Officer Report

Application No.: 24/00713/A Applicant: Dandara Homes Limited Proposal: Approval in principle for residential development, with access taken from main road Site Address: Land Adjacent To Main Road, Trollaby Lane, And Residential Area Of Strang Road Union Mills Isle Of Man IM4 Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken: 18.07.2024 Site Visit: 18.07.2024 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 06.01.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. While the site is designated as a "Strategic Reserve" site under the Area Plan for the East 2020, which may be suitable for future development, this is on the sole basis that the area will be held 'in reserve' until the need for such development has been established. It has not been demonstrated that there is an immediate need of the site for residential development as the Strategic Reserve Release Mechanism Proposal 1 has not been commenced by the Cabinet Office. Accordingly, given these points, the site is neither within a settlement boundary nor is the area designated for development at this time. Therefore, the proposal is judged to constitute unwarranted development in the countryside, and would be contrary to the Area Plan for the East 2020, Environment Policy 1, General Policy 3, Strategic Policy 2 and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - R 2. The application fails to comply with the requirements of the Development Brief outlined within the Area Plan for the East, including, but not limited to; the submission of a travel plan; that there should be no net loss of biodiversity in the development of this site; and that an Environmental Impact Assessment will be needed for any development proposed on this site, and therefore the proposal cannot be adequately considered to be appropriate for this site. It is also considered that the scheme as proposed would result is an ad hoc and premature development which would be against all the aims of the Area Plan for the East 2020 and - General Policy 2 (a) of the Strategic plan. - R 3. Whilst the soil classification of the site is not Class 1 and 2 which is prioritised for protection, the development would result in undue loss of Class 3 Agricultural soils which are summarised as land with moderate limitations which restrict the choice of crops and/or demand careful management, and currently support agriculture, as the development is not justified, and would constitute unwarranted residential development in the countryside. The proposal would also fail to safeguard a prime agricultural resource (soil), by facilitating the siting of new buildings in the countryside where need is not established. Therefore, it is, - considered that the scheme as proposed would be averse to the requirements of Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan, the principles promoted by Paragraphs 7.13.1 of the Strategic Plan. - R 4. It has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed development of the site would not result in unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or offsite, and that the development would not increase flood vulnerabilities and intensity of flooding in the area, or create significant drainage issues. Therefore, the scheme is considered to fail the requirements of Environment Policy 13 and General Policy 2 (l). - R 5. Insufficient information has been provided to support that the proposed development would not result in significant adverse impacts on the ecology of the site, or on locally important habitats or species, and/or result in net loss of biodiversity, and as such the development is considered to be contrary to Environment Policy 4, Strategic Policy 4 (b & c), and General Policy (d) of the Strategic Plan. - R 6. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that surface and foul water can be adequately drained from this site as part of the development of the site, without impacting drainage downstream and therefore the proposal is contrary to General Policy 2 and Paragraph 11.8.1 & 11.8.5 of the IOMSP.

_________________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status

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:

• 1. DOI Flood Risk Management
• 2. Manx Utilities Authority Electricity
• 3. Manx Utilities Authority Drainage
• 4. Manx National Heritage
• 5. Planning Policy (Cabinet Office)

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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 and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

• 1. Boaldwyn, Main Rd, Union Mills;
• 2. Marygate, 3 Trollaby Lane, Union Mills;
• 3. Thie Ny Ushtey, Strang Road, Braddan;
• 4. Angel Falls, Strang Road, Union Mills;
• 5. Brambles, Main Road, Union Mills;
• 6. Chesil, Strang Road, Union Mills;
• 7. Albany, Burnside Terrace, Main Road, Union Mills;
• 8. Brookvale House, Main Road, Union Mills;
• 9. Riverside House, Main Road, Union Mills;
• 10. Brookvale Cottage, Main Road, Union Mills;

as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status.

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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):

• 1. Shearwaters, Trollaby Lane, Union Mills;
• 2. Groves Cottage, Trollaby Lane, Union Mills;
• 3. Greenwood, Burnside Terrace, Union Mills;
• 4. Fraggle Rock, Trollaby Lane, Union Mills;
• 5. Cass Ny Cronk, Main Road, Union Mills;
• 6. Colden, 1 Burnside Terrace, Main Road, Union Mills; as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and

• 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.

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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):

• 1. Oakbank, Strang Road, Union Mills;
• 2. Glen Haven, Strang Road, Union Mills;
• 3. Hy Holme, Strang Road, Union Mills;
• 4. Groves Lodge, Trollaby lane, Union Mills;
• 5. The Stables, Trollaby Lane, Union Mills;

As they are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy

It is recommended that the following organisation 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):

Cawthron Institute, 98 Halifax Street East, Nelson 7010, Private Bag 2, Nelson 7042, New Zealand, as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy

_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE PRINCIPAL PLANNER

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site comprises an area of land to the northwest of Strang Road, east of Trollaby Lane, north of the A1 (Peel Road) which covers an area measuring approximately 5.73 ha. (14.16 Acres/57300sqm). The land which is the subject of the application is of varying topography, although the land generally rises towards the northern boundary. - 1.2 The site forms part of the wider holding known as 'Camlork' which comprises about 20 Hectares, and sits west of this area. This site is currently in use as farm land and therefore currently exist as agricultural fields, with naturally/artificially vegetated field boundaries.

1.3 Access to the site is currently via an existing field access to the south of the site which is accessed via The Old Chapel, Main Road, Union Mills, although there is a field access centrally situated on the northern boundary of the site which has vehicular access via Mount Rule Road.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Approval in principle for residential development, with access taken from main road. The application documents indicates that all matters are to be reserved, although the indicative layout plans show that access to the site is to be obtained via the A1 (Peel Road). - 2.2 Access to and from the site will be via a new access road (5.5m wide) which would be situated at the south-western end of the site, which sits to the west of Trollaby Lane, and within Field 324213. The detailed access arrangement would include pedestrian walkways on both sides of the road. The new footways will connect with the existing footway provision along the A1 (Peel Road). The trees and landscape features on the western edge of the site and along the Trollaby River would be removed as part of the proposal. - 2.3 The application is supported by the following supporting documents:

• 1. Planning Statement prepared by Dandara Homes Limited;
• 2. Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report prepared by Fenley Road Safety Limited and dated September 2024;
• 3. Highway Statement prepared by i-Transport LLP, and dated 19 June 2024;
• 4. Arboricultural Impact Assessment prepared by Manx Roots Limited, and dated November 2023;
• 5. Tree Plans (Tree Constraints Plan, Tree Removal Plan, Tree Protection Plan, and Tree Planting Plan).

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 Site Specific:

• 3.1.1 The application site is located within an area zoned as Strategic Reserve on the Area Plan for the East (Map 8 - Union Mills/Strang), and the site is not within and Conservation Area. The site is not within a Registered Tree Area, and there are no Registered Trees on site. The site is largely not prone to flood risks although the western boundary of the site which adjoins the Trollaby River is considered to have high likelihood of surface Water flood risks. The eastern boundary of the site which also abuts a water course is considered to have medium likelihood of surface water flood risks.

3.2 Area: Area Plan for the East

• 3.2.1 The following parts of the Area Plan for the East are vital for consideration:

• a. Transport Proposal 3: "The existing route of the TT Access Road and the ability for future improvements to aid traffic flow and highway operation (which may include provision for a traffic lane in either direction) shall be protected for its own sake. No development proposals will be approved which would hinder the ability to achieve two-way traffic flow.

Significant improvements to the TT Access Road will be expected ahead of any formal release of the Strategic Reserve sites BH015s/BH019s, BH031s (part), DH002s/DH057s/DM001s/DH003 and DH010.

Before the end of the plan period, a design scheme must be drawn up to scope out, design and engineer proposals to address the issue of how the existing TT Access Road could be improved and the feasibility of an additional/alternative 'TT Access Road' into and out of the course during Race periods.

Decision makers will have regard to - as a material consideration - the status of any scheme developed by the Department responsible for highway matters in respect of improvements and additional works to/alternatives for, the TT Access Road and the progression of that scheme."

• b. Within "Table 19 Summary of Residential Land Provision" it indicates that site BH031s (part) Camlork (Field No 521518), would be a Strategic Reserve Site and provide 50 dwellings.
• c. Residential Proposal 2: "Applications in the East should be prepared taking into account the following matters (which may need to be presented in a masterplan):

• a. Scale of proposed development relevant to site size, location and setting;
• b. Existing green, grey and social infrastructure;
• c. Biodiversity (there should be no net qualitative loss); d. Phasing, layout, road access, parking and traffic circulation within the site;

• e. Need for public open space (formal and informal/amenity);
• f. Options for and access to public transport as part of an overall travel plan (meaning an appropriate long term management strategy that seeks to deliver sustainable transport objectives through action);
• g. Need for a Transport Assessment; h. Need for individual drainage masterplans or specific flood risk assessments (advice from Manx Utilities may be required)

• i. Need for landscaping - including areas of structural landscaping on larger sites;
• j. Need - as part of the development - for infrastructure service corridors;
• k. Need for archaeological evaluation and mitigation; This is not an exhaustive list and is in addition to the normal legislative and policy guidance on matters to be taken into account when determining planning applications."

