Inspector's Report

Report on a Planning Appeal by the written procedure Site visit: Monday 9 December 2024 Appeal made by Mr D and Mrs W Davies against the decision of the Planning Authority to grant planning approval to Mr Mark Pierce, Ravenhill Resources Limited, for construction of 3 garages to Plots 4 and 5 and foul drainage connection of previously approved and commenced development PA 20/00787/B and PA 19/01324/B at Fields 314758 and 312909, Main Road, St Johns, Isle of Man IM4 3LX. _________________________________________________________ Description

• 1. This ongoing residential development site lies between the Primary School and Balladoyne on the south side of Main Road, St Johns. Full approval was granted at appeal under Ref 20/00787/B for three dwellings on Plots 2,4 and 6 with drainage, access and landscaping, as well as approval in principle for two dwellings on Plots 1 and 3, addressing siting, landscaping drainage and means of access. Subsequent reserved matters were approved for Plots 1 and 3 under Ref 23/00569/REM, subject to conditions relating to tree protection and archaeological matters, and imposing restrictions on access to Plot 6 to avoid harm to a protected Cairn site. A dwelling at Plot 5 was approved under Ref 19/01324/B. Plots 2 and 6 were approved with garages but Plots 4 and 5 currently remain without approved garages.
• 2. The disputed application seeks approval for one garage at Plot 4 and two garages at Plot 5, together with some changes to foul drainage. A triple garage to Plot 4 would measure 9m by 7m and about 2.7m to the eaves and 6m to a central ridge, finished with painted render walls under natural slate roofs. At Plot 5 there would be a similar render and slate triple garage with an attached, part-timber-clad car port, measuring a total of some 13.4m by 7m. Foul drainage is now shown as running west via Plot 1 to connect into manhole No 9701.

The Case for the Appellants The material points are: Introduction

• 3. The Appellants are the owners of Balladoyne Farm and the western plot in field 312909 which forms part of Area 1 in the St Johns Local Plan. On the Western plot the Appellants have full planning permission for a dwelling under Refs PA 24/00276/REM following PA 21/00365/A.
• 4. The eastern boundary of the Appellants’ Plot is contiguous with Plots 1 and 2 of the Applicants’ site.

• 5. In 2022 field 312909 was legally partitioned to form the western plot and the Ravenhill Resources development of six bungalows. In addition to the western plot, an access lane was transferred to the Appellants’ ownership in consideration for the use of the access route from Peel Road to the new development.

• Issue 1 - Boundary

• 6. The boundaries on the current application plan do not conform to the previous agreement of 2022. The Appellants wrote to the Department explaining this. Previously, for planning application 21/00365/A, the Appellants were required to present a copy of the agreement to demonstrate their boundary and prove right of access to the Balladoyne estate.
• 7. The Appellants’ plans, approved under Refs 24/00276/REM and 21/00365/A, now place the Appellants’ garage partially in the area shown as Plot 1 which, it is understood has now been sold. No amended drawing has been provided.
• 8. The underlying issue in the current disputed application stems from the appeal for approval 21/00787/B, wherein an additional plan was accepted, under the Wheatcroft principle, to protect the archaeological Cairn site. That appeal was dismissed. However, without prejudice, conditions were considered appropriate to protect the archaeological site from intrusive works such as roads and sewers to Plot 6, which was approved with no road access.
• 9. The current plan initially contravened those putative conditions and the Wheatcroft plan, with a road to the north of the Cairn site. The development has since evolved to its current form, maintaining the incorrect boundaries.
• 10. Repeated applications by Ravenhill Resources with small boundary changes have been exhausting for the Appellants.

