015).

14 In a letter dated 29th August 2014 (Annex 7) Hon H. Quayle MHK Minister for Health & Social Care indicated that consideration should be given to whether or not the applicant and his family are in accommodation which it is deemed to be overcrowded. That Department does not itself undertake assessments of overcrowding under the quoted Housing Act 1955. An assessment was requested and undertaken by the Environmental Health Officer of the Department of Environment, Food, and Agriculture in August 2014. Their response of 27th August 2014 copied to the Reubens’ agent on 24 March 2015 is attached (Annex 8). Essentially the Reubens family are not statutorily deemed to be overcrowded as under the legislation, the Housing Act 1955, which the Environmental Health Officer verbally stated is deemed to be outdated, the lounge which is separate to the kitchen could be used as a fourth bedroom and only half the allowance is made in the isle of Man for children under the age of 10.

15 Comparison with the definition of overcrowding and how it is dealt with by Housing Authorities in the UK revealed their equivalent 1950s Act has been updated and that Housing Authorities themselves were acting on the basis of the Housing Acts 1985 and 2004 (Annex 9) and a new Bill, the Housing (Overcrowding) Bill whereby the following categories should have a separate bedroom. If they do not, the dwelling is deemed to be statutorily overcrowded. The categories, as identified by Horsham District Council (Annex 10) are listed with the possible combinations relevant to the Reubens family beside them.

a) A person living together with another as husband and wife; (1 – Mr & Mrs Reubens)
b) A person aged 21 years or more (0)
c) Two persons of the same sex aged 10 years to 20 years (1 – Samuel 15 & James 11)
d) Two persons (Whether of the same sex or not) aged less than 10 years (1 – Harry 8 & Molly 6)
e) Two persons of the same sex where one person is aged between 10 years and 20 years and the other is aged less than 10 years (1 – Katie 17 & Molly 6)
f) Any person aged under 21 years in any case where he or she cannot be paired with another occupier of the dwelling so as to fall within c), d) or e) above due to high medical need for a separate bedroom (0)

16 There is no reference to three children having to share a room. Whichever combination is utilised for Molly there is still one child left over indicating that a minimum of 4 separate bedrooms (not 3 bedrooms and a lounge which could be used for sleeping in) are required and the present situation of only having 3 bedrooms would result in the Reubens family being deemed statutorily overcrowded.

17 On the Island the Housing Authority when assessing number of bedrooms needed do not count lounges as providing permanent sleeping accommodation for one of the permanent residents of the household. The

applicant’s family are assessed as requiring a minimum of 4 bedrooms as distinct from 3 bedrooms and a 4th bedroom cum lounge which is what they currently have. However, as per the advice of the Environmental Health Officer, because of the requirement to consider the lounge as a separate bedroom the Reubens are not considered to be statutorily overcrowded; this may mean that they cannot be awarded additional status on the points system for allocation of public authority housing on the Island due to being overcrowded.

18 The Housing Authority have confirmed that there are not likely to be any 2-storey, 4 bedroom dwellings available in the near future - variously quoted as “2.5 years’ time - Subject to planning approval” and “anticipated to be ready in 2018”;

19 The Housing Authority Island wide does not have any 5-bedroom properties nor are they proposing to have any.

20 The Housing Authority do not have (and by implication are not proposing to have) any 4-bedroom single storey housing units.

21 Even if they were feasible, extensions / alterations of existing local authority property (such as converting a loft to provide another bedroom, extending the property to provide an additional bedroom or WC) would only be considered in relation to needs arising from physical disablement and not needs arising from either Mr Reubens’s medical condition or “overcrowding”.

22 The Reubens family have not in the past been offered an alternative property at Rheast Barrule in Castletown.

23 The Reubens family have not, since their previous application to build their own dwelling at Alder Oaks was refused, been offered any alternative Public Authority accommodation.

24 In summary the Housing Authority cannot provide accommodation of the size (5-bedroom) or design (single storey) that is needed by the Reubens family. At best it could only provide accommodation (4-bedroom, 2-storey) and could only possibly do so in a few years’ time.

25 It is therefore concluded that social housing cannot currently or within any meaningful timescale (in terms of a short timescale to help with the problems identified by the Health Visitor and GP) meet the needs of the Reubens family.