• d. Transport Proposal 2 - Seeks to help deliver integrated transport networks. A series of requirements are listed to coordinate the development of all transport modes to provide a comprehensive transport system centred on Douglas and the East.
• e. Paragraph 1.7.2 - use of land within Strategic Reserve: "In the meantime, in addition to land allocated for immediate development, the Area Plan contains some 'Strategic Reserve Sites', which identify land for future residential development, should this be required. Until these sites are released for development, they will be subject to

General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan."

• f. Paragraph 12.18.3 Adopted principles of the Strategic Reserve Sites: "i. Cabinet Office has the decision making ability to formally release Strategic Reserve Sites although the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture has the ability through the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to determine any planning application made on a Strategic Reserve Site at any stage whether or not it has been formally 'released'.

• ii. Data referred to in this section and the Strategic Reserve Release Mechanism (SRRM) Proposal has already been published and subjected to scrutiny through examination at Inquiry.
• iii. Strategic Reserves may be released individually by their site number, parts of which may be phased in any Cabinet Office Release Report as deemed appropriate.
• iv. Strategic Reserves may also be released alongside other numbered Strategic Reserves as part of a master-planned approach as set out in any Release Report.
• v. Triggers for release of Strategic Reserves for predominantly residential use include statistical evidence on total resident population, residents living in private households and housing delivery in the plan area."

• g. Paragraph 12.18.4 Data supporting the Release Mechanism states:

"i. The Inquiry Report recommended "Strategic Reserve Sites will not be released for development until the population of the Isle of Man exceeds 89,000." Based on the 2016 Interim Census and associated projections, an Island resident population of 89,000 would be reached by 2031 (using the assumption of 500 net migration pa). It would be reached sooner

• i.e. in 2022 if the Island witnessed a net migration of 1000 pa.
• ii. The housing need for the East (1,500) for the plan period using the 2016 Census was based on a total number of households in 2026 of 38,317.
• iii. In terms of what the plan should deliver at the end of the plan period (2026), Table 18 at 12.15.3 under C - "Projected Conversions" and D "Allocated Sites" identifies that these should deliver 187 + 964 (1,151) dwellings by 31st March 2026, averaging 209 dwellings pa (averaged over 5.5 years) from Area Plan approval until 31st March 2026.
• iv. Housing delivery will be monitored using the Residential Land Availability Study (RLAS) Updates. RLAS 18 is expected to take into account the data set 2011 to 2025 data set.
• v. Ultimately, Strategic Reserve site release will be based on settlement hierarchy and deliverability - taking into account all material considerations at the time - and may mean a mix of sites is brought forward and not necessarily the largest first."

• h. Strategic Reserve Release Mechanism Proposal 1 (SRRM Proposal 1):

• A. A Strategic Reserve Site is land which may be suitable for development, but which will be held 'in reserve' until the need for such development has been established. The identification of Reserve Sites in this Plan allows for flexibility in land supply, should it be found that additional land is necessary. This accords with the 'plan, monitor and manage' approach identified in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, and is necessary to ensure that the Plan can react to changing circumstances.
• B. Strategic Reserve Sites in this Plan will not normally be released for development until the population of the Isle of Man exceeds 89,000.
• C. However, Cabinet Office may, in the following circumstances, consider the release of Strategic Reserves for 'predominantly residential' use and make public any such proposal to release a Strategic Reserve to a 'general' land allocation if:

i. a Government Census (or equivalent survey) states that the total number of private households is above 38,317; or ii. the delivery of new housing from allocated sites and those projected from conversions represents a significant undersupply to that expected. When considering levels of delivery, Cabinet Office must have before it evidence on housing supply, corroborated by a published RLAS study. The first opportunity to consider release will be RLAS evidence which includes the dataset 2011 to 2025. This will allow a reasonable time for Cabinet Office to consider the merits of release, the publication of a decision, preparation of and determination of a planning application (by DEFA) and potentially the commencement of works, before the end of the plan period on 31st March 2026.

• D. Prior to release of a Strategic Reserve site, Cabinet Office will consider all of the evidence and publish a Report. Reports may take into account the deliverability of sites including:

• i. landowner/developer ability to comply with the principles of the development briefs set out in this Plan, and
• ii. the willingness of the landowner/developer to pursue a planning application, developout the site, as well as any other material considerations relevant at that time.

• E. Strategic Reserve Sites will normally be released in order of their position in the settlement hierarchy taking into account the circumstances evident at the time of any Cabinet Office

Report, including the need for any supporting infrastructure. The order to be applied in respect of settlement hierarchy is as follows: 1st - Edge of Douglas sites (Main Centre) o DM001s, DH002s, DH057s, DH010s, DH003s o BH015s, BH019s o DH008s 2nd - Edge of Onchan site (Service Centre) o OH011s 3rd - Edge of Union Mills and Baldrine sites (Villages) o BH031s o GH013s

• F. The status of all Strategic Reserve Sites will be reconsidered when this Area Plan is next reviewed and the broad merits of the release mechanism will be reviewed as part of any Strategic Plan Review."

• i. Strategic Reserve Proposal 2 states; "The development of Strategic Reserve 'Predominantly Residential' Sites which may also include elements for community facilities such as schools will only be brought forward where it can be demonstrated:

• i. that there is need for these sites which cannot be met by the existing allocations set out under Residential Proposal 1;
• ii. that sufficient infrastructure exists, or can be provided prior to the development being brought into use, to allow the development to function and to avoid any unacceptable impact on wider networks;
• iii. that the proposals will not have any unacceptable environmental impacts (including any significant landscape impacts); and
• iv. All options for different uses on the sites have been fully explored taking into account health, social care and education needs."

• j. Paragraph 12.22.1: Development Brief for Land at Camlork (Field 521518), Braddan

• 1. The site shall be used for predominantly residential development (of about 50 dwellings) and any requisite infrastructure, including recreational open space and children's play space.
• 2. The Strategic Reserve Site shall be taken to include part of the field beyond the lane to the southwest of the main site.
• 3. The character of the surrounding residential development should be considered in the design of development of this site.
• 4. A Travel Plan must be submitted as part of any planning application which sets out a strategy for the delivery of sustainable transport objectives, and demonstrates how these are to be achieved and updated over time.
• 5. There should be no net loss of biodiversity in the development of this site.
• 6. An Environmental Impact Assessment will be needed for any development proposed on this site.

3.3 National: STRATEGIC PLAN

• 3.3.1 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application;

• 3.3.2 Strategic Policy

• 1 - Efficient use of land and resources
• 2 - Development focussed in existing towns and villages
• 3 - Development to safeguard character of existing towns and villages and to avoid coalescence
• 4 - Development to protect or enhance setting of Registered Buildings, landscape quality and biodiversity, and not result in unacceptable environmental pollution
• 5 - Design and visual impact

• 10 - Sustainable transport
• 11 - Housing needs

• 3.3.3 Spatial Policy 5 - Building in defined settlements or GP3.
• 3.3.4 General Policy

• 2 - General Development Considerations
• 3 - Exceptions to development in the countryside.

3.3.5 Environment Policy

• 3 - Development to safeguard woodland of high amenity value
• 4 - Protection of species and habitats
• 5 - Mitigation against damage to or loss of habitats 22 - Protection of environment and/or residential amenity from pollution 42 - Designed to respect the character and identity of the locality

3.3.6 Housing Policy

• 1 - Housing needs
• 2 - Adequate supply of housing through Area Plans
• 3 - Provision of 2,440 homes in East area during 2011-2026 plan period
• 4 - New Housing to defined existing towns

• 6 - Residential development to be undertaken in accordance with development brief or

• Paragraph 6.2 of Plan.

3.3.7 Recreational Policy

• 3 - Requirement for landscaped amenity areas
• 4 - Requirement for public open space

• 3.3.8 Transport Policy

• 1 - Proximity to existing public transportation services
• 2 - Layouts to link to existing systems

• 4 - Highway Safety 5 - Improvements to highway network 6 - Equal weight for vehicles and pedestrians 7 - Parking Provisions

3.3.9 Infrastructure Policy

• 1 - Development to take place in areas which will be connected to the IRIS drainage system

• 5 - Water conservation and management

3.3.10 Energy Policy 5 - Requirement for Energy Impact Assessment 3.3.11 Community Policy

• 7 - Designing out criminal and anti-social behaviour

• 10 - Proper access for firefighting appliances
• 11 - Prevention for the outbreak and spread of fire

• 3.3.12 Section 11.8 Drainage "11.8.1 All new development must be capable of being drained of foul and surface water in a safe, convenient, and environmentally acceptable manner. The Department of Transport Drainage Division is the All-Island Drainage Authority and assumes responsibility for all of the Island's public sewers and treatment works, with a number of local authorities acting as Agents within their particular town, village, or parish. As well as maintaining and improving existing infrastructure, the Drainage Division inspects the proposed drainage plans for new development in order to ensure that the completed works are in accordance with the flow and treatment capacity of the system into which they will link and are, where appropriate, of an adoptable standard.

