**Document:** Statement of Case on Behalf of the Appellant **Application:** AP26/0007 — Appeal against the refusal for the construction of 14 bungalows including vehicular access and associated infrastructure **Decision:** Not Available **Decision Date:** **Parish:** Lezayre **Document Type:** appeal / appeal_statement **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/130515-lezayre-land-adjacent-to-access/documents/1593302 --- # Statement of Case on Behalf of the Appellant Mrs. Lorna Milestone Cabinet Office Government Office Douglas IM1 3PN Isle of Man Dear Mrs. Milestone, Re:— Appeal AP26/0007 and Application PA25/90196/B Appeal Against the Decision of the Planning Committee Full Application for 14 Bungalows, etc., Land Adjacent to Ginger Hall Hotel, Sulby date ref 2026-04-01 7241/PABC your ref AP26/0007 25/90196/B - 01 We write on behalf of the Appellant to formally submit the enclosed Statement of Case in support of the above appeal. - 02 The Statement of Case should be read alongside the application documentation and accompanying technical material previously submitted. It addresses the reason for refusal in full and sets out the Appellant’s position that the proposed development accords with the Development Plan when read as a whole, and is supported by the evidence. - 03 In particular, the Statement of Case demonstrates that: - i) the principle of residential development on the Site is established; - ii) no statutory consultee maintains an objection to the proposal in respect of the matters identified in the reason for refusal; - iii) the matters identified in the reason for refusal were fully considered and addressed through the application process; and - iv) the proposal delivers clear and policy-compliant benefits, including affordable housing and public open space. - 04 It is respectfully submitted that the refusal does not accurately reflect the technical and policy assessment undertaken by the Planning Officer, nor the evidential position before the Committee at the time of determination. (continued →) (← continued) - 05 For these reasons, the Appellant invites the Inspector to recommend that the Appeal be allowed and planning permission granted subject to the conditions recommended in the Officer’s report and the completion of the associated Section 13 agreement. - 06 We await your directions in respect of the submission of any Rebuttal in due course. Should any further information be required in the meantime, I would be pleased to assist. ### · Yours sincerely, Euan Craine RIBA for and on behalf of Architecture.im Limited Architecture.im Limited, trading as arc.im Company Number 135236C (Isle of Man) Directors: E. P. H. CRAINE, J. F. CRAINE +44(0)76 2422 2422 architecture.im info@arc.im ## TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999 ## TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE) ORDER 2019 #### Statement Of Case ## APRIL 2026 APPEAL REFERENCE: AP 26/0007 APPLICATION REFERENCE: PA 25/90196/B PROPOSAL: FULL APPLICATION FOR 14 BUNGALOWS, INCLUDING VEHICULAR ACCESS ADDRESS: LAND ADJACENT TO GINGER HALL HOTEL, SULBY ### 0.0 CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3 2.0 The Site and its Surroundings ...................................................................................... 4 3.0 The Proposal .............................................................................................................. 4 4.0 Planning History ......................................................................................................... 5 5.0 Policy ......................................................................................................................... 6 6.0 Consultation History ................................................................................................... 7 7.0 Reasons For Refusal .................................................................................................... 8 8.0 The Case for the Applicant .......................................................................................... 8 8.1 The Principle of Development ................................................................................. 8 8.2 Density, Design and Character ............................................................................... 8 8.3 Drainage and Flood Risk ........................................................................................ 9 8.4 Highways ............................................................................................................. 10 8.5 Public Open Space .............................................................................................. 10 8.6 Affordable Housing ............................................................................................... 11 8.7 Housing Need and Strategic Context ...................................................................... 11 9.0 Commissioner and Private Representations ................................................................ 12 10.0 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 13 - Appx A Cited Policy .............................................................................................................. 14 - Appx B Extant Approval Decision Notice ................................................................................. 17 - Appx C Extant Approval Officer Report .................................................................................. 22 ### 0.1 DEFINITIONS Act ....................................................................... Town and Country Planning Act 1999 Agent ............................................................................. arc.im / Architecture.im Limited AOD .................................................................... Above Ordnance Datum (Douglas02) Appeal ............................... this appeal, put before CabO for determination under the Act Appellant / Applicant .............................................................................. Foxfield Limited Application ................... PA 25/90196/B, put before DEFA for determination under the Act Area Plan ........................................... the Sulby Local Plan 1999 (Planning Circular 1/99) CabO .......................................................................... Cabinet Office (of the IOMGov) Extant Approval ........................... the planning approval under reference PA 22/01112/B FTB .................................... First Time Buyer (Shared Equity Purchase Assistance Scheme) DEFA .......................... Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (of the IOMGov) DoI ............................................................ Department of Infrastructure (of the IOMGov) Development Plan .......................................... the IMSP and the Area Plan in combination DPO ........................... Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 HSDC .......................................... Highway Services Development Control division of DoI IMSP ........................... the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 – Towards a Sustainable Island IOMGov ............................................................................. the Isle of Man Government LAP ................................................................................................. Local Area for Play Local Authority ................................................................. Lezayre Parish Commissioners MfMR ............................................................................. Manual for Manx Roads, 2021 PABC ............................................ the Planning and Building Control Directorate of DEFA Planning Statement ........... accompanying the application bundle (rev. A, dated May 2025) POS ................................................................................................ Public Open Space Proposal ................................................. the development as proposed in the Application Site ....................................................................... the land that the Application concerns SOC / Statement of Case ............................... this document, together with its appendices ### 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Appeal is brought under §10(1)(a)(ii) of the DPO, and has been validated. 1.2 arc.im are instructed on behalf of the Appellant in relation to the Appeal against the refusal of the Application for the construction of 14 dwellings with associated access, drainage, landscaping, Public Open Space and a Local Area of Play at land adjacent to the Ginger Hall Hotel, Sulby. 1.3 I am Euan Craine BArch MArch ADPPA ARB RIBA, an architect registered in both the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man, and director of arc.im (Architecture.im Limited) established in 2022. Over the course of twenty years I have represented commercial and domestic clients as well as various government departments in local planning matters, including the Departments of Infrastructure, Home Affairs, and Education, Sport and Culture. I am a chartered member of the Royal Institute of British Architects. 1.4 This Statement of Case responds to the refusal reason, sets out the planning policy and statutory context, summarises the application process and consultation responses, and explains why the Appeal should be allowed. It should be read together with the Application documents, including the Planning Statement, the technical reports lodged in support, and the Planning Officer’s report1. 1.5 The Application was submitted on 21st February 2025 and recommended for approval on 4th February 2026. The Officer’s conclusion was clear; “The proposed development is considered to amount to a sustainable development on the whole and will make an efficient use of a vacant site which is designated for development”; the design was considered “a high quality proposal that will not give rise to any unacceptable impacts upon the character or appearance of the area”; the scheme was “acceptable with respect to highway safety, flood risk and ecological matters”; and the benefits, including “a policy compliant mix of open and affordable housing, public open space and a local area of play”, were considered to weigh heavily in favour of permission. The Officer therefore recommended approval subject to conditions and a Section 13 agreement securing Public Open Space, the LAP and affordable FTB housing. 