• Issue 2 - Drainage and Access

• 11. There is confusion over which drainage plan is approved.
• 12. Planning policy requires the approval of agreed details of the installation of roads and sewers, together with indication of plots and landscaping.
• 13. It is submitted that the present disputed approval would allow a dwelling to be built without an approved access. The planning officer has explained this to the Applicant who has accepted the risk. On this basis, the Applicant would be allowed to erect garages for Plot 5 which prevent the proposed and agreed solution under the Wheatcroft plan referenced above.
• 14. The case Officer reports that Condition 20 of approval 20/00787/B requires that no access or drainage services be constructed to Plot 6 until alternative

• access details have been approved by the Department and that Plot 6 shall not be occupied until they have.
• 15. As stated, the approval now disputed would allow a dwelling without an approved access and garages where the previous appeal indicated that the road and sewer should be as shown on the Wheatcroft Plan. The initial approval is now also allowing a sewer to be constructed without an approved access to a plot where the dwelling is already half erected, contrary to Condition 20.
• 16. Manx Utilities (MU) has accepted the drainage plans, reaffirming their unadoptable status and potential need for a privately pumped system, and confirmed that both foul and surface water drains and soakaways shall remain privately maintained until less agreed to be adopted. MU have also required confirmation of garage floor levels to prove proper drainage falls.
• 17. It is very difficult for anyone to follow what is occurring with the drainage of the site, with so many revisions proposed. The Appellants are the end user of this drainage system and currently there is no agreement for maintenance or any other purpose, apart from for the initial connection to manhole 9701.
• 18. It is considered that it should be compulsory for developments to be built to an adoptable standard.

Points made in Rebuttal Previous Approvals

• 19. The Appellants struggle to follow the structure, logic and process being followed in the application which is a carry-over from approval 20/00787/B. We have referred back to the third-party appeal under Ref 20/00787/B wherein the Inspector accepted a revised plan for Plot 6 under the Wheatcroft principle. This was agreed by all parties including the Applicants who undertook to allow the revised access to Plot 6, whilst specific conditions were set to safeguard the archaeological site. There should be no construction access between the Cairn site and the northern boundary and no access or drainage services to Plot 6 until alternative access details have been approved.
• 20. There are currently four existing sewerage schemes for the site. It is not understood how fresh plans can be accepted, allowing garages to obstruct the access to Plot 6, which totally undermine the point of the Wheatcroft plan with no agreed alternative. The house at Plot 6 has now been constructed to wall plate height still with no access agreed. The drainage to Plot 6 has also been approved by MU contrary to the above.
• 21. It is also not understood how the Applicants can construct the sewerage and garage scheme as now proposed when approved conditions currently

do not permit the use of the construction access or the Balladoyne estate road.

Boundary Issues

• 22. The Appellants disagree that this boundary issue is not a material planning consideration, with the boundary being unequivocally defined. It is considered that the issue with the access lane creates a 1.7m ransom strip. The boundary issue is also a legal matter with which we are dealing separately.

Conduct of the Applicants

• 23. This whole issue is the result of multiple changes and amended site plans, introducing endless revisions to what should be a simple application for sewerage for Plots 1-5 and ignoring the Wheatcroft plan and complicating the access to Plot 6. Also, the boundary has needlessly been changed from that previously approved. This conduct is disappointing, unprofessional and costly to everyone including the public purse.

Summary

• 24. Boundaries should be respected, especially when conflicting with existing, accurately drawn approved plans. The Applicants have been approached and requested to address the matter which they agreed to do, but have failed to submit corrected plans.
• 25. Potential residents need to understand the issues with an unadopted sewer. Developers should be further encouraged to present plans that are engineered and built to adoptable standard.
• 26. The Planning Department has approved the present application subject to conditions where: Under Condition 2 (C2), the garages to Plot 5 cannot be commenced until the dwelling is up to the eaves; under C4, there is no permission to construct an access Plot 6; under C5, there is no approval for any access from Peel Road; and under C6, there is no construction access through the Balladoyne estate.
• 27. By conditions imposed upon previous approval PA 21/00787/B, there could be no construction of access through the Cairn site and the northern boundary (C19), and there could be no access or drainage services to Plot 6 until alternative access details have been approved (C20).
• 28. By conditions imposed upon previous approval PA 19/01324/B: a programme of works is required for timing, remediation and removal of temporary access (C4). This condition has not been applied to the present proposal. This undermines the original purpose of protecting the Cairn.