• 11.8.5 Developers are encouraged to consult the Drainage Division regarding capacity within the existing sewerage system prior to submitting planning application. Drainage master plans are required for large scale developments."

- 4.0 OTHER MATTERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

- 4.1 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDANCE 2021

• 4.1.1 Regard will be given to the recently released Residential Design Guidance 2021 in development of new dwellings.

4.2 IOM BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY 2015 TO 2025

• 4.2.1 IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025 seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary. Section 21 deals with Habitat loss actions through promoting a policy of 'no net loss' for semi-natural Manx habitats and species and to ensure that unavoidable loss is replaced or effectively compensated for.

4.3 FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT ACT (2013)

• 4.3.1 Section 68 of the Flood Risk Management Act (2013) indicates that any published Flood Risk Management Plan and the extent to which the proposed development creates an additional flood risk are material considerations.

4.4 MANUAL FOR MANX ROADS (Rev 2.00) 2021.

• 4.4.1 The MfMR sets out the processes to be followed to ensure consistency in delivering well-designed streets, spaces and developments. Roads intended to be put forward for adoption under section 4 of that Act must comply with the design and construction criteria.

4.5 REPORT OF AN INQUIRY INTO THE DRAFT AREA PLAN FOR THE EAST (Dates of Inquiry: 10 September to 2 October 2019)

• 4.5.1 Site BH031 - Camlork, Braddan "Inspector's Conclusions

• 279 I have previously concluded, in paragraphs 42 to 47 above, that the Area Plan should make provision for a green gap between Union Mills and Strang, and that this should include the whole of Field 521522 at Camlork. I do not consider that a narrower corridor of open space would be sufficient to ensure the maintenance of the separate identities of Strang and Union Mills. For this reason, I consider that the allocation of Field 521522 for housing would be unacceptable.
• 280 The Agricultural Land Use Capability Map of the Isle of Man indicates that part of the Camlork site comes within Category A2, with soils in Class 3/2. A more detailed survey drawing indicates that this description applies to the eastern part of the site, including parts of Fields 521519, 521522 and 524239. Although there is no evidence of the number of soil samples that were taken to establish the classification of this land, I have seen nothing to persuade me that that classification is wrong. The southern parts of the fields in question are incorrectly shown in the survey drawing to be within the built-up areas of Union Mills and Strang. However, they are plainly in agricultural use at present, and I have no reason to believe that they are of an inferior agricultural quality to the adjoining farmland. In 'Agricultural Soils of the Isle of Man', by J Harris et al, land in agricultural category A2 is described as having 'potentially fertile soils, capable of high crop yields and of supporting high stocking rates'.
• 281 Environment Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan applies to Class 2 soils falling within areas annotated as Class 3/2 on the Agricultural Land Classification Map. It says that development which would result in the permanent loss of such versatile agricultural land will not be permitted, unless there is an overriding need for the development, and land of a lower quality is not available. In my view, that must tell against the development of the eastern part of the Camlork site. In view of the limited housing requirement discussed in paragraph 208 et seq above, and the availability of land of a lower agricultural potential elsewhere, I do not consider there to be an overriding need for the allocation of this land for development.
• 282 Policy 13.3 of the Braddan Local Plan 1991 indicates that this rural area is of High Landscape Value. In his report on a 2007 planning appeal, concerning an application for approval in principle for residential development on the Camlork site, the Inspector wrote that 'the key view of this site is from Lhergy Crippety'. He considered this to be 'one of the more attractive views available from the Manx public road system'. He concluded that 'the proposed development would appear as intrusive and unsightly urban sprawl, alien to the character of

• the rural area and the antithesis of the urban containment envisaged in the Island Spatial Strategy'.
• 283 However, the Inspector who held the inquiry into the abortive Braddan Parish Plan in 2003 considered that development at Camlork 'could be assimilated without any serious visual impact on the area'. In my view, a smaller residential development on the westernmost of the four fields at Camlork, would be reasonably well contained between the built-up area of Union Mills to the south and the existing ribbon of development along Trollaby Lane to the west, and would have a limited visual impact.
• 284 I have no reason to doubt that access to the proposed Camlork site, which would be satisfactory in highway terms, could be achieved from the A1. The proposed vehicular access from Peel Road to the Camlork site would pass through the 15m wide gap between the curtilages of 'Marygate' in Trollaby Lane and 'Brookvale Cottage' in Main Road. In my view, that would be likely to detract from the amenity of the occupants of each of the adjacent properties to some degree, but not to such an extent as should rule out a limited residential development

at the western end of the Camlork site.

• 285 I understand that there has been repeated flooding of 'Brookvale Cottage' adjacent to the Camlork site. Mr MacNeil, the occupier of that property, was formerly the Government's Environmental Protection Officer for controlled waters. He fears that the risk of flooding would increase as a result of the introduction of hard surfaces on the Camlork site. He also considers that the Trollaby Stream would have limited capacity to accommodate treated sewage effluent from the Camlork development, without harm to its water quality.
• 286 I recognise his concerns. However, if the Camlork site were allocated for development, I would not expect planning approval for this to be granted unless the responsible body was satisfied that a drainage system was available to ensure that run-off from the site would not increase the risk of flooding to neighbouring properties; and that foul sewage would be managed in such a way as not to harm the environment. I understand that it would be possible to connect the proposed development to a public sewer in Union Mills.
• 287 I consider there to be sufficient land to meet the immediate need for residential development in the East on sites within existing settlement boundaries, or within sustainable urban extensions of Douglas. In the circumstances, I do not accept that there is an immediate need to allocate undeveloped land in the countryside, outside the existing settlement boundaries of the villages of Union Mills or Strang. There is no evidence to suggest that development on the scale proposed at Camlork would be necessary to meet any local need.
• 288 In my view, the proposed development on the scale envisaged in the draft Area Plan would change the character of these two villages. I consider that the residential allocation of the eastern part of the Camlork Site should be deleted from the Area Plan, in order to maintain a gap between the villages of Union Mills and Strang, protect the more versatile agricultural land, and conserve the rural landscape of this area. The provision of a new road link between Peel Road and Mount Rule Road is not a proposal of the draft Area Plan. However, I consider that the westernmost of the four fields at Camlork should be shown as a Strategic Reserve Site with a capacity for about 50 dwellings. This would allow for a limited urban extension of Union Mills, if this should become necessary in future.
• 289 I recommend that the allocation of the eastern part of Site BH031 be deleted from the Area Plan; but that Field No 521518, at the western end of this site, be shown as a Strategic Reserve Site, with capacity for about 50 dwellings."

4.6 RESIDENTIAL LAND AVAILABILITY STUDY (Update 17): Planning Approvals and Land Monitoring 2001-2024, Published May 2024

• 4.6.1 Section 4.0: Residential Land Availability as at April 2024 "4.1 Land which is designated for residential use but with no valid planning approval, is summarised in Table Set 13. Table Set 13 includes further details with regard to the individual sites.

4.2 There is land remaining in all four Areas which is zoned for residential development (including brownfield and Unoccupied urban sites but excluding Strategic Reserves) which does

not have planning approval. The amount of designated land without planning approval (DLWPA) varies between the Areas and is as follows:

Area DLWPA (ha) Island's Total North 41.24 27% South 18.69 12% East 72.47 47% West 21.62 14% All Island 154.02 100%

4.3 The East has the largest amount of DLWPA land at 72.47 hectares, followed by the North

• at 41.24 hectares and the West at 21.62 hectares. The South has the least amount of available land at 18.69 hectares.

4.7 The Approved Area Plan for the East has now removed previously extant residential land in Laxey, Lonan and Santon identified within the RLAS study and several new sites abutting the Douglas conurbation have been identified. This gives a total adjustable figure of 72.47 ha or 47% of All Island figure above without strategic reserves. Including strategic reserves this gives an adjusted figure of 155.6 ha or 65.6% of All Island Figures."

4.7 Tynwald Court Official Report: Proceedings Hansard, 18th June 2024 4.7.1 "20. Area Plan for the East strategic reserve site release "The Hon. Member for Douglas Central, Mr Thomas, to ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office: What consideration is being given to releasing a strategic reserve site in the Area Plan for the East; and, if so, when and how the views of Tynwald will be sought.

3210 The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Ms Lord-Brennan): Thank you, Mr President; and I thank the Hon. Member for his Question. In short, there are no proposals currently being considered by the Cabinet Office to change the status of any strategic reserve sites in the Area Plan for the East. I would add that neither has Cabinet Office been approached to formally consider releasing land set aside in the Plan for future 3215 use. It is important to add though, Mr President, that planning policy officers are continuously monitoring all of the factors that may influence a decision on the need to release strategic reserve sites, as detailed in the Area Plan for the East. In November 2020, Tynwald resolved that should the Cabinet Office consider exercising its powers to release a strategic reserve site in the Area Plan for the East before the end of 2025, 3220 then the Cabinet Office will seek the views of Tynwald. In terms of seeking the views of Tynwald, the Tynwald resolution of November 2020 was silent on the means by which the Cabinet Office should seek the views of Tynwald in this respect. But the commitment to this would remain and an appropriate way to seek views would be developed, if needed, prior to consideration and a decision to release a strategic reserve site as per that resolution."