1.6 The Planning Committee nevertheless overturned that recommendation and refused2 permission for a single composite reason, alleging harm in relation to:— - i density and local character; - ii insufficient drainage information; and - iii unsafe access onto the A3, purportedly in conflict with General Policy 2(b), (c), (h), (i) and (j) of the Strategic Plan3. Planning Officer Report concerning PA 25/90196/B (4th February 2026) - 2 Decision Notice concerning PA 25/90196/B (25th February 2026) - 3 Town and Country Planning (Isle of Man Strategic Plan) Order 2016 Written Statement (16th February 2016) 1.7 It is submitted that those concerns were not supported by the evidence before the Committee. In particular:— - i the Planning Officer reached a contrary conclusion on each of those matters; - ii the relevant competent authorities maintained no objection on any point of refusal; - iii the Proposal delivers policy-compliant and material planning benefits; and - iv the Site benefits from an established fallback position for residential development. 1.8 The Application was supported by a detailed Planning Statement and technical submissions, and was recommended for approval by the Planning Officer subject to conditions and a Section 13 agreement. That recommendation followed a full consideration of:— - i the Island’s Development Plan; - ii the Residential Design Guide (2021); - iii the Affordable Housing Standards Design Guide (2016); - iv the consultation responses; and - v the supporting technical evidence. ### 2.0 THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS 2.1 The Site is on the eastern edge of Sulby, bounded by the rear of Carrick Park to the north, the A3 and Ginger Hall to the east, Yn Claddagh (the B8 highway) to the south, and residential curtilages to the west. It extends to approximately 0.54ha. The land is undeveloped and overgrown, with a drainage ditch running along the inside of the north-western perimeter before passing beneath the A3. 2.2 A full description of the Site is contained within the Planning Statement at §3. The Officer’s report contains further commentary at §1. ### 3.0 THE PROPOSAL 3.1 The Proposal seeks permission for 14 dwellings. The Officer described the scheme as comprising detached, semi-detached and terraced properties, predominantly twobedroom units, with some plots incorporating rooms in the roof. Access is taken from Lezayre Road (the A3 highway). Every dwelling has two parking spaces, sheds are provided for cycle storage, a pedestrian connection is made to Yn Claddagh, and the scheme includes 1,173m² of public open space with a LAP. The LAP itself is 233m² and serves all dwellings within 100m. The application also includes landscaping, wildflower meadow, hedgerows and tree planting. 3.2 Surface water is to be attenuated on site beneath an area of Public Open Space at the Lezayre Road frontage and discharged at a controlled rate into the ditch via a new headwall, with replacement culvert works beneath the highway. Foul drainage is to connect to the mains system crossing the Site. 3.3 A comprehensive description of the Proposal is contained within the Planning Statement at §4 (character), §5 (housing mix), §6 (POS and LAP), §7 (landscaping), §9 (energy conservation), and §10 (highways). The Planning Officer’s report contains a further summary of the Proposal at §2. ### 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The planning history is of considerable importance. The Officer identified a sequence of permissions culminating in PA17/00462/B for seven dwellings, an appeal dismissing a challenge to that approval, and PA22/01112/B approving an amended seven-dwelling scheme in 2024. 4.2 The Extant Approval was not appealed. 4.3 The existence of those permissions is not incidental. It confirms that the principle of residential development, the general access and drainage strategies, and a materially comparable pattern of built form have already been accepted. 4.4 The Officer expressly recognised this when stating that the Site lies within the Sulby plan boundary and that “it has been established through the historical grant of planning consents that residential development of the site would be a sustainable form of development”. The Officer also recorded that, while the 1998 Local Plan brief envisaged a lower quantum, “the increase in dwellings is not an automatic reason to refuse the application.” 4.5 The Planning Statement likewise made the same point in more numerical form. It recorded that the Proposal is “more efficient than the Extant Approval” and that the combined footprint of the proposed dwellings is 1,131m² compared with 1,009m² under the Extant Approval, a 12% increase, notwithstanding the doubling in dwelling numbers through smaller and lower-cost house types. The Planning Statement also recorded that the massing remains broadly consistent with what had already been accepted. 4.6 On trees, the Officer addressed the fallback in some detail. The report records that the impact upon trees, though regrettable, is substantially similar to the extant position: Plot 14 would in fact be further from tree 6689 than the previously permitted Plot 2, and Plot 8 no nearer to retained trees than the previously approved Plot 7. It follows that the present proposal is not to be assessed in a vacuum. 4.7 It follows that the Extant Approval is not merely a background consideration, but a directly comparable fall-back scenario which would give rise to materially similar, and in certain respects greater, impacts than the Proposal. That is a matter which weighs decisively in favour of the present scheme when assessed in the planning balance. 4.8 Greater detail concerning the planning history of the Site is contained within the Planning Statement at §2, and in the Planning Officer’s report at §5. ### 5.0 POLICY 5.1 The Development Plan consists of the Strategic Plan and area plans. The Officer identified the directly relevant policies as Strategic Policies 1, 2, 3 and 5; Spatial Policy 4; General Policy 2; Environment Policies 10 and 42; Housing Policy 1; and Transport Policies 4 and 7. These are reproduced in full at Appendix A. 5.2 Strategic Policy 1 requires development proposals to maximise resources efficiency, using sites efficiently while accommodating access and amenity needs, and aligning with existing and planned infrastructure and services. The Residential Design Guide (2021) reproduces and amplifies that policy, adding that density assumptions are only a starting point and “should not be taken as targets”; what matters is whether development remains attractive, fit for purpose and contextually appropriate. 5.3 The Planning Statement expressly referenced General Policy 2 and Strategic Policy 1. It quoted General Policy 2 as requiring development on zoned land to respect “the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them” and not adversely affect the character of the locality. It also quoted Environment Policy 42, requiring new development in existing settlements to take account of the “particular character and identity” of the immediate locality. 5.4 In relation to open space, the Planning Statement cited Recreation Policy 3, namely that new residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with Appendix 6. Appendix 6 itself states that development of ten dwellings and above must make provision for open space and defines “outdoor playing space” as land safely accessible and available to the general public for sport, active recreation or children’s play. The Residential Design Guide adds that open space must be sufficient in quantity and quality, fit for purpose, safely and conveniently accessible, and that “a well-designed estate will result in public open spaces which are overlooked by housing”. 5.5 In relation to affordable housing, Housing Policy 5 provides that on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas “25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing” on schemes of 8 dwellings or more. The Planning Statement and Officer’s report each identify this policy as engaged and satisfied in principle through 3 affordable units plus a commuted sum for the half-unit deficit. The Affordable Housing Standards Design Guide (2016) also reinforces the importance of public areas and of external spaces that sit comfortably with neighbours. 5.6 Section 13 of the Act permits the Department to enter into an agreement “for the purpose of restricting or regulating the development or use of the land”, including provisions of a financial character. The Operational Policy on Section 13 Agreements explains that such agreements are the conventional vehicle for securing affordable housing and open space and that planning applications involving such matters are routinely considered by the Committee. 5.7 The Planning Statement gives greater policy context at the heads of the relevant sections. The Officer’s report does so at §3. ### 6.0 CONSULTATION HISTORY 6.1 The Application was validated on 25th February 2025, and subsequently publicised on 28th February 2025. 6.2 The application process was iterative and orthodox. Highways concerns were first raised in March 2025. Crucially, even that initial highways response stated that overall highway safety and access remained acceptable and that the junction layout, visibility splays and priority junction onto the A3 were consistent with previous approvals and met highways requirements. Additional revisions were then requested in relation to the bus stop, footway tie-ins, driveway spaces and sheds. 6.3 Those points were addressed. The Agent’s response to Highways explained that the bus shelter could be moved further from the junction once the overhead line had been ducted underground; that footways were reconfigured to make splayed, level connections; and that Plots 1 and 5 were revised to reduce the risk of on-street parking. 6.4 Highways then issued a secondary response of no objection. The Officer’s summary records that “all major issues” had been resolved; the bus stop relocation improved sight distance; pedestrian access was improved; parking layout revisions reduced overflow risk; forward-gear movement remained possible even if some on-street parking occurred; and “overall highway safety, access, and network efficiency are now acceptable”. It is considered that the Proposal accords with the principles set out in the Manual for Manx Roads (2021). 6.5 Flood Risk Management also removed objection. The Officer recorded that, upon review of the drawings and calculations, FRM was “satisfied the 600mm dia culvert is sufficient for the 1 in 100 plus climate change event”, with the remaining detailed matters to be dealt with under separate approvals and pre-commencement design requirements. A culvert is capable of being implemented to CIRIA requirements4. 6.6 The Ecosystem Policy Team moved to “No objection subject to condition”, expressly accepting that an updated PEAR and mitigation plan could be secured by condition, alongside soft landscaping and sensitive lighting conditions. Manx Utilities similarly raised no objection subject to a condition requiring undergrounding of the overhead line crossing the Site. The Officer translated both positions into draft conditions. 