### Alternatives to Social Housing

26 Consideration has been given both in the long term past and more recent past to alternative forms of housing. Prior to having a family, having his illness diagnosed and having his operation Mr Reubens had the opportunity of improving property but had to give this up as he was unable to maintain the mortgage payments. Due to his medical condition Mr Reubens has been forced to give up his own previous employment in the building trade. He now can only help support his wife’s laundry business based in Port Erin. Due to these changed financial circumstances and also due to his now having a large family his overall financial situation has not improved.

### Houses for Sale

27 The following information on houses for sale is taken from Prime Location (www.primelocation.com /for-sale/) (Annex 11) who summarise the majority of estate agent information on property for sale on the Island.

As the Reubens’ business essentially serves much of the Southern half of the Island and during the summer months Mrs Reubens may start work at 5am, their 2 youngest children are at primary school in Ballabeg and their other children attend school at Castle Rushen High School where their elder daughter is studying for her A-levels, the search has been confined to the South of the Island. Lowest prices however do not differ greatly throughout the Island.

28 To compare the 4 bedroom minimum that they need with a 3 bedroom equivalent to what they have - the lowest price 3- bedroom, 1 bathroom house for sale is a 2-storey terraced dwelling in Colby - £149000. Other lowest prices for dwellings for sale are as follows:

4-bedroom, 1 bathroom, 2-storey terraced dwelling in Malew Street, Castletown - £160.000 4-bedroom, 2 bathroom, 2-storey terraced dwelling at Malew Street, Castletown - £209,000 4-bedroom, 1 bathroom bungalow at Oatfield Rise, Ballasalla - £194,950 3-bedroom, 2 bathroom bungalow at Pairk Beg, Port Erin - £249,000 4-bedroom, 2 bathroom dormer bungalow Ballanorris Crescent, Ballabeg - £255,000

29 Due to his medical condition Mr W. Reubens is unable to obtain a mortgage. This is confirmed by reference to information obtained from the internet (Annex 12) and has been discussed by Mr Reubens with the Bank. In essence the nature of his medical condition being one that is associated with the brain is such that he would be unable to obtain the essential life insurance to accompany and protect any mortgage. The Bank is not willing to put anything in writing unless Mr Reubens actually applies for a mortgage. Given the price of property as detailed above and in Annex 11 it would seem to be extremely unlikely that a family of seven relying on income from their own laundry & dry cleaning business would be able to afford such property even if they were able to obtain a mortgage.

30 Without a mortgage such prices are completely out of the range of the Reubens family; the lowest priced dwellings are terraced houses - the same style of dwelling which it is not advocated as being suited to Mr Reubens needs due to his medical condition.

### Houses for Rent

31 In terms of property for rent only 38 of 213 properties recorded as available to rent have 4 or more bedrooms (Annex 13). The lowest price of these with 4 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms is a 2 storey house in Colby with a rent of £1500 per calendar month. The same rent is being sought for a 4-bedroom, 2-bathroom property in Abbotswood, Ballasalla. A 5-bedroom, 2-bathroom house in Port Erin is seeking £1250 per calendar month and a terraced house in Port Erin £1100 per calendar month. None of these is single storey. The prices are completely out of the range of the Reubens family.

### Land for Sale

32 In terms of what is being advertised for sale on the equivalent Prime Location web site above, no “brownfield” sites with potential for redevelopment, but without planning consent, have been found. For those with planning consent the lowest price was for a ground with planning approval in principle at Ballastroan, Colby for £95,000. There is no indication of the size of dwelling, a dormer bungalow, proposed / approved – PA 14/01201/A (Annex 14).

33 Mr & Mrs Reubens have previously sought to buy and in one case obtain planning consent for land on which to build their own house.

34 To the rear of where they now live at Ballagill land seemingly offered the potential for development. Following their approach to the landowner the latter obtained planning consent for 4 houses thus putting the price of the land out-of-reach financially for the Reubens family. Although within zoned land planning consent for a fifth house (not applied for Mr Reubens) was refused (PA 02/01978/A).

35 At Glenchass permission was sought by the Reubens for a house on the site of a double garage. Consent (PA 99/00603/B) was refused on the grounds, inter alia, with a 2/3 bedroom house on it the proposal represented over development of the land. The Reubens circumstances and needs now differ significantly from those that existed in 1999; even if they had the opportunity of acquiring the site if it was affordable, which is unlikely given the price above as guidance, and similarly obtained planning consent, the site would definitely not be big enough now for the type of dwelling they need.