- 5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 The following previous applications for the site are considered to be relevant in the assessment of this application:

• i. PA 88/04414/A - Approval in principle to road layout, landscaping and drainage, Fields

0005, 1200, 3100, 5400, 8318 and 0022, Camlork, Braddan. Refused at Appeal.

• ii. PA 91/01172/A for Approval in principle for community area, Field No. 3100, Camlork Farm, Union Mills, Braddan - Refused.
• iii. PA 92/00367/B for Creation of Community Areas, including Tennis Courts and Sports Fields, Part Fields 3100 & 1200, adjoining Trollaby Lane, Camlork Farm, Braddan - Refused.

• iv. PA 07/00625/A for Approval in principle for residential development including community and educational facilities, Fields 324213, 521518, 521519, 521522 & 524239 Land Adjacent Strang Road Union Mills - Refused by the Planning Committee on 26.10.2007, and at appeal.

REASONS FOR REFUSAL "1. The site is not zoned for residential development on the Braddan Parish District Local Plan; the Residential Land Availability Study published by the Department in 2007 indicates that there is not at this time a shortage of supply of sites which are either approved or zoned for residential development in the East of the Island; in these circumstances it would be premature to grant approval for the development of unzoned land in the East of the Island until such time

• as a full site selection process has been undertaken as part of the preparation of the Eastern Area Plan.

• 2. Having regard to the submitted Master Plan, and without prejudice to either the site selection process referred to in (1) or an assessment of the need for a Green Gap between Union Mills and The Strang in accordance with Spatial Policy 7 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, the proposed development would —

• (a) make an unwarranted impact on the landscape as viewed from the Lhergy Cripperty; and
• (b) reduce the area of green space which at present serves to separate Union Mills and The Strang.

• 3. Having regard to the submitted Master Plan, the cul-de-sac at the eastern end of the site would not serve adequately a school, shops, a Public House, some 120 new dwellings, sheltered housing, Camlork Close and 12 dwellings on Strang Road."

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.

6.1 DOI Highways have made the following comments:

• 6.1.1 Comments received on 9 July 2024: Further information, considerations and plans of the following is required:

• 1. A Transport Assessment should be submitted outlining the traffic, transport, accessibility and junction impacts of the proposals with quantum's of site and future developments provided. A detailed junction assessment on the A1 will be required including revisions to the design even if the promoted option is a T-junction.
• 2. The site layout should be assessed and/or amended taking into account requested design speed geometries where appropriate.
• 3. An accessibility audit and road safety audit stage 1 should be provided for any access designs.
• 4. Bus stops and non-motorised facilities should be improved along the A1 and within the site.

• 6.1.2 Comments received on 9 July 2024/3 October 2024: Do not oppose subject to conditions/reserved matters. "Condition:

• 1. The offsite highway works shown on the approved plan dated ITB19813-GA-001 Rev E must be implemented before first occupation of the site. (Note - site access design onto the A1 and off-site highway works could also be reserved matters if more appropriate.) Reserved matters:
• 2a. Transport Assessment, Travel Plan and Road Safety Audit for the site development and its access onto the A1.

• 2b. Design of internal access road.

• 2c. Design of development site layout include all access roads.
• 2d. Design and type of combined pedestrian and cycle crossing on the internal access road.
• 2e. Parking design of all resident vehicles including private vehicles, EV charging points, cycles and motorcycles.

Conclusions: The Applicant has addressed the above items requested by HDC in the response dated 9 July

• 2024 and therefore HDC now do not oppose the application subject to suitable highway conditions and reserved matters attached to permission."

6.1.3 DOI Highways were contacted for advice on the TT access Road mentioned in Transport Proposal 3of the Area Plan for the East. Their comments received 24 October 2024 states:

• 1. They advise getting statements from CABO and the Applicant regarding the development's standing in relation to Transport Proposal 3, and particularly CABO to understand the meaning of each statement within Transport Proposal 3.
• 2. They note that although Transport Proposal 3 was created to be clearer on TT access development, the proposal creates further queries on (but not limited to):

• a. Who should pay for the TT access works?,
• b. How much should each reserve site contribute if anything?,
• c. What happens when the access road is not delivered in time (as it hasn't based on the wording using in the Transport Proposal 3)?, and
• d. Can reserve sites be held to ransom by private landowners, external bodies, planning department and government if there is no willingness to build the TT access works or the works are significantly delayed?

• 3. They state that there have been various options drawn up by DOI to improve the access road but due to the cost of these, the improvements have not been progressed due to the high costs involved for a measure that is used on a temporary basis each year.
• 4. They state that if the site app. 24/00713/A is assessed on its own merits in relation to access considerations during TT, the potential size of the site would not be a basis for Highway Services to oppose the application solely on Transport Proposal 3 statements, as all other items

at approval in principle stage have been resolved and the risk of detrimental access during TT for site users is of low risk and of a temporary nature each year. However, if there are concerns from CABO and the planning department regarding allowing this site without access considerations during TT, then I can suggest that a reserved matter is attached to permission (added to the others in my formal response attached) as follows:

• 2f. Assessment and planning of site access and vehicular movements during motor racing events including site's impact on the TT access road and mitigation.

6.2 DOI Highways Drainage have stated that 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. They advise the applicant to be aware of and demonstrate compliance with the clause above (29 July 2024). - 6.3 DEFA Arboricultural Officer object to the application for the following reasons (28 August 2024):

• 1. The application involves the removal of three category B trees, all of which make a significant contribution to the landscape.
• 2. Retained category B sycamore 5048 will incur extensive root damage as a result of the development and this will be likely to significantly reduce its safe retention period.
• 3. The removal of nine trees at the easternmost end of the proposal site will disrupt the row of trees which acts as a landscape feature and habitat corridor.

• 6.3.1 They suggest the following conditions should the application be approved:

• 1. The implementation of the protection plan for the duration of the development.

• 2. The implementation of the planting plan, with the caveat that any planted trees that fail are replaced.
• 3. A condition securing stock fencing around the perimeter of the proposed development area within field 324213 to prevent grazing damage to the newly planted trees.

6.4 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team have made the following comments on the application:

• 6.4.1 Comments made 22 July 2024:

• 1. They note that DOI Highways have asked for additional information and this includes consideration of a roundabout and signal junction, which is likely to require the removal of additional trees, and state that they can only comment on this application once the access arrangements, including tree removal and thus the requirement for ecological mitigation measures, have been confirmed.
• 2. They state that they do not believe that the current mitigation proposals are adequate, since the application will result in the removal of a number trees including large and mature specimens, the removal of a section of sod bank and the removal of scrub, all of which will contribute to the severing of a habitat corridor and result in the loss of bat roosting and bird nesting habitat.
• 3. They state that the remaining trees and watercourse are also like to be impacted by the requirement for highways lighting, resulting in further deterioration, in quality and extent, of the habitat corridors.
• 4. They state that consideration needs to go into additional replacement native planting, including areas of scrub and bank, which are concentrated in areas which will provide a replacement habitat corridor, un-impacted by artificial lighting, as well as replacement nesting and roosting locations.
• 5. They state that artificial lighting plans should also be provided at this stage which show how highways lighting will be undertaken on site without impacting upon the river and remaining habitat.
• 6. In regards to the use of field 521518 for residential development, the Ecosystem Policy Team do not object to this should it be determined that it is appropriate to bring forward this Strategic Reserve Site for residential development at this time.
• 7. They state that they would reiterate section 24 paragraph 5 of the Planning Statement which says that the full application should be accompanied by an Ecological Impact Assessment.
• 8. They state that for any future proposals, priority should be given to retention of boundary features, including banks, trees and hedges, and supplementing these with additional planting where possible.
• 9. They state that once the highways arrangements are confirmed, the Ecosystem Policy Team should be re-consulted.

• 6.4.2 Comments made 3 October 2024:

• 1. General Stance: Objection due to lack of information and site specific concerns.
• 2. Since the Ecosystem Policy Team's original response to this application, details have been submitted showing that additional roadside trees and an area of sod bank will need to be removed to facilitate the development. Therefore the original view regarding the inadequacy of ecological information still stands and is reinforced.
• 3. They state that as the access arrangements will have an impact upon existing trees, and as the application also includes a tree survey, it is appropriate for ecological mitigation proposals for the access arrangements to be provided at this stage, which take into account the matters raised in their original submission.
• 4. They also state that an up to date arboricultural impact assessment, tree removal, constraints, protection and planting plan should be provided.
• 5. They state that the application is currently contrary to Strategic Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2026.
• 6. They suggest possible conditions should approval be granted which relate to the submission of a landscaping plan, an ecological mitigation plan, external lighting to be installed unless a sensitive low level lighting plan, and that the reserved matters application should be

accompanied by an Ecological Impact Assent and detailed avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures.