6.7 The only statutory consultee maintaining objection was the Arboricultural Officer. Even there, the Officer’s assessment did not ignore that objection; rather, it addressed it, weighed it, and found that when the Extant Approval and similar tree impacts were properly considered, the residual tree harm was acceptable subject to landscaping and protective conditions. - 4 Culvert, screen and outfall manual C786 (January 2025) ### 7.0 REASONS FOR REFUSAL 7.1 The refusal reason is composite. It states that the density and relationship with the bungalows to the west fails to reflect local character and causes visual harm; that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate adequate drainage; and that right-turning traffic from the proposed access near a bend on the A3 would be unsafe. The sole policy cited is General Policy 2(b), (c), (h), (i) and (j). 7.2 That formulation is notable for what it omits. It does not identify any failure against Strategic Policy 1, Spatial Policy 4, Environment Policy 10, Environment Policy 42, Transport Policy 4 or Transport Policy 7 despite the Officer having expressly found compliance with all of them. It does not grapple with the Extant Approval (a material consideration of substantial weight). It does not mention the Section 13 package. It does not explain why conditions proposed by the Officer would not suffice. ### 8.0 THE CASE FOR THE APPLICANT ### 8.1 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT - 8.1.1 The principle is firmly established. The Site is within the Sulby plan boundary. The Strategic Plan promotes development in towns and villages. The Officer concluded that residential development here is a “sustainable form of development”, and that in pure land-use terms there is “no differentiation between a residential development of 7 dwellings or 14, as the principle of the land use remains the same”. - 8.1.2 The only real question is whether the intensified form remains acceptable. The Officer answered that question in the affirmative after considering design, amenity, highways, flood risk, ecology, affordable housing and POS. ### 8.2 DENSITY, DESIGN AND CHARACTER - 8.2.1 The Committee’s conclusion on character is not borne out by the evidence before it. The Planning Statement notes that east Sulby is not a uniform enclave of one house type or one density; it is instead a “more varied built environment, with differing scales, styles, and densities, resulting in less uniformity.” That matters because the Proposal does not intrude into a delicate and homogeneous composition. It sits within a mixed edge-ofvillage context already characterised by variation. - 8.2.2 The Proposal is not crudely denser in built form than the fallback. The Planning Statement puts the increase in footprint at 12%. The Officer concluded that the proposed house types are largely traditional in style; that the use of render and horizontal cladding creates an attractive appearance; that the design is “of a high standard”; and that a denser form “can be achieved without compromising living conditions or design quality.” - 8.2.3 The Residential Design Guide is also squarely against treating density as a crude mechanistic number. It explains that higher or lower density may be appropriate depending upon the context and that density assumptions are not targets. The Officer’s conclusion that the development makes “a more effective use of land” and still complies with Strategic Policy 1, Spatial Policy 4, General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 is therefore entirely consistent with national guidance. ### 8.3 DRAINAGE AND FLOOD RISK - 8.3.1 The suggestion that “insufficient information” was provided is difficult to reconcile with the application record. A drainage strategy and calculations were submitted. The Officer summarised the system in detail. Flood Risk Management reviewed “the drawings and calculations” and was satisfied that the proposed 600mm culvert was sufficient for the 1 in 100 year plus climate change event. The draft permission then contained a precommencement condition requiring the full detailed design and construction details of the surface water drainage system, including regulation of outflows and replacement culvert details. This, notwithstanding the previous Officer’s report concerning the Extant Approval (reproduced at Appendix C, at §6.9) noting that:— Officers are in agreement that the provision of further details pursuant to drainage by way of a planning condition would not be necessary and would be sufficiently covered as part of a Section 20 application. Therefore, it is not considered that additional detail would need to be provided as part of the planning process, with both Flood Risk Management and Manx Utilities Authority noted as being content in principle with the proposals from a drainage and flooding perspective. - 8.3.2 The local anxiety about the ditch is understandable, but not a reason to ignore what the Proposal positively improves. The Officer described the existing ditch along the north-western perimeter. The Agent’s response to the Commissioners addressed responsibility and access directly, confirming that “access to the proposed culvert inlet at the downstream end of the ditch will be via dedicated Public Open Space”. That is a material and practical benefit, addressing both access and long-term stewardship of the drainage infrastructure in a manner not secured under the Extant Approval. It removes the most troublesome end of the ditch from the obscurity of private rear curtilages, placing it within a publicly accessible, manageable part of the scheme. - 8.3.3 The Officer then concluded that the POS should be secured through the Section 13 agreement and transferred for future management. This is, with respect, the antithesis of inadequate information: the application identified the engineering approach, FRM accepted the hydraulic capacity, the Officer imposed a drainage condition, and the management route for POS was also identified. - 8.3.4 It should be noted that the Appellant’s Extant Approval provides for an essentially comparable engineered approach to surface water drainage, intended to replace what appears to be inadequate drainage previously installed by central government, thereby reducing ongoing maintenance requirements. The Proposal further enhances this position by introducing beneficial access arrangements to facilitate any residual maintenance, which were not secured under the Extant Approval. ### 8.4 HIGHWAYS - 8.4.1 Highways is the clearest example of the Officer and technical consultee arriving at one conclusion and the Committee at another. The final highways position was “No objection subject to conditions”. The revised layout had addressed the exact matters earlier raised: bus stop position, pedestrian tie-ins, driveway provision and service-vehicle manoeuvrability. The Officer’s draft approval then required visibility splays of 2.4m by 90m, completion of the access, retention of parking and completion of the estate road and footways before occupation. - 8.4.2 The Committee’s concern about right-turning traffic near a bend is not echoed in the final highways response. Highways accepted the access arrangement. The Officer concluded that the Proposal is acceptable “with respect to highway safety”. It follows that the refusal is not rooted in a technical highway objection but in a lay contrary judgment unsupported by the authority charged with highway safety. In those circumstances, it is difficult to sustain a finding of highway harm in the absence of any technical objection from the competent authority. ### 8.5 PUBLIC OPEN SPACE - 8.5.1 The open space provision is not incidental decoration. It is one of the strongest attributes of the scheme. The Planning Statement cited Recreation Policy 3 and Appendix 6 and explained that, because Sulby already benefits from substantial nearby open land at the Claddagh, the scheme places greater emphasis on amenity space and children’s play space. - 8.5.2 The Planning Statement demonstrates 1,173m2 of POS against a policy requirement of 960m2. The Officer’s report found that the LAP is appropriately equipped; that the open space is “well placed within the site and easy access for new residents and for existing residents in the area”; and that the Proposal therefore complies with Recreation Policies 3, 4 and 5. The Officer also concluded there would be an “over provision” of POS. - 8.5.3 That conclusion should be given significant weight. In practical terms the scheme does three things at once. First, it satisfies the quantitative policy requirement. Secondly, it places the open space where it is conveniently and safely usable. Thirdly, it uses that public realm to make visible and maintainable an important part of the Site’s drainage infrastructure. The result is not merely policy compliance, but genuine social utility: children’s play, informal recreation, passive supervision, legibility and stewardship of infrastructure. That is wholly consistent with the Residential Design Guide’s expectation that public open spaces be overlooked and safe. - 8.5.4 By locating the Public Open Space at the interface with the surrounding public realm and setting the built form further back, the Proposal will result in a reduced visual impact compared with that would otherwise arise from the Extant Approval. ### 8.6 AFFORDABLE HOUSING - 8.6.1 Affordable housing is another substantial benefit. Housing Policy 5 applies because the scheme exceeds 8 dwellings. Both the Planning Statement and the Officer’s report record that the required contribution is 3½ affordable homes, with Plots 11, 12 and 13 identified as suitable affordable FTB units and a commuted sum proposed for the half-unit shortfall. The Officer concluded that the provision “is acceptable and will assist in addressing the shortfall of Affordable Housing in the area.” - 8.6.2 The Planning Statement also records that the proposed dwellings have been designed to exceed the requirements of the Affordable Housing Standards Design Guide5, whether for the open market or shared-equity FTB provision. This is not a token compliance exercise; it is a scheme consciously aligned with local housing need and shared-equity delivery. - 8.6.3 The wider policy importance of that benefit should not be understated. The officer was entitled to give it weight, and did so. The Section 13 mechanism exists precisely to secure it. ### 8.7 HOUSING NEED AND STRATEGIC CONTEXT - 8.7.1 The Proposal should also be considered within the broader strategic context of housing delivery on the Isle of Man, as articulated through the Development Plan and more recent Government policy, including Our Island Plan and its subsequent updates. - 8.7.2 In particular, Our Island Plan6 identifies the importance of “building great communities” and maintaining a supply of housing that is both accessible and aligned with the needs of the population. The emphasis is not simply on numerical delivery, but on the provision of appropriate housing in appropriate locations. - 8.7.3 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan and associated housing policy framework7 place consistent emphasis