36 The same may be said of other possible sites particularly in built up areas. Redevelopment potential may exist but not for a single storey dwelling or possibly even a dormer bungalow eg Qualtrough's Lane Ballafesson where the buildings of the former Ballafesson Farm have been reused or redeveloped for storage uses and a bandroom, the former chapel / Sunday school in Victoria Square Port Erin (PA 14/01299/B) given permission for conversion to offices and a builders' yard at Droghadfayle Park, Port Erin (PA 06/01623/B) where permission was refused for a residential development. Sites which might appear to have potential are either outside of zoned areas eg along Croit e Caley – Colby Road or have been dezoned (from the Arbory and East Rushen Local Plan) eg land to rear of Ballakilpheric Chapel.

37 Albeit the Area Plan for the South has in planning terms only recently been statutorily approved by Tynwald (February 2013) sites in Castletown are to be subject of a separate Review. However, the accompanying e-mail, dated 9th June 2015, from Diane Brown, Head of Planning Policy, confirms that there is no set timetable for this at present (Annex 15). From Review to designation could take many months / years to complete.

38 With help from members of their extended families and their experience in the building trade Mr & Mrs Reubens may afford to build a house but they cannot afford to pay the price of land as above on top of it.

39 In summary it is concluded that the only available option to Mr & Mrs Reubens is to build on land which is freely available to them. Through the kindness of Mr Michael Reubens, Mr William Reubens's father, such land has been offered to them near St. Marks. This is the only other land owned by the Reubens family which could accommodate a dwelling of the size required by the family. Mr Michel Reubens' own property is adjacent to the steam railway line at Colby Level, is severely constrained by it and not able to accommodate the whole family of Mr William Reubens.

40 Mr Michael Reubens has undertaken to make available the land at St Marks to his son, who is his sole sibling, and the accompanying letter indicates how an agreement could be made to ensure that any dwelling built there could be "tied" to the family for 20 years (Annex 16).

41 Reason 1 "The proposal is contrary to the provision of Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, Environmental Policy 1 and General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the proposed development lies outside of areas that are zoned for development in the recently adopted Area Plan for the South and as such is in fundamental conflict with the policies of the Strategic Plan which seek to protect the countryside for its own sake and to direct development to sustainable locations."

42 Previous applications for dwellings in the countryside on the grounds of special needs have been approved at two sites quoted by the Planning Officer in the statement accompanying the original refusal of PA 14/00761/A. In both cases the approvals were contrary to the zoning in the appropriate statutory local plan

43 These applications were as follows :

PA 07/00375/A Claddagh Road, Sulby: The physical and caring needs of the applicant were judged on appeal to be sufficient to warrant a dwelling in this location which was not zoned for development. The application was approved on appeal subject to a condition interalia

"This permission may be taken up, and the dwelling first occupied, only by the applicants and their dependents"; 44 The application was approved subject to a condition, interalia, "This permission is for residential use of land extending to no more than 60% of the depth of the land shown on the submitted plan."

45 It is respectfully suggested that an equivalent condition could be put on an approval for Mr Reubens's application to ensure that that residential use is restricted to the area outside of that designated as paddocks, stables etc to the north of the proposed dwelling site.

46 PA 10/01510/B Bishops Court Farm, Michael: The physical and caring needs of the applicant were judged to be sufficient to warrant a dwelling in this rural location. While the proposal was different from Mr Reubens's in that it was for a 2-storey dwelling, the design of the dwelling does not follow the guidance given in Circular 3/91. The application was approved by the Planning Committee. With regard to occupation of the dwelling the proposal was subject to a similar condition as PA 07/01272/A above. In terms of restricting the scope of residential development on the site a condition was attached

"The new dwelling, shall form part of the agricultural farm as a single planning unit and may not be severed / sold off without a further planning approval having been granted."

47 It is respectfully suggested that an equivalent condition could be put on an approval for Mr Reuben's application to ensure that the new dwelling, driveway and parking shall be associated with the development that has already taken place on the northern part of Field 431505 and may not be severed / sold off without a further planning approval having been granted.