6.5 Manx Utilities Drainage have made the following comments (4 September 2024):

• 1. They note that the application is for "approval in principle" for residential development, and as such no proposed housing numbers have been stated by the applicant within the submission.
• 2. Manx Utilities do have concerns over the capacity of the downstream wastewater network and as such cannot guarantee that a large number of properties could be connected without some localised upgrading works or surface water removal from the downstream catchment being undertaken at the cost of the developer.
• 3. They state that further discussions between Manx Utilities and the applicant will be required prior to any reserved matters application being submitted for this development.

6.6 Manx Utilities Electricity has made the following comments (5 September 2024):

• 1. They state that it is difficult for Manx Utilities to fully assess the implications for electricity supply to this site as this is only a planning application in principle at this stage, given that the number and type of properties has not been identified, so these comments only provide a brief overview of the works which may be required in order to provide electricity supplies to the site.
• 2. The development will require a new electricity substation to provide initial electricity supplies and depending on number of properties and future phases may require additional substations.
• 3. They state that it is very likely that new cables will need to be laid from the middle of Union Mills village to the site along the main A1 Peel Road, and that further off-site network reinforcement work may be required before electricity supplies can be made live.
• 4. They advise the developer on the need to engage with Manx Utilities to develop proposals to provide electricity supplies before the detailed planning stage.

6.7 Manx National Heritage has made the following comments (3 October 2024):

• 1. They state that this application will result in the removal of three category B trees, and that a number of trees at the easternmost end of the proposal site are also proposed to be felled; an issue that DEFA Forestry have noted would disrupt the row of trees which acts as a habitat corridor.
• 2. They state that mature trees optimise the opportunities for feeding bats and wildlife connectivity, therefore, they would wish to see tree lines and hedges retained and protected.
• 3. They refer to section 7.7.1 of the IOM All Island Strategic Plan, 2016; Woodlands add variety to the landscape and are valued for their historical qualities and nature conservation interest. They should not be removed, damaged or fragmented and the Department will encourage additional broadleaf planting where appropriate.
• 4. They state that trees also provide a valuable ecological service in the challenge to slow down climate change, and as they grow they remove carbon dioxide from the air, storing it in their biomass and releasing oxygen into the atmosphere.
• 5. They state that the Isle of Man Climate Change Plan 2022-27 recognises nature based solutions, such as the services provided by mature trees, as being key to achieving the target of becoming net zero by 2050.
• 6. They state that Section 21 of the Climate Change Act 2021, lays out the obligations of public bodies (such as DEFA Planning) in performing its duties, whilst noting that it must act in the way that considers best to contribute to o The meeting of the net zero emissions target by the net zero emissions target year; o Protecting and enhancing biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services.
• 7. They state that a Preliminary Ecological Assessment (PEA) is needed before a comprehensive assessment of the ecological value of the site can be determined, whilst noting that the PEA should ideally include a bat survey as older trees can provide a variety of bat roost opportunities.

6.8 The following bodies were consulted on 03.07.2024 and 02.10.2024 but have not made any comments on the application as at the time of writing this report:

• 1. Department Of Education, Sport And Culture;
• 2. Manx Utilities Authority - Water;

6.9 Given the role Planning Policy (Cabinet Office) play in the release of Strategic Reserve sites, they have been contacted directly for comments on the application on 24 October 2024.

• 6.9.1 Planning Policy (Cabinet Office) comments received on 25 October 2024:

• 1. The relevant statutory development plans are the Strategic Plan (2016) and the Area Plan for the East (2020). The site, identified on Map 8 of the Area Plan for the East - Union Mills, is allocated as a 'Strategic Reserve' for predominantly residential use. This site - BH031s (Field 521518) - known as Camlork is located to the north of Union Mills.
• 2. As a strategic reserve site, relevant policy guidance is set out in section 12.18 Strategic Reserve Release Methodology - Supporting Statement and Strategic Reserve Release Mechanism Proposal 1.
• 3. Cabinet Office has not yet released any strategic reserve sites.
• 4. In terms of the order of possible 'release', Site BH031s is in the third tranche (see point E of the release mechanism).
• 5. The Residential Land Availability Study is closely linked with the strategic reserve release mechanism. The approach set out in the East Plan sets out that the first opportunity for Cabinet Office to consider the release of Strategic Reserve sites is after RLAS Update 18 (2011-

2025) due to be published next year. To date, none of the conditions for release in Strategic Reserve Release Mechanism Proposal 1 have been met.

• 6. Strategic Reserve Proposal 2 seeks to protect strategic reserves for predominantly residential use as it was acknowledged during the Inquiry that additional land for a primary school or other healthcare facilities in Braddan or upper Douglas may be required. As the application before you is for a predominantly residential development, this proposal does not apply. A response from the Minister for Cabinet Office, Kate Lord-Brennan, in Tynwald on 18th June 2024 regarding the consideration of releasing strategic reserves and seeking the views of Tynwald, may also be of interest in your deliberations.
• 7. While not a policy, please also note Chapter 1, Paragraph 1.7.2 of the Area Plan for the East Written Statement (2020) which states: '…In the meantime, in addition to land allocated for immediate development, the Area Plan contains some 'Strategic Reserve Sites', which identify land for future residential development, should this be required. Until these sites are released for development, they will be subject to General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan…'
• 8. The following policies and proposals are also particularly relevant in DEFA's determination of the application.

• o Transport Proposal 3 (Area Plan for the East)
• o General Policy 3 (Strategic Plan)

• 9. There is a development brief for Site BH031s (paragraph 12.22.1 of the Area Plan for the East) which is intended to guide decision makers in assessing the merits of an application on this site.

• 6.9.2 Planning Policy (Cabinet Office) were further contacted on 08 November 2024 for advice on the TT Access Road in relation to Transport Proposal 3 of the Area Plan for the East. Their advice received 19 November 2024 states thus:

• 1. The site is allocated as a Strategic Reserve Site in the Area Plan for the East and has an associated development brief.
• 2. The Area Plan for the East at para 7.9.4 notes the Department of Infrastructure's commitment to improve the TT Access Road by TT 2024. Transport Proposal 3 goes on to refer to Site BH031s in the second paragraph that "Significant improvements to the TT Access Road will be expected ahead of any formal release of the Strategic Reserve sites BH015s/BH019s, BH031s (part), DH002s/DH057s/DM001s/DH003 and DH010.
• 3. Cabinet Office notes the addition of a toucan crossing which is in operation outside of road closure times and understands that this has led to an improvement to the traffic flows and pedestrian and cycling movements.
• 4. Cabinet Office is not aware of any other improvements but notes that no development has occurred which would impede the Department of Infrastructure's ability to deliver additional improvements to the existing TT access road in the future.
• 5. The Highways Division will be able to advise on any schemes that have been looked at, and any schemes that have been previously scoped out on financial viability grounds. Such information, supplemented by any improvement schemes/data should allow DEFA to draw conclusions about whether on balance, there is evidence to support the release of any strategic reserve site or not.
• 6. The Area Plan does not address who would pay for any improvements but the wording of TP3 does refer to the 'Department responsible for highway matters' in the final paragraph implying that it would be that Department which needs to take the lead on design schemes, feasibility studies and improvements.
• 7. In terms of breaking down the individual policy requirements contained in Transport Proposal 3, please take note of the following policy advice in your deliberations about interpretation of policy:

• o Para 1: seeks to secure the long-term ability to create a two-way traffic flow outcome
• on the existing route.
• o Para 2: seeks to secure improvements to the existing route before the release of Strategic Reserves including BH031.
• o Para 3: seeks to require - by the term "must" - the DOI to prepare a design scheme and feasibility study within the plan period (i.e. 2011 to 31st March 2026).
• o Para 4: seeks to add clarity to para 3 that the status of any scheme prepared/extent of works undertaken will be relevant in the event of an application coming forward.

6.10 In view of the comments made by the Area Plan Inspector regarding the site in relation to flooding, DOI Flood Risk Management was contacted for comments on the application. Their comments received on 7 November 2024 is as follows: "At this stage FMD have no comment but will be interested to see the detailed plans and will comment on the drainage of the site should the Committee decide to permit this application." - 6.11 Braddan Commissioners have no objection to the application (19 July 2024/1 November

• 2024).

6.12 Marown Parish Commissioners have made the following comments on the application:

• 6.12.1 Comments received 30 July 2024:

• 1. They state that they had not been notified of the application, despite part of the proposed development being within the parish of Marown.
• 2. They request that they be given joint status with Braddan Commissioners and sent any future information, documentation or email notifications on the application.
• 3. They request that decision on the application be deferred until week following 21 August 2024.

• 6.12.2 Comments received 10 September 2024:

• 1. They OBJECT to the application on the following grounds:

• a. The main concern is for road safety and the access onto the A1 - the Commissioners echo the concerns of the Highways Development Control in this respect

• b. There is insufficient detailed information regarding the access and egress onto the A1
• c. There is no information regarding the increased traffic flow onto the A1
• d. There is no Ecological Impact Assessment
• e. The site is zoned as "strategic reserve", but is tenth on the list and permission has already been granted for 350 homes less than 1.3 miles away.

• 2. They state that they are not opposed to development within the parish per se, but their particular concern with this application is the lack of a Road Safety Audit.