on maintaining a deliverable supply of housing, supporting population retention and growth, and improving access to home ownership. These objectives are not abstract. They are intended to be realised through the delivery of schemes such as the present Proposal, within established settlements and in locations where infrastructure and services are already in place. - 8.7.4 The Site lies within such a settlement. The principle of residential development has already been accepted, and the question is therefore one of how effectively that land is utilised. In that regard, the Proposal represents a clear improvement over the fallback position, increasing the number of dwellings while maintaining an appropriate built form and incorporating additional public benefits. - 5 Design Guide – Affordable Housing Standards, Department of Infrastructure (December 2015) - 6 Our Island Plan, GD No. 2022/0004 (January 2022) - 7 Housing Need 2011-2026, Paper No. PP5, Cabinet Office (2021) - 8.7.5 It is also material that the Proposal predominantly comprises smaller dwellings, including two-bedroom units. This is not incidental; it reflects a deliberate alignment between the type of housing proposed and the needs of first-time buyers and smaller households. In that respect, the scheme responds not only to policy requirements but to the practical realities of housing demand. - 8.7.6 The Affordable Housing Standards Design Guide emphasises that well-designed affordable housing plays a fundamental role in supporting communities and providing long-term social value. The inclusion of such provision within the scheme is therefore not merely policy compliance, but a contribution to the broader objective of delivering “good places for people to live”. - 8.7.7 Taken together, the Proposal secures an uplift in housing delivery on a site already accepted for development, introduces policy-compliant affordable provision, and does so in a manner that is consistent with the strategic direction of the Island’s planning framework and with the wider governmental objective of supporting accessible housing within sustainable communities. In circumstances where suitable, deliverable sites within established settlements are available, it is difficult to see how these strategic objectives can be realised without development of this nature. - 8.7.8 These are substantive benefits which should be afforded significant weight in the planning balance. ### 9.0 COMMISSIONER AND PRIVATE REPRESENTATIONS 9.1 It is appropriate to address the Parish Commissioners’ and neighbours’ concerns. They speak to genuine local anxieties about drainage, parking and repeated proposals on the Site. However, those concerns cannot displace the actual evidential position. 9.2 The Commissioners argued, among other things, that Carrick Park may be more vulnerable to flooding, that ditch maintenance remained unanswered, that residents might not use garages, and that 14 dwellings should be regarded as overdevelopment because a 2012 scheme for six dwellings had once been refused. 9.3 The difficulties with those points are fourfold. First, they do not engage with the later and more relevant planning history, including the extant seven-dwelling approval and the appeal dismissal that followed the 2017 permission. Secondly, they do not engage with the drainage calculations or FRM’s no-objection response. Thirdly, they do not engage with the revised highways drawings or Highways’ no-objection response. Fourthly, they do not engage with the considerable public benefits of POS, LAP and affordable housing, all of which the Officer expressly identified. 9.4 The Agent’s February 2026 response to the Commissioners addressed these matters directly. It pointed out that flood risk had already been addressed in §9 of the Planning Statement and the Officer’s report; that access to the culvert inlet would be via dedicated Public Open Space; that the Proposal complies with parking standards and that swept-path analysis confirms manoeuvrability for larger vehicles; and that the revised Proposal secures affordable housing and POS not previously provided. Those points remain sound. ### 10.0 CONCLUSION 10.1 The Officer’s balancing exercise was, with respect, the correct one. The report acknowledged the tree harm, but concluded that the scheme as a whole was sustainable; that it made efficient use of a vacant designated site; that the design was of high quality; that highway safety, flood risk and ecology were acceptable subject to conditions; and that the benefits, including affordable housing, public open space and a LAP, weighed heavily in favour of permission, especially having regard to the extant consent. The Officer’s recommendation is a material consideration of weight, reflecting a full technical and policy assessment undertaken within the statutory framework. 10.2 The Committee’s refusal does not satisfactorily engage with that balance. It does not explain why the no-objection positions of Highways and Flood Risk Management were wrong. It does not explain why a Section 13 package and conditions were insufficient. It does not explain why a modest increase in footprint over the extant scheme should now be characterised as visual harm. It does not confront the public benefits at all. In effect, the refusal departs from the structured and evidence-based assessment undertaken by the Planning Officer, and instead rests on concerns that are neither particularised nor supported by the evidence before the Committee. 10.3 In these circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that the Proposal accords, overall, with the Development Plan when read properly and purposively. The land is within the settlement boundary; residential use is already established in principle; the Proposal makes better use of the land; it secures substantial public benefits; and the technical matters that remained for finalisation were, as the Officer correctly concluded, suitable for control by condition and Section 13 agreement. 10.4 For all of those reasons, the Appeal should be allowed and planning permission granted subject to the conditions recommended in the Officer’s report and the Section 13 agreement there identified. ## - APPENDIX A CITED POLICY - Strategic Policy 1 Development should make the best use of resources by: - (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and reusing scarce indigenous building materials; - (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space(1) and amenity standards; and - (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services. ¶ 4.2.2 In pursuance of (c) above, the Department will, when formulating its programme for the preparation of new Area Plans, have particular regard to: - (a) the availability of mains drainage connected to IRIS or other mains systems; - (b) securing the future viability of rural primary schools; - (c) the public investment in the Island’s highway, bus, railway and tramway networks; - (d) the provision and availability of water; and - (e) community facilities. - Strategic Policy 2 New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3. - Strategic Policy 3 Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by: - (a) avoiding coalescence and maintaining adequate physical separation between settlements; and - (b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character. Strategic Policy 5 New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies. Spatial Policy 4 In the remaining villages development should maintain the existing settlement character and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities. These villages are: - • Bride • Glen Maye - • Sulby • Dalby - • Ballaugh • Ballafesson - • Glen Mona • Colby - • Baldrine • Ballabeg - • Crosby • Newtown - • Glen Vine • Strang Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such settlements so as to maintain their existing character. Strategic Policy 5 New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies. General Policy 2 Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: - (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; - (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; - (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; - (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; - (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; - (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; - (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; - (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; - (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; - (j) can be provided with all necessary services; - (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; - (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; - (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and - (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption. Environment Policy 10 Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission. The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4. Environment Policy 42 New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans. Housing Policy 1 The housing needs of the Island will be met by making provision for sufficient development opportunities to enable 5,100 additional dwellings (net of demolitions), and including those created by conversion, to be built over the Plan period 2011 to 2026. Housing Policy 5 In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more. Transport Policy 4 The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan. Transport Policy 7 The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department’s current standards. The current standards are set out in Appendix 7. Recreation Policy 3 Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan. ###### Appendix B Extant Approval Decision Notice Architecture.im Limited Mr Euan Craine Mwyllin Squeen Station Road Ballaugh IM7 5AH TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 In pursuance of powers granted under the above Act and Order the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture determined to APPROVE an application by Mr Frank Sweeney, Ref 22/01112/B, for the Construction of 7 bungalows and 5 garages, including vehicular access at Land Adjacent To Ginger Hall Hotel Ballamanagh Road Sulby Isle Of Man . Any conditions or notes which apply to the approval are set out below. This approval is subject to compliance with any conditions listed and may not be implemented until it becomes final (see guidance notes). - 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. - 2. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the garage, car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided and remain free from obstruction thereafter. Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are provided. - 3. Prior to the occupation of the hereby approved dwellings on Plot 1 to 6 the access as shown on drwg. no. 000.01 RevB must be completed in accordance with this approved plan. Furthermore, visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 90 metres in both directions are required to be provided by this access serving Plots 1 to 6 and thereafter kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1050 mm in height above adjoining carriageway level. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. - 4. Prior to the occupation of the hereby approved dwelling on Plot 7 the access as shown on drwg. no. 000.01 RevB must be completed in accordance with this approved plan. Furthermore, visibility splays as shown on drwg. no. 000.01 RevB are required to be provided and thereafter kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1050 mm in height above adjoining carriageway level. - Reason: In the interests of highway safety. - 5. Prior to the commencement of development, including construction and enabling works, details of protective fencing and construction exclusion zones with respect to all retained trees and boundary vegetation during construction works shall be submitted to the Department for approval in writing. All works must then be undertaken in strict accordance with the approved details. Reason: To safeguard retained trees and in the interests of biodiversity. - 6. All hard and soft landscaping, including all bat and bird bricks/boxes to be installed on site, shall be undertaken in full accordance with the approved landscaping scheme, namely dwrg. no. 000.02 RevB. Any trees or plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with other trees or plants of a species and size to be first approved in writing by the Department. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity and to ensure the delivery of an appropriate landscaping scheme. - 7. No permanent outdoor lighting shall be installed until a sensitive low level lighting plan, following best practise as detailed in the Bat Conservation Trust and Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidance Note 8/12 on Bats and Artificial Lighting (2023), has been submitted in writing to the Department for approval. All works must then be undertaken in full accordance with this plan. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity. This approval relates to drawings and documents referenced; 00.01 RevB - proposed site plan 00.02 RevB - proposed landscaping plan - 0100 RevC - proposed drainage plan 040.00 RevA - proposed junctions plan 041.00 RevA - site sections plan Road safety audit Road safety audit response letter Revised covering letter Drainage letter Culvert calculations document Received 29.11.23 00.00 - location plan 00.03 RevA - landscaping details 01.10 RevA - plot 1 ground floor plan 01.20 RevA - plot 1 elevations 01.30 RevA - plot 1 garage elevations 02.10 RevA - plot 2 ground floor plan 02.20 RevA - plot 2 elevations 02.30 RevA - plot 2 garage elevations 03.10 RevA - plot 3 ground floor plan 03.20 RevA - plot 3 elevations 03.30 RevA - plot 3 garage elevations 04.10 RevA - plot 4 ground floor plan 04.20 RevA - plot 4 elevations 04.30 RevA - plot 4 garage elevations 05.10 RevA - plot 5 ground floor plan 05.20 RevA - plot 5 elevations 05.30 RevA - plot 5 garage elevations 06.10 RevA - plot 6 ground floor plan 06.20 RevA - plot 6 elevations 07.10 RevA - plot 7 ground floor plan 07.11 RevA - plot 7 first floor plan 07.20 RevA - plot 7 elevations 07.30 RevA - plot 7 shed 10.00 RevA - finishes schedule 10.01 RevA - finishes reference document - 101 - drainage details 110 RevA - site plan with sections Covering letter Bat report Received 05.09.22 This decision has been made for the following reasons(s) The proposed development is considered to amount to an efficient redevelopment of a vacant site which is designated for development, whilst constituting a high quality of design and layout without detriment to the visual amenities of the locality. The proposals are further deemed to be acceptable with respect to highway safety, flood risk and ecological matters. The proposals are therefore considered to comply with Strategic Policy 5, Spatial Policy 4, General Policy 2, Environment Policies 10 and 42 and Transport Policies 4 and 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). Date of Issue: 9th May 2024 J CHANCE Director of Planning and Building Control Guidance Note This decision was made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority delegated to it. This decision refers only to that applied for under the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and its subordinate legislation. A copy of the Officer’s report and any correspondence which led to the assessment and decision is available to view on the Government’s website (via Online Services www.gov.im/Viewapplications) or at the Department’s offices Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas. Implementation The decision does not become final until either -  Any appeal has been concluded; or -  21 days have passed since the date on this notice and no appeal has been submitted Development must progress in accordance with the plans approved under, and any conditions attached to this approval (irrespective of any changes that may separately be requested at the Building Control stage or by any other Statutory Authority). This approval does not remove the need to also comply with any other relevant legislation. Any conditions requiring certain works, submissions etc. prior to commencement of development must be fulfilled prior to work starting on site. Failure to adhere to this approval and meet the requirements of all conditions may invalidate this approval or result in formal enforcement action. Appeal Any appeal must be in writing and submitted to the Department within 21 days of the date of this Notice. The appeal must contain: -  the grounds for making the appeal; -  payment of the planning appeal fee (currently £335); and -  if relevant, confirmation that the appellant wishes to have the appeal determined by means of an inquiry and payment of the additional inquiry fee (currently £125). Where the appeal is submitted by the applicant they must: -  specify in detail and by reference to material planning considerations the reasons why the appellant disagrees with that determination; and -  Where against a refusal, on the grounds of deficient detail or supporting documentation, set out why they consider the information or documentation forming part of the application was sufficient in the circumstance. If the appeal is submitted by someone who has interested Person Status but is not listed in Article 4(2) of the Development Procedure Order 2019, that person must relate their grounds for making the appeal to issues which they included in representations made prior to the application being determined. Failure to meet all of the relevant above requirements will mean that the appeal cannot be validated. An appeal form and more detailed guidance are available either from Planning & Building Control, Tel 685950, or from the Department’s website www.gov.im/planningappeal If this decision becomes final because there is no appeal, the Department’s public reference copy (counter copy) of the planning application (should one have been received) may be collected by the applicant or their agent from Murray House. Please note that if the counter copy of the application is not collected within thirty days following the last date on which a planning appeal can be made it will be destroyed without further notice. ###### Appendix C Extant Approval Officer Report ### · ##### Planning Officer Report And Recommendation Application No. : 22/01112/B Applicant : Mr Frank Sweeney Proposal : Construction of 7 bungalows and 5 garages, including vehicular access Site Address : Land Adjacent To Ginger Hall Hotel Ballamanagh Road Sulby Isle Of Man Planning Officer: Toby Cowell Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 26.04.2024 Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions - C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. - C 2. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the garage, car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided and remain free from obstruction thereafter. Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are provided. - C 3. Prior to the occupation of the hereby approved dwellings on Plot 1 to 6 the access as shown on drwg. no. 000.01 RevB must be completed in accordance with this approved plan. Furthermore, visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 90 metres in both directions are required to be provided by this access serving Plots 1 to 6 and thereafter kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1050 mm in height above adjoining carriageway level. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. - C 4. Prior to the occupation of the hereby approved dwelling on Plot 7 the access as shown on drwg. no. 000.01 RevB must be completed in accordance with this approved plan. Furthermore, visibility splays as shown on drwg. no. 000.01 RevB are required to be provided and thereafter kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1050 mm in height above adjoining carriageway level. - Reason: In the interests of highway safety. - C 5. Prior to the commencement of development, including construction and enabling works, details of protective fencing and construction exclusion zones with respect to all retained trees and boundary vegetation during construction works shall be submitted to the Department for approval in writing. All works must then be undertaken in strict accordance with the approved details. Reason: To safeguard retained trees and in the interests of biodiversity. - C 6. All hard and soft landscaping, including all bat and bird bricks/boxes to be installed on site, shall be undertaken in full accordance with the approved landscaping scheme, namely dwrg. no. 000.02 RevB. Any trees or plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with other trees or plants of a species and size to be first approved in writing by the Department. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity and to ensure the delivery of an appropriate landscaping scheme. - C 7. No permanent outdoor lighting shall be installed until a sensitive low level lighting plan, following best practise as detailed in the Bat Conservation Trust and Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidance Note 8/12 on Bats and Artificial Lighting (2023), has been submitted in writing to the Department for approval. All works must then be undertaken in full accordance with this plan. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity. ##### This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposed development is considered to amount to an efficient redevelopment of a vacant site which is designated for development, whilst constituting a high quality of design and layout without detriment to the visual amenities of the locality. The proposals are further deemed to be acceptable with respect to highway safety, flood risk and ecological matters. The proposals are therefore considered to comply with Strategic Policy 5, Spatial Policy 4, General Policy 2, Environment Policies 10 and 42 and Transport Policies 4 and 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to drawings and documents referenced; 00.01 RevB - proposed site plan 00.02 RevB - proposed landscaping plan - 0100 RevC - proposed drainage plan 040.00 RevA - proposed junctions plan 041.00 RevA - site sections plan Road safety audit Road safety audit response letter Revised covering letter Drainage letter Culvert calculations document Received 29.11.23 00.00 - location plan 00.03 RevA - landscaping details 01.10 RevA - plot 1 ground floor plan 01.20 RevA - plot 1 elevations 01.30 RevA - plot 1 garage elevations 02.10 RevA - plot 2 ground floor plan 02.20 RevA - plot 2 elevations 02.30 RevA - plot 2 garage elevations 03.10 RevA - plot 3 ground floor plan 03.20 RevA - plot 3 elevations 03.30 RevA - plot 3 garage elevations 04.10 RevA - plot 4 ground floor plan 04.20 RevA - plot 4 elevations 04.30 RevA - plot 4 garage elevations 05.10 RevA - plot 5 ground floor plan 05.20 RevA - plot 5 elevations 05.30 RevA - plot 5 garage elevations 06.10 RevA - plot 6 ground floor plan 06.20 RevA - plot 6 elevations 07.10 RevA - plot 7 ground floor plan 07.11 RevA - plot 7 first floor plan 07.20 RevA - plot 7 elevations 07.30 RevA - plot 7 shed 10.00 RevA - finishes schedule 10.01 RevA - finishes reference document - 101 - drainage details 110 RevA - site plan with sections Covering letter Bat report Received 05.09.22 ##### Interested Person Status – Additional Persons It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations: Manx Utilities Authority Department of Infrastructure Flood Risk Management Division It is recommended that the following should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings: - 41 Carrick Park, Sulby The Shop, Sulby Bridge, Sulby as they have explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. It is further recommended that the following should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2): Isle of Man Friends of the Earth, The Green Centre, Chester Street Centre, Douglas as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. ##### Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR DETERMINATION DUE TO THE PROPOSALS HAVING THE POTENTIAL TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND GIVEN THE SITE'S PLANNING HISTORY ### 1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application relates to land adjacent to the Ginger Hall Hotel, Ballamanagh Road, Sulby. The site is located to the eastern edge of the village of Sulby. The site is currently only accessed from River Meadowland, a rural lane passing along the south side of the village. The entrance to the site is from the north side of the lane, not far from the junction with Ginger Hall corner. 1.2 The site is bounded on its north side by the rear of a row of detached bungalows on Carrick Park. On the east side, the site extends to the west side of the A3 main road and then tapers inwards where it adjoins the Ginger Hall Hotel and its car park. To the south is River Meadowland Lane. On the west side, the site adjoins the rear of two detached houses on a small residential cul-de-sac to the west. 1.3 The site has an area of approximately 0.55 hectares (ha) and is broadly square shaped although it tapers inwards on its south east side. The site is undeveloped land and is mostly overgrown. There are a number of trees and bushes along the west boundary. The site falls in a north westerly direction towards the rear of the houses on Carrick Park. There is a low fence on the north side and the site is relatively open to the rear of the properties on Carrick Park. There is a drainage ditch on the inside of this north western perimeter of the site which then runs underneath the A3 main road to the east. On the east side, next to the Ginger Hall Hotel, there is a high fence. On the south side, next to River Meadowland Lane, is a roadside lane with a field gate where the access to the development will be located. ### 2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for erection of a development of seven detached dwellings with associated garages. The properties are mainly single storey detached bungalows, Plots 1 to 5 each having a similar styles two bedroom properties, the exception would be Plot 7 which would have the same footprint and height, but include two dormer windows within the rear elevation. Plot 6 is a smaller two bedroomed single storey detached bungalow. Plots 1 to 6 would all be served by a new tarmac road which forms a cul-de sac. This new road accesses directly onto the Lezayre Road (A3). Plot 7 would not be served by this cul-de-sac and would have its individual access onto the Ballamanagh Road, which is an existing access (southern boundary) which was created for previous housing schemes on this site, where the majority of dwelling would have used this access. All the dwellings except the smaller dwelling on Plot 6, together with Plot 7 would have a single detached garage. 2.2 The proposals effectively comprise a resubmission of an almost identical scheme previously approved at appeal in 2018 (PA 17/000462/B). The only change being the removal of the detached garage for plot 7 and replacement with a smaller shed for the storage of bicycles and other domestic paraphernalia. Additional information and clarification has also been provided to satisfy previous highways and drainage/flooding concerns. ### 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:- 3.2 22/00826/NTU - Sought permission to vary condition 1 of PA 17/00462/B to extend the period of commencing development by a further 2 years. This application was not pursued and therefore no decision was issued. 3.3 17/00462/B - Construction of 7 bungalows and 6 garages, including vehicular access. Following an initial recommendation for approval by the case officer and ratified by the planning committee, the application was subject to a third party appeal. Whilst the Inspector recommended that the appeal be allowed and planning permission refused on highway safety grounds, the Minister concluded that the proposals would not be unacceptable on such grounds, particularly in the context of support having been provided by Highway Services. The appeal was subsequently dismissed and planning permission was granted in July 2018. 3.4 14/01198/B - Erection of a development of five detached dwellings with associated garages. The application was approved. 3.5 13/91035/B - application for erection of five detached dwellings with associated garages. The application was refused at appeal for the following reasons: - 1. The proposal is contrary to General Policy 2(b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the proposed development, by reason of its cramped and contrived layout, would have a materially harmful effect on the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings. - 2. The proposal is contrary to General Policy 2(h) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the proposed development, by reason of the inadequately of visibility to the south west, would not be served by a safe and convenient access and thereby would be detrimental to the interest of highway safety. 3.6 12/01125/B - application for six dwellings refused in January 2013. The grounds for refusal were: - 1. That the development would result in a cramped and awkward layout that fails to provide adequate levels of amenity space and insufficient space for any landscape buffer. - 2. Insufficient visibility at the access to serve 6 dwellings 2.4m x 36m is required. 3.7 11/00155/B - approval granted in 2011 for four dwellings. 3.8 09/00504/B - application refused at appeal in 2010 for four plots. 3.9 99/02118/B - approval granted in 2006 for two bungalows. 3.10 95/01092/A - approval in principle granted at appeal in 1996 for two plots. 3.11 91/00838/A - approval in principle refused for five plots. 3.12 90/01993/A - approval in principle refused for plot layout. 3.13 89/00755/A - approval in principle granted for dwelling and annex. 3.14 88/01528/A - approval in principle refused for four dwellings. ### 4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The land is zoned under the Sulby Local Plan Order 1998 as being 'Predominately Residential Use & Woodland'. The site is not within a Conservation Area, nor is it within an area zoned as High Landscape Value or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. 4.2 Due to the site's location, land use designation and the type of development proposed, the following Planning Policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Sulby Local Plan 1998 are relevant when determining the application: Strategic Policy - 1 Development to make the best use of resources - 2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages - 3 To respect the character of our towns and villages - 5 Design and visual impact Spatial Policy - 4 Development in Remaining Villages General Policy - 2 General Development Considerations Environment Policy 10 Development and flood risk - 42 Designed to respect the character and identity of the locality Housing Policy 1 Housing need Transport Policy - 4 Highway safety 7 Parking 4.3 Sulby Local Plan (NO.2) Order 1998 - Development Brief states: "3.15. It is recommended that the development of this area shall be undertaken in accordance with the following brief. - 1. The residential development of this area shall be limited to two single storey dwellings with plot boundaries designed to allow the maximisation of car parking space for use by the hotel. - 2. Any future development proposals shall ensure the retention of the existing trees along the boundary with the Claddagh Road. (B8). - 3. Vehicular access for any residential development shall be from the B8. - 4. Any development proposals whether for detached houses or hotel car park, shall include a landscaping buffer along the boundaries of the property. - 5. The dwellings must be connected to the main foul sewer and no tree planting should be introduced over any part of the foul sewer which crosses the site." ### 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Lezayre Parish Commissioners - With reference to the above planning application, the Commissioners met on site last month with Mr Cowin, Flood Risk Manager, Chris (drainage engineer) along with concerned residents and Mr Johnston MHK. A discussion took place regarding how the drainage of water from the site and surrounding areas could be improved to prevent flooding into the adjacent properties in Carrick Park. Mr Cowin agreed to go away and come up with a suitable plan/solution that could be created to improve the drainage of water in the ditch away from the site. This would be communicated to the site owner, Mr Sweeney. Mr Cowin did show us a plan that showed the level of the application site to be approximately 600mm higher than the adjacent property. Currently