48 In Para 23 of the Inspector's Assessment and Conclusions at appeal into PA 14/00761/B he stated "it is a further concern that no mechanism exists to ensure that if approval were to be granted the dwelling would definitely be occupied, and would definitely continue to be occupied, by the appellant and his family. It would not be possible to effectively control occupation by planning condition. While it might have been possible to control occupation through a legal agreement or undertaking, the appellant has not put forward

any such document.” The Inspector put the onus on the appellant to have had in place such an offer in writing to make an agreement. In both the applications above there was no requirement to put a legal agreement in writing nor were the approvals conditioned by one. Indeed it was suggested that such an agreement would be invalid. Notwithstanding this, the applicant’s father, who is the sole owner of the land at present, has stated in writing (Annex 16) that he is prepared to give his son, outright or in trust for his family, the land for the dwelling so that it may be subject of a legal agreement.

49 Other examples quoted at that time by the Planning Officer viz PA 08/00431/B in Port Erin was refused as the development would not enable satisfactory amenity standards to be achieved either for the development or the property in whose grounds it would have been sited and PA 00/00664/A which was considered 6 years before the Strategic Plan and for which no evidence of need was given.

50 Since the refusal of Mr W. Reubens’ previous application in 2014 at least two other applications outside of areas zoned for development have been approved in the South of the Island.

51 PA 14/00291/A is an approval in principal for the demolition of the existing dwelling and redevelopment for 7 new properties at Netherby, Douglas Road, Castletown. The application was refused initially

“The site is not designated for development on the recently adopted “Area Plan ForThe South” adopted in 2013 and is outside Castletown’s settlement boundary identified therein; to approve development which would be contrary to such a recently adopted plan would undermine the provisions of the plan and the weight which can be afforded it.”

52 On appeal the application was approved by the Minister for seven executive dwellings. There were no special needs considerations in terms of the applicants. Although a dwelling existed on the site, the site was neither zoned [existing] residential nor proposed residential. The proposal is for a speculative development, being now on the market for £2 million pounds (Annex 17). The decision letter issued on behalf of the Minister stated

“In reaching his decision, the Minister notes the Planning Inspector’s comments at paragraph 18 of his report, in particular, such that notwithstanding that every application needs to be considered on its merits, regard must be had in this case to the site’s location within a protected Green Gap.”

53 It was stated the proposal would not eradicate the designated “Green Gap” between Castletown and Ballasalla within the Area Plan for the South. No reference was made to compliance or otherwise with any of the Strategic Plan Policies of the 2007 document.

54 The application was clearly considered by Planning Officers and the Appeal Inspector to breach the recently adopted Area Plan for the South as well as the Strategic Plan for the Island, including Strategic Policy 2, which had preceded it. Moreover, as confirmed by the fact that the site is on the market, the application was speculative.

55 At Glenchass a hamlet outside Port St. Mary no land was zoned for development in The Area Plan for the South, 2012. A site which had similarly been refused at least twice in the past (PAs 00/00966/A & 01/01632/B) ) for the erection of a house was given consent as recently as 1st June 2015 (PA 15/00118/B) in contravention of planning policies in the Area Plan for the South but based on the appropriate design of the dwelling, given the size of the site and the nature of its surroundings, the other structures on the site and change to the highway access. It was also within 1000m (judged to be an acceptable walking distance) of facilities at Port St Mary.

56 At Newtown PA 12/00643/A erection of a house for local needs was permitted in a field in a hamlet which was generally identified in the Strategic Plan as appropriate for further development but for which there was no available allocated land and no specific Local Plan had yet been drawn up to allocate sites for such development

57 All the above examples are in the countryside on land not specifically allocated for development. They do not represent over-riding national need or needs listed in General Policy 3. Whether or not to do with special needs they have been considered not to adversely affect the settings which they are in and in two cases the special need has been considered of such importance that it overrides other considerations. Mr Reubens' application is worthy of similar consideration.

58 For the St. Marks locality the Area Plan for the South contained the following Assessment

'The character Area Appraisal statement for the Conservation Area indicates that "Whilst new development might not be ruled out, detailed and careful assessment of any proposed development would be required relative to the potential impact on the special character and historic interest of the settlement and its existing balance". The statement also identifies the derelict smithy as having potential for conversion to residential use. Having regard to these indications, and to the comparatively large agricultural hinterland in which St. Marks sits, the principle of a small number of suitably sized and designed new dwellings being added to the village could meet any local housing need without affecting adversely the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. However, the Department's Conservation team will need to undertake a full site analysis before firm conclusions can be reached.'