Conclusion

• 29. Based on the above evidence, it is respectfully requested that this appeal be upheld.

The Case for the Planning Authority The material points are: Issues

• 30. There is no objection in principle and the issues for consideration of the initial application were visual impact, neighbouring amenity, protection of the Cairn site, access to Plot 6 and ecology, with separate consideration of the garages and the drainage proposals.

Garages

• 31. The garages would be in keeping with the wider development and their siting was not regarded as harmful to the amenity of neighbouring property.
• 32. Some risk to the Cairn site from the Plot 5 works was indicated.
• 33. The works to Plot 5 might impede access to Plot 6. However, access to Plot 6 is not a matter to be considered as part of this application. Moreover, the Applicant, who is also the developer of Plot 6 and the development as a whole, has accepted this, as well as a condition requiring an archaeological watching brief.
• 34. The application is supported by a tree and ecology protection plan with construction exclusions zones (CEZs). Plot 4 is closest to the hedging on the northern side but no removal of the hedging is sought and the CEZ would ensure its long-term protection as a contributor to ecology and landscaping.
• 35. The current CEZ is in some conflict with that previously approved under Ref 20/00787/B, with a reduced protection area around the Cairn and soakaways now, in part, encroaching into the CEZ. However, the Cairn would still be protected and its surroundings monitored through the separate agreed watching brief.

Drainage

• 36. The drainage arrangements have been accepted by MU (below).
• 37. Part of the foul and surface water sewerage would lie in proximity to the Cairn, as in the case of the proposed garage buildings. The same watching brief would also safeguard archaeological interests in this respect.

• 38. Most of the drainage routes run within the internal private road to the manhole connection. The proposed unadopted surface water soakaways extend, in part, into the CEZ, but this is considered acceptable for the purpose of installation.

Initial Conclusion

• 39. The application relates only to garage and drainage works for Plots 4 and 5 of the surrounding larger development. On the basis of the above, the application was considered acceptable, subject to conditions relating to the watching brief to meet Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policies 40 and 41 of the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP), as well as Environment Policy 4 with respect to archaeology and ecology. The design of the garages was considered acceptable in terms of the criteria of General Policy 2 of the IMSP, regarding visual and neighbouring amenity. There was sufficient drainage information, as accepted by Manx Utilities.

Response to the Appeal

• 40. The key issues raised relate to boundary details and land ownership matters and the potential of this application to prejudice the development of a dwelling and garage previously approved under Ref PA 24/00276/REM.
• 41. The red lines on the submitted application plan define the site of the proposed works and do not relate to land ownership, which is not a planning matter.
• 42. In this case, the garages proposed for Plots 4 and 5 would be far enough away to avoid impact upon or prejudice to the development approved under Ref 24/00276/REM.
• 43. Similarly, the foul drainage now proposed, through Plot 1 and connecting to manhole 9701, also falls partly within the red line boundary for approval Ref 24/00276/REM, where that dwelling also is to be connected to MH9701. The siting and distance of the proposed foul drainage works are not considered to impact or prejudice that development.
• 44. On review of the comparison provided by the Appellants in connection with the original application (Figure 1 below), the only potential overlap between the two is the proposed surface water soakaway for Plot 1. These have been shown via previous approvals Refs 20/00787/B and 23/00569/REM to demonstrate how surface water will be drained.
• 45. Land ownership boundaries are not a planning matter but, should the works be located within land not owned by the Applicant, that would be a matter for agreement between landowners. Any resultant variation might require a further planning application.
• 46. The concern of the Appellants remains unclear with respect to the access route, which is as shown in this application (Figure 2 below) and the works

now proposed are not expected to affect or prejudice the development approved under Ref 24/00276/REM.