the site is at similar level to that of the top of the ditch. My Commissioners were very surprised to see the change in site levels, shown on this drawing. From previous planning applications for this site, drawings have not demonstrated this. After calling the architect to this application he advised that the drawing we refer to was prepared and shows an indicative level of the site. He also explained that the profile shown on this plan is the site/land profile for the previous approved application for this site 17/00462/B (now lapsed). My Commissioners were not aware of this proposed profile to the site and would like to request that the applicant submit a plan that shows several cross sections through the site to indicate the site levels, so that the site can be properly understood. We further understand that Mr Cowin (DOI Flood Risk Manager) and Chris (drainage engineer) are in contact with Mr Sweeney suggesting the best way for the water to be taken away from the site, hopefully reducing the risk of flooding to the neighbouring properties in Carrick Park and the site itself. The Commissioners will support these suggestions and hope that the planning application will only be approved, once the full details are agreed by the applicant Mr Sweeney and the flood team. The Commissioners also wish to state that the owner or any future owner of this site should bear the cost to improve the drainage of water from the ditch on this site, to alleviate flooding to nearby properties. (30.03.23) 5.2 Highway Services - Previous Highways response dated 11/10/2022 requested a number of alterations to the layout in order to comply with current standards, including clarification to visibility extents, adjustment to the tactile location, driveway and cycle parking revisions to Plot - 6, and provision of a road safety audit. The audit produced a number of problems identified with the design. The designers response has adequately addressed the problems raised, with either solutions included or rationale for the choice provided. The proposal has now included an upgrade to the bus stop facility along the A3. Previously there was provision of a flag stop. The revised plans have now added Kassel kerbs to aide pedestrians on and off the bus, and a bus shelter off the pavement. The location of the bus stop has been moved further along the A3 and poses as a visibility obstruction for those emerging from the new junction access (as raised in Problem 3). The new junction only serves six dwellings, and the bus stop being in a rural location would likely see infrequent use. Whilst it is possible that the two movements could happen simultaneously, there is a reduced likelihood, and in such an event the vehicle driver would be discouraged from emerging due to visibility being so restricted. There have been adjustments to the visibility splays provided from the two junctions. From the priority junction at the estate entrance, there has only been a minor alignment change that has taken the splay further out of the land surrounding the Ginger Hall. From the 'Junctions Plan' submitted, it is shown that the splays are contained within the highway (carriageway or footway) or redline boundary. The visibility from the single dwelling access has also be adjusted. The entirety the splays are now contained within the redline boundary or the highway. As a result, there has been a reduction in achievable visibility to the right on exit from 23m to 19.5m, and a step-out of the left visibility further into the carriageway. The Claddagh Road is rural and narrower than a main route, with few dwellings and accesses served off it. As a result, vehicles will likely be travelling further away from the edge of carriageway. Despite the reduction, the arrangement still reflects an improvement to the access geometry and provides for a single dwelling onto a road with expected light volume of traffic. The visibility for this access is acceptable to Highways. The pedestrian crossing provided at the junction bellmouth has been moved further towards the development and away from the edge of carriageway, as requested by Highways. Whilst taken away slightly from the pedestrian desire line along the roadside (as the audit highlighted) it will provide a safer access for mobility/visually impaired users to get from the shared use area to the pavement. The alteration to the highway, in the form of creating a new junction, will require a Section 109(A) Highway Agreement to be made post planning consent. Alterations have been made to Plot 6 in order to provide the sufficient minimum depth for a driveway. A shelter has been placed in the rear garden for the storage of bicycles. Whilst this is a slightly inconvenient location, the requirement has been met and is accepted. The proposal raises no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues. Accordingly, Highway Services Development Control raises no objection to the proposal subject to all access arrangements, including visibility splays, to accord to Drawings No. 040 Rev A, 000.01 Rev B and 000.02 Rev B. The Applicant is advised that a S109(A) Highway Agreement is needed after the grant of planning consent. (05.12.23) 5.3 Manx Utilities Authority - The applicant is advised to enter into a section 8 adoption agreement with Manx Utilities which will detail the extent of the foul and surface water infrastructure that is proposed to be offered for public adoption. The S8 agreement must be prepared in accordance with Manx Sewers for adoption. Existing public foul sewers cross the site; whilst the development proposals show a protected strip between the houses and the existing sewer on the site, the developer must ensure the sewer is fully protected during all construction works and that any manhole covers are not covered with construction debris. Drainage communication fees are applicable for each plot connected to the public sewers. No surface water will be permitted to be discharged into any foul or combined drainage systems on this development. (06.03.24) 5.4 DEFA Biodiversity - The Ecosystem Policy Team can confirm that the Manx Wildlife Trust's Protected Species Preliminary Assessment report for Land Adjacent to the Ginger Hall Hotel dated April 2021, is all in order and a suitable level of assessment has been undertaken. Since the MWT wrote the report, there looks to have been a change to the plans which means that 2 of the mature trees identified as having potential bat roost features are now to be removed, rather than 1 (Trees 1 & 3 in the MWTs report), therefore additional mitigation may be required from that which is suggested, but this will need to be determined by an ecologist during the pre-felling bat assessments. In order to ensure that an appropriate level of ecological mitigation is put in place on site, we request that the following conditions are secured on approval: - An ecological mitigation plan must be provided to Planning for written approval prior to any works, including site clearance and tree felling, from taking place. This mitigation plan should include the following: - Details of the pre-felling bat inspections to be undertaken by a suitably qualified ecological consultancy, prior the felling of mature trees, and the additional measures that are to be taken should bats or evidence of bats be found. - The timescale, specification and location of the bat box/boxes to be erected on a retained tree/s prior to the felling of any mature trees or the removal of branches from any mature trees. - Reasonable Avoidance Measures for bats, birds, lizards and frogs, to ensure that wildlife is protected during site clearance and construction. - The timescales, specifications and methodology for the creation of the wildflower areas. A S13 agreement may also need to be included to deal with the ongoing management of these areas. - Measures to be taken to prevent excessive runoff into, or pollution of, the drainage ditch along the north of the site. - Measures to be taken to prevent damage to any retained trees and boundary vegetation during construction. The works must then be undertaken in strict accordance with these details. - The bat and bird bricks/boxes must be installed on the properties as per the details contained in the Landscaping Site Plan (Drawing no. 000.02 A) and the various plot elevation drawings. - The hedge and tree landscaping must be undertaken as per the details contained in the Landscaping Site Plan (Drawing no. 000.02 A). - No external lighting to be installed unless a low level lighting plan, adhering to best practise for Bats (BCT Guidance on bats an artificial lighting) has been submitted to Planning for written approval. (30.09.22) 5.5 Flood Risk Management - We have now had chance to review the drawings and calculations that have been sent through and we are satisfied that the 600mm diameter culvert is sufficient for the 1 in 100 plus climate change event. The details for the inlet and out must be provided in the subsequent flood risk management Act 2013 Section 20 application for works. We will ask for this detail to be conditioned. All design must be carried out to CIRIA guide C786 Culvert Screen and Outfall Manual. One thing our operations division has mentioned is that the reason there are 3 x 225mm diameter pipes is that they could not fit in anything larger due to the 6" cast iron water main. It may prove difficult to install the 600mm diameter pipe so this might be worth investigating. Due to the proposed culvert being shallow we would recommend concrete protection above. (20.11.23) 5.6 Highways Drainage - Allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads. The Department is waiting for, in due course, detailed design information of the road and drainage on site. 5.7 DEFA Fisheries - This planning application has been checked by Fisheries Officers. I can confirm that DEFA Fisheries have no concerns in relation to this development from a fisheries perspective. This is due to the nature of the nearby watercourse (ditch) which is not known to contain fish populations. We ask that as the proposed works are in close proximity to the watercourse, precautions will be needed to reduce the possibility of harmful materials such as concrete or washings entering the river. Also, due to the size of the development, planning ahead to attenuate runoff (taking sediment out of solution) be accounted for while the site remains clear stripped, especially during winter. 