59 Clearly when initially identified, the St. Mark's area was not ruled out as an unsustainable settlement for development. The further assessment undertaken only came to firm conclusions on the smithy and the use of gaps within the Conservation Area for extensions, not the potential for further new development on the outskirts of St. Marks outside of the Conservation Area. Field 431505 currently accommodates a number of activities of a "crofting nature" including the looking after hens and sheep. It also includes buildings in the form of looseboxes and a timber shed. All are well screened from the public highway and that screening is continuous along the southern edge of the site also encompassing the proposed house site. The current proposal at Alder Oaks represents a proposal for a local need in a site which is within 1000m of St. Marks, does not impact on the Conservation Area and will fit into the local agricultural landscape.

60 The proposal sits within an Area of incised Slopes (D14) in the landscape character assessment. As quoted in the Area Plan for the South "The overall strategy is to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area, with its wooded valley bottoms, its strong geometric field pattern delineated by Manx hedges, its numerous traditional buildings and its network of small roads and lanes. ---

Key views are "Distant views prevented at times by dense woodland cover in river valleys and by cumulative screening effect of hedgerow trees, which tend to create wooded horizons" Open and panoramic views out to sea from the higher areas on the upper western parts of the area where there few trees to interrupt views."

61 The implications of the Landscape Character Assessment include

"iii) Protection of the tranquil, rural character of the area with its open views.
iv) Sensitive location of new buildings and the use of screen planting
v) Avoidance of physical or visual amalgamation of roadside housing."

62 There are no specific Landscape Proposals with which the locality can be readily associated.

63 The Reubens proposal will not impact on any public views of the wider landscape and the sea. It is recognisably as unobtrusive as it can be. It is sensitively located bearing in mind existing well established screening and will not physically or visually be seen to amalgamate roadside housing. The tranquil character of the wider locality is already impacted on by the fact that the adjacent A26 road on its east side is a relatively busy secondary route being much used as an alternative route from Douglas to Ballasalla. One house will not greatly impact on this. Moreover the proposal will have little impact on the roadside hedge and none at all on the hedges around its other boundaries.

64 It is submitted that the applicant’s proposal in nature and design fits in very well into the context of the site and the surrounding area. It makes use of an existing access and does not propose to “urbanise” the driveway onto the site. The nature of the boundary of the existing site comprising grass verge, low sod hedge with hawthorn bushes on top coupled with tree planting 2m back in the site is such that it will not require significant alteration to meet highway visibility standards. Notwithstanding the fact that this application comprises a significant element of need, in terms of the criteria used it compares favourably with the development above approved at Glenchass. In total it fits into the Planning Division’s own initial concept of what the St. Mark’s locality is.

65 While recognising that the proposal is in the countryside, in terms of Environmental Policy 1 the proposal will not adversely impact on the countryside. PA 07/00375/A Claddagh Road, Sulby and PA 10/01510/B Bishops Court Farm, Michael above are both in Areas of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. Even before the more recent assessment and proposals for landscape areas in the Area Plan for the South the locality of St. Marks has never had that designation.

66 Reason 2 “The proposal is contrary to the provision of General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the proposed development does not fall within any of the listed exceptions to the restriction on development outside areas zoned for development.”

67 As above none of the five quoted applications fall within the listed exceptions of General Policy 3. There is no Strategic Plan policy which allows for exceptions to be made on the case of not being for over-riding national need but outside of the remit of General Policy 3, but clearly exceptions can be and are being made to this Strategic Plan Policy. Conditions can be put in place so as to ensure that the dwelling is initially occupied by only the applicant and their dependents thereby ensuring that the proposal is not speculative. Taking into account their need as detailed above Mr Reubens would propose that his application is similarly permitted.

68 Reason 3 “The proposal is contrary to Strategic Policy 10 as defined by the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, in that the proposal by reason of its relatively remote location for access to services and facilities in settlement would be more likely to result in reliance on private motor vehicles and as such would not promote a more integrated transport network.”

69 Strategic Policy 10 relates new development to the transport network. The Appeal Assessment para 21 referred to the fact that the site is not located such as to promote a more integrated transport network. The report is somewhat misleading as there is a bus network passing directly in front of the site. This is a route direct to and from Castle Rushen High school which is also available to members of the general public to use

eg to get to employment direct in Ballasalla, Balthane and Castletown or to get to medical centres / GP practices in Ballasalla (which the Reubens family use at present) and Castletown (Annex 18). This has been confirmed in an e-mail dated 7th June 2015 by Richard Cranmer, Transport Operations Manager of Isle of Man Transport (Annex 19).