• 6.12.3 Following review of additional/amended documents submitted for the application the Marown Commissioners have resolved to make no further comment on the application (29 October 2024).

6.13 The owners/occupiers of the following properties have made comments on the application:

• 6.13.1 The following properties object to the application:

• 1. Boaldwyn, Main Rd, Union Mills (8 July 2024/ 4 October 2024/4 November 2024);
• 2. Marygate, 3 Trollaby Lane, Union Mills (8 July 2024/12 July 2024/3 October 2024);
• 3. Shearwaters, Trollaby Lane, Union Mills (7 July 2024/27 October 2024);
• 4. Oakbank, Strang Road, Union Mills (15 July 2024/23 July 2024/2 December 2024);
• 5. Glen Haven, Strang Road, Union Mills (15 July 2024/23 July 2024);
• 6. Hy Holme, Strang Road, Union Mills (15 July 2024/23 July 2024);
• 7. Thie Ny Ushtey, Strang Road, Braddan (19 July 2024);
• 8. Angel Falls, Strang Road, Union Mills (18 July 2024);
• 9. Groves Lodge, Trollaby lane, Union Mills (22 July 2024/17 October 2024);
• 10. Brambles, Main Road, Union Mills (22 July 2024/9 July 2024/9 October 2024);
• 11. Groves Cottage, Trollaby Lane, Union Mills (23 July 2024/22 October 2024);
• 12. Greenwood, Burnside Terrace, Union Mills (24 July 2024);
• 13. Chesil, Strang Road, Union Mills (24 July 2024);
• 14. The Stables, Trollaby Lane, Union Mills (24 July 2024/8 November 2024);
• 15. Fraggle Rock, Trollaby Lane, Union Mills (26 July 2024);
• 16. Riverside House, Main Road, Union Mills (26 July 2024/22 December 2024);
• 17. Albany, Burnside Terrace, Main Road, Union Mills (26 July 2024);
• 18. Brookvale House, Main Road, Union Mills (27 July 2024/ 20 December 2024);
• 19. Cass Ny Cronk, Main Road, Union Mills (9 August 2024/03 October 2024);
• 20. Colden, 1 Burnside Terrace, Main Road, Union Mills (9 August 2024);
• 21. Brookvale Cottage, Main Road, Union Mills (29 July 2024);

• 6.13.2 They object for the following reasons:

• 1. Impact on Local Traffic and Highway Safety: increased traffic and increased risks for pedestrians and cyclists;
• 2. Environmental concerns: detrimental effects on local biodiversity and loss of green spaces which are essential for community well-being and environmental health;
• 3. Development risks contributing to overdevelopment, which will strain local services and infrastructure, including schools, healthcare facilities, and public transport;
• 4. Design of the buildings would impact on the character of the area, and neighbours amenity;
• 5. Insufficient Public Consultation;
• 6. Potential Pollution (Noise, Light, Dust, Smell) during construction and operation of the development;
• 7. Brownfields should be prioritised over greenfield;
• 8. The site should not be given priority for development over allocated sites such as BM006g -Vicarage Road, and DBH002g/BH030g - Braddan Road/Ballafletcher Road;
• 9. Flood risk concerns;
• 10. Impact on trees;
• 11. Impacts on value of property;

• 12. The complete lack of detail on the type of housing, plot size, makes it difficult to ascertain the impacts in terms of impact on their property, and on traffic and noise;
• 13. Loss of Class 3 agricultural land good for grass and crop production;
• 14. They refer to the hierarchy of Strategic Reserve sites and note that this is the ninth on the list and question the rationale for releasing this site over other sites higher on the hierarchy;
• 15. They refer to Policy predispositions within the TCPA, TAPE, and Strategic Plan regarding Strategic reserve sites;
• 16. Pressure on existing infrastructure and facilities in the area (sewerage, electricity, etc);
• 17. Lack of demonstration of need;
• 18. They note that the site has not been released for development;
• 19. They refer to the fact that the population of the Isle of Man has not exceeded 89,000 which is a criteria for the release of Strategic Reserve sites;
• 20. They refer to the approval of 320 dwelling units at 22/00675/B which is situated less than 2 miles from the application site;
• 21. They state that the application is premature;
• 22. Impact of drainage works on neighbouring properties;
• 23. Adverse impacts on the countryside;
• 24. Reduction in size of agriculturally designated land on the Island;
• 25. They refer to timing of traffic survey which resulted in poor date representation.
• 26. They state the incorrect housing need figures have been referred to in the applicants planning statement, as the document does not include the most recent figures.

6.14 A member of Cawthron Institute, 98 Halifax Street East, Nelson 7010, Private Bag 2, Nelson 7042, New Zealand, have made the following comments on the application (6 January

• 2025):

• 1. As a former resident of Brookvale Cottage, I would like to reiterate that large areas of the south-west corner of the field immediately in front of the cottage and the ground floor of the cottage itself flooded on numerous occasions while I was resident. I have also observed the main road in front of Brookvale house flooding as well, after storm events. This road is obviously also part of the TT course. Replacing a large field with hard surfaces, be it a housing development or associated roads will only exacerbate flooding problems already present, both for existing properties and surrounding roads.
• 2. For over a decade, I was a senior government scientist at DEFA (Freshwater biologist and Water Enforcement Officer) in charge of river water quality assessment and licensing of private and public sewage treatment infrastructure. I have previously sampled the Trollaby Stream and had results analysed by the Government Laboratory. These showed the stream to be of class 'A' or excellent chemical water quality. While parts of this stream can overwhelm the banks during prolonged stormwater events, parts of this stream also completely dry up during prolonged dried periods in the summer. I have witnessed this on numerous occasions during my time at DEFA. This gives very little leeway for the licensing of a major treated sewage discharge to the stream. Under the water Pollution Act 1993, The Isle of Man Government (DEFA) is only able to legally issue a discharge licence and allow a treated sewage discharge to a receiving river if that discharge does not cause the receiving river or stream to drop a water quality class (ie from A to B). Because the Trollaby stream is so small, in my vast experience of setting hundreds of discharge licences, only a small amount of treated sewage effluent from a small private sewage treatment plant would be allowable, in order to maintain the stream's excellent status. In practical terms, I'm talking about sewage treatment for several homes only, not a major housing development.
• 3. If for some reason a discharge licence was issued by DEFA with the full knowledge that the Trollaby stream would be damaged, then international law would also be broken as the Water Pollution Act has to legally abide by any international agreement that applies to the Isle of Man - this includes OSPAR, BASEL and ASCOBANS. OSPAR and BASEL do not allow for

• deliberate pollution of watercourses that eventually feed into the Irish Sea. That is not debatable.
• 4. I can personally confirm the Isle of Man's UNESCO biosphere status will be under increased international media scrutiny in 2025 and there is a fundamental incompatibility of development on a Greenfield site with Isle of Man UNESCO Biosphere status, which is up for renewal in 2026.
• 5. Having lived in Brookvale cottage for several years, there will obviously also be potential issues of light and noise pollution due to the proximity of the proposed road to the back of the cottage.
• 6. If pollution of the river was for some reason allowed, I would be honour bound to inform the relevant international secretariats governing water quality agreements with the Isle of Man, as well as UNESCO.
• 7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The fundamental issues to consider with this application are:

• 1. The principle of the development;
• 2. Loss of agricultural Soils;
• 3. Potential Impacts on Biodiversity/Trees;
• 4. Highway safety Impacts;
• 5. Drainage/Flood Concerns;
• 6. Potential Impacts on Neighbours;
• 7.2 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT (TAPE, GP3, EP1, STP 2, & HP 4)

• 7.2.1 The first and main issue relating to this application is the principle of residential development on this site. As outlined within the planning policy section of this report, site is shown as a "Strategic Reserve" site under the Area Plan for the East 2020. As indicated by the plan: "A Strategic Reserve Site is land which may be suitable for development, but which will be held 'in reserve' until the need for such development has been established."

• 7.2.2 In terms of the release mechanism for the site which is a Strategic Reserve site, the Area Plan is clear on how these sites should be released, and these are set out within section

12.18 - Strategic Reserve Release Methodology - Supporting Statement, as well as the Strategic Reserve Release Mechanism Proposal 1 (SRRM Proposal 1), which clearly outlines what needs to be undertaken before such "Strategic Reserve" sites are released.

• 7.2.3 From review of the extant documents and advice received from the Cabinet Office, it is clear that the Cabinet Office has not yet released any strategic reserve sites. This was clearly contained in the response by the former Minister for the Cabinet Office (Ms Lord-Brennan) to Tynwald when questioned on the Area Plan for the East strategic reserve site release on 18th June 2024, where the following comment was made as a response: "In short, there are no proposals currently being considered by the Cabinet Office to change the status of any strategic reserve sites in the Area Plan for the East. I would add that neither has Cabinet Office been approached to formally consider releasing land set aside in the Plan for future use. It is important to add though, Mr President, that planning policy officers are continuously monitoring all of the factors that may influence a decision on the need to release strategic reserve sites, as detailed in the Area Plan for the East. In November 2020, Tynwald resolved that should the Cabinet Office consider exercising its powers to release a strategic reserve site in the Area Plan for the East before the end of 2025, then the Cabinet Office will seek the views of Tynwald. In terms of seeking the views of Tynwald, the Tynwald resolution of November 2020 was silent on the means by which the Cabinet Office should seek the views of Tynwald in this respect. But the commitment to this would remain and an appropriate way to seek views would be developed, if needed, prior to consideration and a decision to release a strategic reserve site as per that resolution."