5.8 Three letters of private representation have been received providing comments on the application, full details of which can be found on the online planning file. The following provides a summary of their comments only: - - Of the two lower pipes in the ditch, the right hand side pipe is a 225mm diameter pipe which was installed in 2002 by the Department of Highways and if it is kept clear of debris, it works to suit the job it is designed to do; this task must be carried out by the purchasers of plots 3, 4 and 5; - - The second lower pipe (on the left hand side of the ditch), is a 'stub' pipe and is only about 600mm long; this pipe discharges into a 200 year 'French Drain' located on a neighbours land and it is not certain that it would be able to cope with additional storm water; - - In extreme conditions, there is heavy runoff water from the adjacent hills and this can cause standing water on the proposed development; - - The application documentation does not appear to include either an arboricultural or an ecological report; - - These are serious omissions and the application cannot properly be assessed without detailed submissions on the issues of tree loss and associated carbon release, carbon sequestration in mitigation, biodiversity net loss or gain; - - The applicant's agent's letter refers to the earlier application 17/00462/B, stating that the mitigation plan meets recommendations of Manx Wildlife Trust and the Ecosystems Policy Team, citing a report by Manx Wildlife Trust supposedly supporting the application, and - claiming that the Biodiversity Team have 'indicated' that the report satisfies their requirements. There is no evidence of this in the documents to substantiate any of these statements; - - Expectations regarding carbon sequestration and biodiversity loss and gain have moved on significantly since the original application was submitted five years ago. An up-to-date arboricultural and ecological reassessment must be included for this application to be appropriately considered. As it stands it is fundamentally flawed. - - All of the bungalows will be fitted with 'Photovoltaic (PV) solar panels on their individual roofs. The main consideration with these installations to ensure is that the piece of equipment that converts the DC from the panels to AC (inverter) is adequately screened by an earthed metal screen (known as a Faraday cage); - - Should this not occur, serious interference will cause issues to surrounding properties i.e. TV reception, WiFi reception, FM and AM radio reception and H/F radio reception on the bands up to about 10 Mhz; - - A reputable installer would be aware of the issues with the inverter and would install it so as to not cause interference; when the homes are built and this issue not dealt with, it will be too late, so the planners should be made aware of this potential problem. ### 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The principle of development has already been established through the previous grant of planning permission under PA 17/00462/B which is effectively identical to the current scheme under considered. The provision of 7 no. dwellings on site, whilst contrary to the site's development brief in the Sulby Local Plan, has previously been considered and found acceptable by the case officer for the previous application, the planning committee and the appointed Inspector. In the absence of any change to adopted planning policy which relates to Sulby, namely the Strategic Plan 2016 and the Sulby Local Plan 1998; it is considered that the principle of redeveloping the site to provide 7 no. dwellings remains acceptable. 6.2 Likewise, the general design, form and layout of the proposed scheme is effectively unchanged from the previous scheme, with the exception of the removal of the detached garage serving Plot 7 and erection of a smaller shed for storage purposes in its stead. On this basis, and in the absence of any change to adopted planning policy, the proposals are considered to remain appropriate from a design and visual impact perspective. 6.3 The submission has been accompanied by a full schedule of materials to be used in the external finishes of each dwelling. The dwellings would be finished in a combination of painted render, brick slips and varying shades of cedral cladding boards, together with blue black fibre cement roofing slates. The external finishes, particularly in the context of an enclosed modern micro-estate adjacent to an existing residential estate, are considered to be appropriate in this instance. 6.4 In terms of landscaping, the submission is accompanied by a comprehensive scheme, the context of which has been found acceptable by the Ecosystems Policy Officer, and includes substantial additional tree and hedging planting, together with areas of wildflowers planting in the public domain. Likewise, the proposals include the location and specification of bird and bat boxes to be installed within the site; which includes on the dwellings themselves where appropriate together with a retained tree in the southern corner of the site. 6.5 Notwithstanding the level of information provided with the submission, further detail has been sought from the Ecosystems Policy Officer with respect to appropriate levels of ecological mitigation following the required tree removal, particularly in relation to birds and bats, together with further details relating to the protection of retained trees during construction. Upon review of the level of information provided with the submission, it is noted that full details of bird and bat boxes have been provided, including their specification and location, together with a comprehensive seed mix for each of the proposed wildflower areas. Likewise, the request for details of pre-felling bat inspections would effectively fall within the request for details of 'reasonable avoidance measures' for wildlife. 6.6 With respect to highways matters, additional information in relation to visibility splays has been provided, together with a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit and responses to each of the issues previous identified by Highways. Moreover, further details in relation to a new bus stop have been provided, together with the new store for Plot 6 to provide adequate bicycle storage. Highway Services have confirmed they are now content with the proposals and conclude that it would pose no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues, subject to the attachment of appropriately worded conditions. 6.7 A final issue for consideration relates to drainage and flooding matters. It is noted that a condition requiring the submission of full details pursuant to design and construction of surface water drainage was added to the decision notice for the previous application at the Inspector's initial recommendation. With respect to the current application, upon submission of new drawings and calculations relating to the culvert, Flood Risk Management have confirmed that they are satisfied with the supplied information however the detail for the inlet and outlet must be supplied as part of a Section 20 works application under the Flood Risk Management Act 2013. They have also requested such details to be conditioned, however it is not clear whether this request relates to any forthcoming planning decision or in relation to the Section 20 application. 6.8 The agent has provided the following response in this regard: "In correspondence with the authority it was noted that matters controlled under separate legislation — including detailed drainage design — are established not to constitute a material consideration under §10 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 (in this respect, the authority has powers under §20 of the Flood Risk Management Act 2013). Whilst the possibility of conditioning detailed drainage matters was discussed, it is the applicant's preference to avoid pre-commencement delays and to address such details at this stage. The proposed surface water attenuation is devised to control flows, originating from within the site, entering the existing watercourse (a drainage ditch on the site's northwest edge). This ditch drains northwards until it reaches the highway, however the manner in which it discharges is inadequately provided for at present (which would be the case notwithstanding any proposal for the site's development); pipes installed by the relevant authority in recent years appear not to serve the intended purpose for which they were installed. In the preparation of their design, Burroughs Stewart Associates have undertaken calculations in accordance with the requirements of CIRIA Culvert, Screen and Outfall Manual (C786F), as cited by the Flood Risk Division. A culvert is proposed to be installed below the highway, replacing those pipes previously installed, so that the watercourse may freely discharge. We consider the foregoing to accord with the Flood Management Division's detail requirements. Having received confirmation of their satisfaction, we hereby formally submit the same for inclusion on the application's file." 6.9 Officers are in agreement that the provision of further details pursuant to drainage by way of a planning condition would not be necessary and would be sufficiently covered as part of a Section 20 application. Therefore, it is not considered that additional detail would need to be provided as part of the planning process, with both Flood Risk Management and Manx Utilities Authority noted as being content in principle with the proposals from a drainage and flooding perspective. 6.10 Issues raised in relation to PV solar panels and ensuring that they are correctly installed are noted, however such matters are not a material planning consideration and fall outwith of the planning process. ### 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposed development is considered to amount to an efficient redevelopment of a vacant site which is designated for development, whilst constituting a high quality of design and layout without detriment to the visual amenities of the locality. The proposals are further - deemed to be acceptable with respect to highway safety, flood risk and ecological matters. The proposals are therefore considered to comply with Strategic Policy 5, Spatial Policy 4, General Policy 2, Environment Policies 10 and 42 and Transport Policies 4 and 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). The application is therefore recommended for approval. ### 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: - (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); - (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; - (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; - (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; - (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; - (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and - (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material. 8.2 The decision maker must determine: - whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and - whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status. Decision Made : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 07.05.2024 Signed : T COWELL Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report). Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records. --- *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/130515-lezayre-land-adjacent-to-access/documents/1593302*