70 With regard to their own employment Mr & Mrs William Reubens operate their own laundry business “Posh Wash” in Port Erin. The nature of their business is such that deliveries to and from the business are an essential part of the business and are undertaken regularly by the applicant in their own van. In the summer months Mrs Reubens regularly starts work between 5am and 6am when there is no public transport available serving Croit-e-Caley / Colby. Mr Reubens collects and delivers laundry all around the southern half of the Island. In terms of school, work and medical facilities the site would therefore require no more use of private transport than is undertaken at present from their house at Croit-e-Caley.

71 The current use of the Alder Oaks site for animal husbandry means it has to be visited on a daily basis either by Mr M. Reubens or Mr William Reubens. While these activities use a different entrance to that proposed they still necessitate journeys to the site by private motor vehicle for these purposes. Such journeys would be almost halved if a dwelling is permitted on the site.

72 The proposal therefore goes a considerable way towards meeting the aims of Strategic Policy 10. It proposes utilising an existing access with some improvement on visibility from this and does not adversely affect highway safety. Mr & Mrs Reubens’ proposal is within 1000m of the facilities at St. Marks (cf Glenchass above) and served by the same roads, public transport routes and facilities as St. Marks.

### Initial Reasons for Refusal of PA 14/00761/B

73 Reason 1 “While the Department has considerable sympathy with the applicant’s circumstances, it is not considered that the policies which protect the countryside from development, as set out in Environment Policy1 of the Strategic Plan should be set aside. The site is not designated for development nor within a sustainable location and as such the development would be contrary to the Strategic Aim, Strategic Policies 1c, 2 and 10, Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.”

74 As above none of these policies were held superior to the applicant’s needs in determining PA 07/00375/A and PA 10/01510/B. In the case of PA 14/00291/A and PA 15/00118/B they simply were not considered at all despite the fact that the sites represented are in the countryside and not zoned for development. Mr & Mrs Reubens have submitted above a full statement of need and considered other options; their conclusions on these are in part based on previous experience not just speculation.

75 Reason 2 “Whilst the dwelling has been designed to be low level and as unobtrusive as possible, the creation of the access would result in a visual impact in itself which would be managed and domestic in appearance due to the need to maintain the height of the hedge lower than it is presently.”

76 The application does not involve the creation of a new access. It specifically utilises one of two accesses already serving the site and proposes use of the southerly one which was favoured by the Highways Division. In the past the roadside “elevation” of the hedges has been generally cut back every year by the Highways Division. The work required to maintain a visibility splay as required would be little different and could be carried out by the Reubens family at any time if they so wished regardless of whether or not it is the subject of a condition attached to a planning approval. The make-up of the hedge is not outstanding; unlike some

on the Island there is no special designation affecting this hedge and verge, any flowers in it and the shrubs and one tree.

77 The current application plans include a cross section of the hedge. This shows that the sod hedge is set back by at least a metre from the roadside verge and is no more than 1.15m high with some sections being lower. On top are bushes and 1 tree which are at a sufficient height and do not overhang the road per se so that they do not create an obstruction to visibility and should not need to be cut down. The “modifications to the hedgerow required to facilitate the necessary visibility at the access, would significantly alter the rural character and appearance of the site” identified by the Inspector in para 24 of his assessment and conclusions and the Reason for Refusal above are greatly overemphasised.

78 The section also shows that within the site there is a second row of trees set back up to 2.3m from the bottom of the sod hedge. These are 2.5 – 3.0m high. They do not need to be felled as part of the proposal albeit as they grow they may require some thinning. The presence of these trees will largely continue to screen the dwelling site even when any trimming of the roadside hedge is undertaken.

### Other matters referred to during consideration of the application

### Design

79 Para 24 of the Inspector’s conclusions, Para 15 of the Summary of the case for the Planning Authority at Appeal and Para of the Planning Officer’s initial report refer to the fact that the proposal, being single storey, “would probably be as low and modest as could be achieved”. In Reason 2 of the initial refusal it is acknowledged “Whilst the dwelling has been designed to be low level and as unobtrusive as possible, ---.” However the reports then state the building would have a disproportionately long frontage compared to that advocated by Planning Circular 3/91 “of 11m by 5.5m”.