• Figure 1. Extract from overlay from Appellants dated 29/04/2024

• Figure 2. Extract from submitted Drawing No: 0725/PL103 C-12-B

Points made in Rebuttal Boundary

• 47. It is reiterated that land ownership is a civil matter outside the remit of planning.

Case Ref 20/00787/B and the Wheatcroft Plan

• 48. The Wheatcroft plan Rev J1 referred to in the Appellants’ statement was an indicative plan shown during the appeal hearing for case 20/00787/B. It did not form part of the approved drawings list on the appeal decision notice.

Access and Drainage to Plot 6

• 49. Access and drainage works to Plot 6 were subject to conditions of approval 20/00787/B. C20 prevented any access or drainage works to Plot 6 under that application, and required a separate application to be made. This application 23/00606/B is seeking the drainage elements to Plot 6 only. No access works are being proposed. Conditions have been added and the Applicants is aware of the potential future access issues to Plot 6 as

covered in the original case for the Department. Any access to Plot 6 will need to the subject of its own separately assessed planning application. Plot 6 cannot be occupied until access has been approved and constructed in accordance with C20 of approval 20/00787/B.

Drainage

• 50. The original case for the Department covers drainage in respect of adoption and un-adoption status. MU will not be responsible for any unadopted systems.

Archaeology

• 51. A watching brief has been added in C7 to cover comments received from Manx National Heritage in respect of archaeology and those elements of the development nearest to the Cairn.

Overall Conclusion and Conditions

• 52. It is considered that the appeal should be dismissed and the initial approval upheld, in which case it is recommended that all the conditions be imposed as originally set out in the approval notice.

The Case for the Applicants The material points are:

• 53. This appeal refers to a boundary issue which is not a planning matter. The appeal should not have been accepted on these grounds.
• 54. A submitted plan Ref 1853/02/P-03I shows a sewer connection which is the same as the connection proposed in the present application PA 23/00606/B. This is agreed between the parties.
• 55. Also submitted is an engineering drainage calculation and scheme Ref AXO360-NOT-1 Balladoyne Drainage. This was approved by Manx Utilities as part of the present application.
• 56. The land ownership boundary is different, albeit Ravenhill Resources Ltd have a right of access across part of the field to reach the sewer. The fence to the Appellants’ plot is now the ownership boundary but, when the original planning application was submitted, it was not. That is why there is a slight difference between the red line boundaries. The discrepancy does not affect the application and encompasses the work which it is required.
• 57. The Appellants’ land was excluded from the various planning applications made previously by the same developer. This does not affect the houses that are now under construction.

• 58. The present appeal is holding up the occupation of the houses at Plots 2 and 4, which are both nearing completion but cannot be completed or connected to the sewer whilst this appeal is ongoing.
• 59. The appeal should be formally dismissed and the approval upheld. Other Representations Received The material points are:
• 60. German Commissioners have no objection to the proposals.
• 61. DOI Highway Services do not oppose the proposed development, commenting that there would be no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality or parking.
• 62. Manx Utilities, after discussion of the proposed wastewater drainage arrangements with the Applicant, agrees that the proposals are acceptable, as indicated on drawing 0725/PL103 Revision C. However, the Applicant should enter a Section 8 adoption agreement for wastewater sewers before starting work. Finished floor levels must be confirmed to ensure proper drainage. Private pumps may be needed if gravity connection is not possible. Private surface water soakaways will not be adopted. MU did not review the road drainage location or sizing in respect of flow paths in the event of heavy rain periods, as there are no surface water sewers to be considered for public adoption.
• 63. DEFA Ecosystems commented that part of the works would fall within a tree protection area and a hedge is to be protected. Part of the tree protection construction exclusion zone below Plot 5 would be disturbed.
• 64. Manx National Heritage raised concerns about potential archaeological impacts near identified archaeological features and recommended an archaeological watching brief during groundworks, secured by condition. The works for Plot 4 are not considered to pose any archaeological risk.