• 7.2.4 The above clearly points to the fact that any medium, such as the current application which seeks to develop any of the Strategic Reserve sites would be premature, and fail to align with the provisions of the Area Plan for the East.

• 7.2.5 It is also important to note that the Island's population growth threshold which was set as a key consideration for the release of the Strategic Reserve site has not been reached. For reference, part B of the Strategic Reserve Release Mechanism Proposal 1 clearly stated that "Strategic Reserve Sites in this Plan will not normally be released for development until the population of the Isle of Man exceeds 89,000." Currently, the islands population sits at 84,069 (Residents present 81,797), and this is well below the minimum 89,000 stipulated in the Area Plan for the East. As such, the scheme would fail the population threshold required to allow the release of the site.

• 7.2.6 Furthermore, the site (Site BH031s) is in the third tranche of the release mechanism, which would mean that even if the Strategic Reserve sites were released, there is a high possibility that it would not be given priority for release, given that it sits at the base of the hierarchy for release (see part E of the release mechanism).

• 7.2.7 In addition, there remains a significant number of allocated sites on the east of the Island which are allocated for residential development (including brownfield and Unoccupied urban sites) which do not have planning approval, and as such have not been taken up for development, a figure which amounts to about 72.47 hectares (47% of the islands total), and this weakens any argument for the release of any Strategic reserve on the east of the island, including the application site. It is also important to note that part C (ii) of the Strategic Reserve Release Mechanism Proposal 1 (SRRM Proposal 1) does not segregate the data on the delivery of new housing from allocated sites, as such the 152.02 hectares of allocated sites noted within the RESIDENTIAL LAND AVAILABILITY STUDY (Update 17), Published May 2024, may need to be exhausted to allow for the release of any Strategic Reserve site. Besides, the approach set out in the East Plan states that the first opportunity for Cabinet Office to consider the release of Strategic Reserve sites is after the RLAS Update 18 (2011- 2025) due to be published next year (2025). Thus, it is not expected that any site would be released until at least 2026, although any site release would be dependent on the results of update, and other mechanisms that have been set out in the Area Plan for the East.

• 7.2.8 Also worth noting is the fact that Paragraph 1.7.2 of TAPE is clear that "Until these sites are released for development, they will be subject to General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan, which implies that all Strategic Reserve Sites would be viewed as sites in the countryside not zoned for development. In this regard, it is not considered that the current scheme meets any of the exceptions allowable under General Policy 3 for permitting development outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan. As such, the scheme would fail to align with General Policy 3, and in turn Environment Policy 1 which seeks to protect countryside and its ecology for its own sake, as there is no over-riding national need in

• land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative. Accordingly, the site essentially is not yet designated for residential use, being only a "Strategic Reserve Site" at this time, and is to be considered as any other residential development proposed on land not designated for development in the countryside. This also implies that until such time when the site is designated for development via the releasing mechanism, the site is also not classed as being within the settlement boundary of Union Mills and in fact lies outside (Proposal map 8 - Strang and Union Mills).

• 7.2.9 Further to the above, the scheme as currently proposed fails to comply with five of the site's Development Brief, and these weigh considerably against the proposal. Firstly, no travel plan has been submitted with the application, despite the development brief clearly stating that a Travel Plan must be submitted as part of any planning application which sets out a strategy

for the delivery of sustainable transport objectives, and demonstrates how these are to be achieved and updated over time. It should be noted that a detailed design must not be submitted to develop a travel plan as it is already clear the number of dwellings that are allowable for the site, as well as the expected occupancy. The applicant's response is that this will be submitted with a reserve matters application although this is not in accordance with the wording of the brief. Secondly, the application in its current form would result in the loss of biodiversity, yet it is not clear how mitigation for this loss would be provided for on-site. As such, the application in its current form fails part 5 of the development brief. Thirdly, an Environmental Impact Assessment is required to be submitted for any development of the site, yet this has not been provided. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would also be contrary part 6 of the development brief for the site. Whilst the Applicant argues that "an EIA will not be able to consider the full impact of a scheme until a Reserved Matters application provides detail in respect of layout, density, dwelling types, access, drainage and other aspects of development2, this will not be the case if the site had been released for development, such that an AIP would not be required to enable the development of the site. The above therefore goes to reinforce the fact that the application in its current form is premature, in that it would negate the actualisation of all the development brief for the site. On this matter, it is worth noting that had the site had been released for development (within the stipulated framework detailed within the Area Plan for the East), a detailed application would be allowable, and this would allow for a scheme that would address the other design brief elements within parts 1 and 3 which have not been yet addressed within this report given that a detailed submission would enable the assessment of the requisite infrastructure, including recreational open space and children's play space to support the allowable 50 dwellings for the site, whilst ensuring that the character of the surrounding residential development is reflected in the design of development of this site. It would be vital to note that only part 2 of the development brief has been adhered to within this application, as the current proposal includes the field beyond the

• lane to the southwest of the main site.

• 7.2.10 At this stage, it would be important to note that the purpose of the "Development Briefs" and "Masterplans" is to essentially show a layout that details what will happen where, i.e. where housing will be built, which areas will be kept as open space, where the best access points are and so on i.e. plan. For emphasis, Development briefs provide direction on the expected use, design, layout and infrastructure requirements to be included in and addressed as part of development proposals, and they may include general principles of good design as well as specific requirements on particular matters such as active travel. Whilst development briefs are not intended to be exhaustive nor replace the requirements of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, they are a useful means to guide the public and interested parties in understanding what to expect on a site allocated in the Plan; and decision makers in assessing the merits of an application and how proposals comply with guidance set out in the Plan. In this case, it is not considered that the scheme as currently proposed allows the development brief to achieve any of the above, given the level of information available for assessment within the scheme.

7.2.11 Accordingly, given the reasons outlined above, it is considered that the principle of developing the site for residential use is unacceptable and contrary to the Area Plan for the East 2020, Environment Policy 1, General Policy 3, Strategic Policy 2 and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

7.3 LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL SOILS (EP 14 & Paragraph 7.13.1) 7.3.1 The site in terms of soil classification is Class 3 and therefore the proposal would not result in the loss of agricultural land afforded the highest level of protection. However, it should be noted that although the soils here are not Class 1 and 2 soils which are afforded the highest protection, the Strategic plan does not in any way imply that Class 3 soils should be poorly managed or used unsustainably as majority of the agricultural soils on the Island (80.26%) fall within Class 3 soils. In reinforcing the need to protect agricultural soils which form the core of

the prime resource for supporting agriculture, the Strategic Plan states the following within

• Paragraph 7.13.1: "It is important to sustain agricultural industry by safeguarding its prime resources, by allowing appropriately designed and sited new buildings (where need is established) and by encouraging conservation-based land management regimes (including appropriate tree and shrub planting). However, this must not be at the expense of the appearance and character or openness of the landscape, or result in the loss of traditional hedgerows and field boundaries or the loss of limited areas of good quality agricultural land".

• 7.3.2 As the site is currently not zoned for development given that the site has not been released for development, but judged to be part of the islands countryside, it is not considered that the proposal would be acceptable even though the scheme would not fail the wording of EP 14 which seeks expressly to protect Class 1 and 2 soils, given that it would result in the loss of a significant patch of agricultural land, despite there being no policy justification for the development. It should be noted that the ultimate goal of EP 14 is to sustain the agricultural industry by safeguarding its prime resource (agricultural soils); a goal that would be compromised by the current application due to the fact that usable agricultural land would be lost as a result of this proposal whose need has not been adequately established or justified.

7.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON BIODIVERSITY/TREES (EP3, EP 4, STP 4)

• 7.4.1 In terms of potential impacts on biodiversity resulting from the proposed development, it is considered that the development of the site holds the potential to result in identifiable impacts on site biodiversity, as has been noted with the elements of the proposal to create a suitable access into the site. As such, the impacts on biodiversity within the site, particularly on the mature trees and sod banks on the site boundary which holds potential to house biota on site, must be carefully considered in decisions that relate to the impacts on the site ecology.

• 7.6.2 It should be noted that the Isle of Man Biodiversity Strategy seeks to promote a policy of 'no net loss' for semi-natural Manx habitats and species and ensure that unavoidable loss is replaced or effectively compensated for. It is also entrenched in the Development brief of the site that there must be no loss of biodiversity in the development of the site. In this case, the proposal does not detail all the impacts that could result and the measures that would serve to re-integrate the displaced biota on site. As such, it is not considered that there is sufficient information to ascertain the extent or severity of any impacts resulting from the proposal on biodiversity within the site and area at this stage, and this fails the provisions of the Area Plan for the East regarding the site.
• 7.6.3 Granting the applicants have provided a new tree planting plan which shows new tree planting that holds the potential to increase the tree canopy for the site area (and tree variety) over that previously proposed when fully established and mature, there is no justification for the scheme, given the sites designation and the other concerns that have been fully assessed within section 7.2 of this report. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed tree removal is unnecessary, such that no mitigation planting would be required.