80 There is no stipulation in Strategic Plan policy that any new house permitted in the countryside should adhere let alone strictly adhere to the design criteria laid down in Planning Circular 3/91.

81 Notwithstanding that, Planning Circular 3/91 in fact quotes these figures “of 11m by 5.5m” for a two storey house not a single storey one (Annex 20). It is quite clear that a house only having an external floorspace of 55 sq m would be totally inadequate for any person - even the dimensions for a sheltered house unit for a single person at 56 sq m are greater than this. However given the reference to this dimension in the Inspector’s conclusions, it has clearly helped to mislead the previous decision.

82 For a single storey house Circular 3/91 states that the width should be around 5.5m but the length can be much more variable. The proposal is wider but this will not be apparent from the roadside which is the only public viewpoint. The length contains a traditional balance frontage of doors and windows with two gable chimneys.

83 The design of the proposed dwelling shows a modest house whereby five bedrooms are provided but two of these, only 2.5m x 3.6m and 2.5 x 3.3m respectfully, could be used for different uses in the long term future when their use as bedrooms is no longer required. Thus while the proposed house is no different from that proposed as part of PA 14/00761/B the notation makes it clear that the intention from the outset is to provide for the accommodation needs of the Reubens family as is. It is not a speculative development.

84 In other respects the design is said to reflect the design principles quoted in the same Planning Circular 3/91 (Para 15 Appeal summary). Much greater weight should be given to this aspect of the design.

85 By way of contrast it is notable that the designs submitted for applications PA 07/00375/A and PA 10/01510/B no reference is made to the design having to carry some resemblance to compliance with Planning Circular 3/91. In the case of PA 14/00291/A condition 4 i) stipulates “— with dwellings which draw on traditional elements of the Island’s housing stock.” No reference is made to rural stock or to Circular 3/91. The design submitted and approved for PA 10/01510/B does not match the guidelines given in Circular 3/91.

86 Notwithstanding the fact that under Strategic Plan policies no reference is made to Planning Circular 3/91 in the design of any new dwellings approved in the countryside, only to its use in the design of replacement dwellings, a design is proposed that is recognisably, in the case of materials (as stipulated in the Planning Officer’s report para 15), and, as above, in the case of size more greatly in accordance with Planning Circular 3/91 than other houses approved in the countryside.

87 Para 20 of the Inspector’s report on appeal refers to the neighbouring farmer’s request for the septic tank and tail drains to be put on the other side of the dwelling. This has been shown on the current application plan. The appropriate test pit has been dug and tested and found satisfactory.

### Exceptional Circumstances

88 The Department’s concerns and policies about new housing in the countryside are fully appreciated. However as stated in PA 14/00291/A all cases are dealt with on their merits. There are clearly cases where special needs, be these medical, zoning or simply fitting into the landscape and being within walking distance of recognisable centres, have enabled dwellings to be permitted where they are not in areas identified for development.

89 Mr & Mrs Reubens are not the typical family in terms of size of numbers or their existing accommodation size. According to the Isle of Man Census 2011 there are only 112 households with 7+ persons in them. Of these 10 are in the South of the Island (as defined by the Area Plan for the South) and only 2 in Malew parish (Annex 21).

90 Of the 7+ person households on the island only 17 households, as per the Reubens family, live in dwellings with 5 or less rooms (room as defined in the Census includes bedroom, lounge and kitchen provided this is above a certain size) (Annex 22). No information is available as to the type or tenure of accommodation that other potentially overcrowded households are occupying. No information is available as to their composition in terms of age range or relationships of people in households comprising 7+ persons.

91 The chances of any other family having similar overcrowding coupled with medical problems of what would normally be expected to be the prime financial earner of the household are fairly slim. The Reubens family are doing and have done all they can to keep their family together and their business going throughout Mr Reubens illness, operation and after effects and in the situation that they are now in. There is no scope for swopping / exchanging houses with other members of the family and, given the lack of suitably sized public authority accommodation / social housing (Annex 23) unlikely to be anything available through mutual exchange scheme of that authority let alone anything in the south of the Island where they have to be for work and education purposes. Mr Michael Reubens senior has very kindly offered to let them

---

*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/6353-malew-alderoaks-field-new-build-dwelling/documents/1588646*