Assessment by the Inspector Preliminary Comments

• 65. I sympathise with the Appellants who, understandably, express confusion and frustration at the fragmentary manner in which the ongoing overall sixdwelling development on this land, south of Main Road St Johns, is being pursued by Ravenhill Resources Limited, leading to a complicated series of planning approvals by the Planning Authority and at appeal, and a site which continues in a partially developed state.
• 66. This situation is bad for planning and for the Appellants, and indeed for the wider local community and the public purse. It can in no way be condoned. However, none of this is a matter for consideration in the formulation of this Report, nor for the Minister in acting upon it. For the subject appeal is

• for determination on its individual planning merits, which are limited strictly to the proposed construction of three garages at Plots 4 and 5 and some associated drainage works.
• 67. Furthermore, I agree with both the Applicants and the DEFA Case Office that the matters arising from the stated grounds of appeal are essentially related to land ownership boundaries and apparent inconsistencies with certain previous planning approvals and conditions. I agree with the Applicants that this raises the question as to whether the appeal should properly have been accepted in the first place. However, having been made, the appeal requires to be determined.
• 68. On careful consideration of the Appellants’ appeal statement and references, I have identified a number of issues that justify being addressed for consideration by the Minister.

Planning Issues

• 69. The initial approval followed consideration of issues of visual impact, neighbouring amenity, archaeology, access, ecology and drainage.
• 70. On a fresh appraisal of the development now proposed, I have seen no evidence that leads me to disagree overall with the conclusions of the Planning Authority on those issues and the conditions applied to the initial approval, as set out in the summary of the case for the Planning Authority (above).
• 71. However, from all that I have read in the written representations and observed on the appeal site, I consider that the following issues, raised by the Appellants, should be addressed in this Report for the consideration of the Minister in determining the appeal.
• 72. These issues are: the protection of the Cairn site of archaeological value; the suitability of the drainage arrangements as varied by the current application; the availability of access to Plot 6 of the surrounding development; and the effectiveness of conditions imposed on previous permissions.

The Cairn Site

• 73. Notwithstanding that the present proposal varies the previously agreed avoidance of works near the protected ancient Cairn, the Planning Authority is satisfied that the watching brief required by Condition 7 would compensate for this and I have no reason to disagree.

Drainage Arrangements

• 74. The foul and surface water drainage arrangements are at some variance with previous approvals but, importantly, are found to be technically acceptable by Manx Utilities as the statutory drainage consultee and I have seen no alternative technical evidence to dispute their finding.

• 75. As for the matter of unadopted soakaways or pumping facilities; there is clearly a preference for fully adopted sewerage. However, there is no technical objection in this respect and it is for prospective occupiers to decide whether the arrangements are suitable.
• 76. I find no substantive planning objection with regard to drainage. Access to Plot 6
• 77. The proposed variations to be brought about by the present proposal would impede access to Plot 6. However, it appears to me that the progress of construction on-site is such that there is space and scope for further variation to achieve access to Plot 6, in turn justifying the acceptance by the Appellants of the implied risk in this respect, given Plot 6 is also within the purview of Ravenhill Resources Limited.
• 78. I accordingly find no planning objection in this regard either, given the particular circumstances.

Previous Conditions

• 79. It should be noted that nothing in the approval of the present proposals would negate planning conditions imposed upon previous approvals, as any fresh or extant approvals stand alone.

Conclusion

• 80. For the foregoing reasons I agree with the Planning Authority that the development proposed in this appeal is compliant with the relevant polices of the development plan. These are Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policies 40 and 41 of the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP), Environment Policy 4 of the IMSP with respect to archaeology and ecology, and General Policy 2 of the IMSP regarding design, visual and neighbouring amenity.
• 81. I therefore conclude that this appeal should be dismissed and the approval upheld.