7.5 HIGHWAY IMPACTS (GP2, TP 1, TP 4, and TP 5)

• 7.5.1 As outlined by Highway Services in their consultation comments made on the application any future Reserved Matters application would need to provide a substantial level of detail. Therefore, at this stage a full assessment cannot be made.

• 7.5.2 Highways Services also sought additional information on the proposed access to the site. This has been accessed by DOI Highways who are convinced that the principle of siting the access in the proposed location would be acceptable as it provides a safe access with a suitable layout and adequate visibility in both directions. As such, it is considered that the principle of siting the access as proposed would be acceptable.

• 7.5.3 It is, however, worth noting that the applicants clearly stated in the application documents that only the principle of the development is to be assessed, with access detailed as part of the reserved matters. Therefore, although the principle of creating an access in the proposed location would be acceptable, it is still unclear what level of development would potentially take place on the site in terms of infrastructure requirements, and the attendant parking requirements to support these. Therefore, further supporting information would be required before the access to the site could be judged acceptable for the development of the site. These gaps in information to effectively determine the impacts of the development is the reason an AIP is considered premature as it would not enable a thorough assessment of the highway requirements for the site.
• 7.5.4 Further to the above, Transport Proposal 3 of the Area Plan for the East stipulates that Significant improvements to the TT Access Road will be expected ahead of any formal release of the Strategic Reserve sites BH015s/BH019s, BH031s (part), DH002s/DH057s/DM001s/DH003 and DH010. It goes further to state that "Before the end of the plan period, a design scheme must be drawn up to scope out, design and engineer proposals to address the issue of how the existing TT Access Road could be improved and the feasibility of an additional/alternative 'TT Access Road' into and out of the course during Race periods", whilst noting that "Decision makers will have regard to - as a material consideration - the status of any scheme developed by the Department responsible for highway matters in respect of improvements and additional works to/alternatives for, the TT Access Road and the progression of that scheme". The advice offered by DOI Highways regarding the TT Access road suggests that although there have been various options drawn up by DOI to improve the access road, the improvements have not been progressed due to the high costs involved for a measure that is used on a temporary basis each year. Therefore, it is not considered that the requirements of Transport Proposal 3 of the Area Plan has been met with regard to the proposed development.
• 7.5.5 The comments made by the applicants regarding the last version of the National Infrastructure Strategy (May 2017) and the strategic value of the wider site area noted. However, these comments seem to simplify the highway needs of future occupants of the proposed development whose choice of routes would not be determined by the developer, and would be considerably varied for every occupant (and could prioritise the use of the TT access). Besides, the need for the TT access as a benchmark for the release of the identified Strategic Reserve sites within Transport Proposal 3 are a matter of policy, which was informed by evidence during the enquiry stage for the Area plan for the East, with no further evidence brought forward by the Cabinet office to alter these provisions. Similarly, the advice offered by the Cabinet Office places no burden for the works to improve the TT Access on the developer, but on DOI Highways who at this time have not progressed any proposals for the road to the development phase. Therefore, it is not considered that these arguments put forward at this stage by the applicant would in any way diminish the requirement within Transport Proposal 3 for set thresholds be met before the Strategic reserve sites are released.
• 7.5.6 Additionally, advice has been sought from the cabinet office regarding the policy position as defined by Transport Proposal 3 of the Area Plan for the East, and the advice proffered suggest that none of the four stages of the policy requirements has been met. This goes to further reinforce the position that the requirements of Transport Proposal 3 of the Area Plan has been met in regard to the current application site, such that the scheme would fail to align with Transport Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.

7.6 DRAINAGE/FLOOD CONCERNS (EP 13, GP 2 & Paragraph 11.8.5)

• 7.6.1 The Inspectors report for the Area Plan for the East noted the potential for the development of the site to create flood concerns for neighbouring properties, as well as drainage issues for the area (See paragraph 285 on page 64 of the Report), and these concerns have been reinforced by occupants of neighbouring properties who have provided evidence to show that the site in its current form creates potential flood/drainage concerns for

existing properties in the area (See representation by Occupants of Thie Ny Ushtey, Strang Road, Union Mills).

• 7.6.2 Whilst Paragraph 11.8.5 of the Strategic Plan recommends that drainage master plans are required for large scale developments, it is clear that no drainage information has been provided to support the current application, and this makes it difficult to gauge the potential flood/drainage concerns. It should be noted that the Strategic Plan stipulates that any development of more than 30 homes requires an EIA in every case, which gives an indication of the significance of scale for such residential development. As the current development would be for 50 dwellings (over 30 dwellings), it is judged to represent a scale residential development that should require a drainage master plan, yet no drainage master plan is provided with this application.
• 7.6.3 Given the above, it is considered that although the development of the site holds the potential to create considerable flood/drainage impacts on the area, the Department cannot make a full assessment of the potential drainage or flood impacts on the area, and this weighs against the proposal.

- 7.7 POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES (GP 2 & RDG 2021)

• 7.7.1 At this stage with no details of the size of dwellings, siting, design, layout etc, the Department cannot make a full assessment of the potential impacts on neighbouring amenity. It should be noted that the elevated nature of the site and its lie could result in impacts on properties that directly adjoins the site. However, given that the building heights, nature of built form or quantum of built development, and the position of fenestrations are not included in the current scheme, it would be difficult to ascertain true impacts on neighbours.

• 7.7.2 The concerns raised regarding loss of value to neighbours properties are noted. However, as these are not material planning matters which can be taken into account, they hold no weight in the determination of the application.

7.8 OTHER MATTERS

• 7.8.1 Highway matters on Inspectors Report for Area Plan for the North and West

• 7.8.1.1 The comments made by the applicant regarding what extent the acceptability of proposals to develop sites allocated by the Plan might be affected by the need for highway improvements (in relation to the Inspectors Report for the Draft Area Plan for the North and West) are noted. However, the Department would like to bring to note Section 2 (5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which states; "(5) A strategic plan or area plan shall not have effect unless —

• (a) it is adopted by the Cabinet Office by order, and
• (b) (b) the order is approved by Tynwald; and such an order shall specify the date on which the plan comes into force (which shall not be earlier than, or more than 3 months after, the date of the order).

And that the provisions of Schedule 1 Development Plan Procedure will still apply. As set down in the Inspectors Report at paragraph 22;

Adoption Process

• 22. After consideration of the RMCs set out at Appendix A to this Report, it is for CABO to take the APNW forward to approval by Tynwald for formal adoption as part of the Isle of Man (IoM) Development Plan. That process will include further public consultation on any final changes that CABO ultimately proposes, which should be published alongside all post-Inquiry correspondence to provide a fair and proper opportunity for comment. The possible options moving forward are then also set down at paragraph 33;

1. Moreover, it was confirmed by CABO at the opening session of the Inquiry that the adoption process for the Plan includes further public consultation on such final changes as CABO might choose to make to the Plan. It was also confirmed that all options for future action are available if necessary, including a further full public consultation or reopening the Inquiry or non-adoption of the Plan. To my mind, any lingering doubt as to openness, fairness and impartiality of the Inquiry process are suitably addressed by these assurances."

• 7.8.1.2 The above, therefore, bring to focus the fact that the inspectors report has not yet been ratified, and is still subject to review and adoption. As such, it cannot form the basis for a live application given that it is not yet an adopted document. Furthermore, the site which is the subject of the current application is located in the east and is the subject of an adopted area plan with policies and proposals that are tailored specifically to the east. Therefore, a policy document prepared for the North and West of the island (even though it were adopted which it currently isn't), cannot be considered to have more weight than an adopted area plan that is regionally focused.

- 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 While it is acceptable the site is designated as a "Strategic Reserve" site under the Area Plan for the East 2020 which may be suitable for future development; this is on the sole basis that the area will be held 'in reserve' until the need for such development has been established. In this case, it has not been demonstrated that there is a need for the site, as the Strategic Reserve Release Mechanism Proposal 1 has not been commenced by the Cabinet Office.

8.2 Similarly, the application fails to comply with the requirements of the Development Brief outlined within the Area Plan for the East including, but not limited to the provision of an Environmental Impact Assessment which is required. Therefore, the proposal cannot be adequately considered to be appropriate for this site and raises significant concern that the development would result is an ad hoc and premature development which would be against all the aims of the Area Plan for the East 2020.

8.3 Accordingly, given that the site has not been released for development, with the site not judged to be within a settlement boundary nor an area designated for development at this time, the proposal would be contrary to the Area Plan for the East 2020, Environment Policies 1, General Policy 3, Strategic Policy 2, and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan

1. Therefore, it is recommended that the application be refused.

- 9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

9.1 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.

9.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 4(2) who should be given Interested Person Status.

9.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot 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 and/or rights to appeal.

Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 13.01.2025

Signed : P VISIGAH 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 office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.