Conditions

• 82. I consider that all the conditions of the initial approval should be imposed, together with an additional Condition 8 specifying the approved drawings.

Recommendations

• 83. I recommend that this appeal be dismissed, with the effect that the decision of the Planning Authority be upheld and planning approval granted for construction of three garages to Plots 4 and 5 and foul drainage connection of previously approved and commenced development PA 20/00787/B and PA 19/01324/B at Fields 314758 and 312909, Main Road,

• St Johns, Isle of Man IM4 3LX, subject to compliance with the conditions set out in the Appendix to this Report and for the reasons there stated.
• 84. Finally, I take it upon myself, outwith my strict remit, to suggest that, in the interest of good planning and avoidance doubt, the Appellants and the Applicants in this matter meet together, with the DEFA Planning Department as appropriate, to resolve outstanding inconsistencies between the various planning approvals appertaining to the wider development as a whole.

B J Sims

B J Sims BSc CEng MICE MRTPI Independent Inspector 28 January 2025

APPENDIX List of Recommended Conditions and Reason for Approval

• 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• 2. The construction exclusions zones and protection measures shall be fully implemented and monitored as detailed on drawing number 0725/PL103 Rev C12-B and retained for the duration of the construction works approved under this application.

Reason: To ensure that the agreed CEZ areas including tree, hedging and cairn site protection measures are properly implemented, in the interests of preserving and safeguarding ecology, archaeology and soft landscaping of the wider site.

• 3. Prior to the first use of any of the garages hereby approved, the permanent dwelling to which they are to be associated shall be constructed to eaves level.

Reason: To ensure no standalone garages without associated dwelling structures.

• 4. Notwithstanding the indicative detail shown on drawing number 0725/PL103 Rev C-12- B, no approval is granted to any access route to Plot 6.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of appropriately safeguarding the archaeological remains of the Cairn site. Such access is to be dealt with by condition of 20/00787/B or by separate application.

• 5. Notwithstanding the access route shown on drawing 0725/PL103 Rev C-12-B, no approval is granted to any vehicle access route from the A1 Peel Road through field 312711.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as this application does not include such works which are dealt with and covered under 20/00787/B only.

• 6. The fencing measures to restrict the movement of construction vehicles relating to the approved development through the Balladoyne Estate shall remain as shown and detailed on drawing number 0725/PL103 C-12-B and retained for the full duration of the construction works hereby approved.

Reason: To align with 20/00787/B in that there shall be no construction access via Balladoyne estate in the interest of highway safety and neighbouring amenity.

• 7. Prior to the commencement of any works in relation to any garage at Plot 5, any foul drainage to Plot 6 or any rainwater or surface water drainage or soakaways connected to the garages at Plot 5, details of a watching brief for all those works should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. This information shall include (but not be limited to) details of suitably appointed persons, extent of groundworks proposed, groundworks method statement, protective measures including construction exclusions zones, action in the event of any archaeological or other feature of interest being found and method of recording. The works shall only be carried out in full accordance with the watching brief details approved. Reason: To ensure proper protection of archaeological remains and features.
• 8. This approval relates to the following documents, information and drawings:

Dwg No. 0725/PL600 - Existing Site Layout Dwg No. 0725/BR4/PL602 - Proposed Garage to Plot 4 Dwg 0725-PL103 Rev C-12-B Proposed Site Layout Dwg 0725-PL601 Rev A - Proposed Plot 5 Garage Dwg 0725-101-C - Drainage Details

Reasons for Approval

The application is considered to be acceptable subject to conditions relating to an archaeological watching brief and construction exclusion zones to ensure compliance with Strategic Policy 4, Environment Policies 40 and 41 and Environment Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP) to protect a historic Cairn and local ecology. The design of the garages is considered acceptable with respect to visual impact and neighbouring amenity in line with General Policy 2 of the IMSP and sufficient information has been provided and accepted by Manx Utilities to demonstrate satisfactory drainage in line with section 11.8 of the IMSP.