SOC AP25-0012 Appellant SOC

AP25/0012 PA25/90046/B Erection of a detached bungalow Former Pound Lane Depot Castletown Road Port St Mary IM9 5LT STATEMENT OF CASE AND PROOF OF EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT / APPELLANT DARYL CONSTRUCTION LTD

SUMMARY The application is for development on a disused non-agricultural site in the countryside. Strategic Plan Environmental Policy 1 should not be considered in isolation; the application needs to be assessed against other Strategic Policies 1, 5 and 10 as well. Design considerations should not be assessed in isolation; the design of other properties in the immediate locality needs to be considered as well as the topography of the site The importance of family connections to the area should be taken into account Similar applications with positive results for new non-traditionally designed houses in the countryside are given.

Background

1 The applicant is a local construction firm with four employees and using sub-contractors based in Port St Mary and less than a mile away from the site for over 20 years. The applicant was brought up in Port St Mary. The site was acquired so that it could provide a potential ongoing home for the family and its business. All construction work would be undertaken by the firm with locally based labour.

Proposal

2 The proposal to build a 3-bedroom bungalow is fully explained in the application plans and the accompanying statement. It is considered that the reasons for refusal of the application to construct a bungalow do not reflect appropriately the nature of the site and its context and are, in some respects, inaccurate. The reasons also do not look at Strategic Plan policy as a whole.

Reasons for refusal

3 Reason 1 is inaccurate. The application statement contained the following

“Given also the site is within walking distance of a primary school – 500m -, health centre, shops and community facilities and there is a continuous pavement on the opposite side of the Castletown Road to these from the site and there is a public right of way immediately to the west of the site linking it to the A31 Port St Mary road to the south the proposal clearly complies with Strategic Policy 10. As it is a requirement that all applications also meet the standards for provision of parking spaces - Strategic Plan Transport Policy 7 and Appendix 7,

and turning it is inevitable that the site makes provision for motor vehicles whether or not it is in a town or village.

There is no case for stating that it is in an unsustainable location so far as highways, transport and utilities are concerned. It is fully in accord with Strategic Plan Policy 10 and Transport Policies 1, 4, 6 and 7.

Electricity, water supply and telephone connections are all feasible to adjoining services in the main [Castletown] road and under the public footpath in Pound Lane to the substation at its southern end.”

4 Bus services (1a, 2a 11a 12a) to Port Erin, Castletown including Castle Rushen High School, Ballsalla – Balthane employment area and Douglas town centre and passing close to the Springvalley Business Park employment area on the south side of Douglas run along Castletown Road in front of the site on a half-hourly basis during commuting times and hourly the rest of the day. (Appendix 1) The site is also within walking distance of both Port St. Mary and Port Erin Steam Railway stations.

5 Therefore, as outlined in the planning application, the site is not unsustainable. It has all essential utility services adjacent and is readily within reach of shops, including a supermarket, school, medical and community facilities and employment in Port St Mary and Port Erin on foot. It complies with Strategic Policies 1 and 10.

6 The site is therefore sustainable in all respects and is not dependent on car usage. Nevertheless the proposal has to still comply with, and does comply with Strategic Plan Transport Policy 7 and the Manual for Manx Roads and provide two car parking spaces and sufficient room to turn and exit the site in a forward direction.

7 With respect to Reasons 1 and 2 the application statement contained the following

“Following its use as a depot the site was left in an untidy state, and Daryl Construction was given permission to tidy up both the site and an extension to it and a hard concrete surface was laid down. An application for a certificate of lawful use of the depot was turned down as insufficient evidence of its use could be provided. As the site was not used as part of an independent commercial operation any evidence would have to be based on images and regretfully none seem to exist. However as above there is proof of the acquisition of the site for a depot by the former Department of Transport 60 years ago.”

[The application appended the appropriate deeds.]

8 The use of the land has for over 60 years been an anomaly in terms of “countryside” designation the site was previously used for a non-countryside / greenfield landuse use for over 50 years and in its classification falls between previously developed land and greenfield. The assessment of the site as if it were total greenfield / agricultural is inappropriate. As such its reuse complies with Strategic Policy 1 in making the best use of existing resources.

9 In accepting previous proposals to tidy up the site, extend and hardcore it (PA20/00996/B) (Appendix 2) , the Department were confirming that it was not in agricultural use in terms of being a field or part of an agricultural holding. The proposal does not harm the countryside per se either in landscape terms or use terms when it is compared to its previous use which involved both portacabins and use by heavy vehicles. The applicant remembers the site as a working depot. The raised land behind to the south is waste land being formed out of tipped road spoil. It is not agricultural land. The strict reliance on Strategic Plan Environment Policy 1 is not appropriate in this case particularly when the criteria of Strategic Policy 1 (a), (b) and (c) are all met.

10 With regard to Reason 3 in the planning officer report (Appendix 3 ) on the previous application, PA21/00857/B, for construction of a two storey dwelling on the site it was stated in Para 6.9

---- “The nearest residential properties that would be considered to be the 'character of the streetscene' are only bungalows and this property would clearly be seen as dominant property on the landscape and within "the streetscene" and being of a contemporary design would exacerbate the situation. It is accepted that at either end of the Castletown Road there are properties of one and a half stores and some two stories but their distance from the site means they're not read within the same setting.”

11 The report acknowledges that the nearest properties on both sides are not of traditional design. There is no reason therefore that a new property should be of traditional design; It would look out of place. The proposal reflects the fact that these nearest residential properties are single storey and extensions have been allowed to be extended both to front and rear. The proposed design therefore seeks to equate to these and provide modern, sustainable, energy efficient living quarters.

12 Circular 3/91 Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside https://pabc.gov.im/media/a3ybufsw/guidetothedesignofresidentiald.pdf) has never been revised and issued as a planning policy statement albeit since 2007 Strategic Plan Housing Policy 14 has said it would be. The Circular does allow for single storey dwellings in the countryside (Page 4) but does not in its current form demonstrate how these would best be designed to comply with current building regulations, energy efficient climate change policy including the non-use of fossil fuel heating systems. As has been sought in this application, guidance for the design of a low profile house in the countryside in terms of height and style has therefore come from the nearest development to it.

13 The design of the site in this application was specifically undertaken to comply with the reasons for refusal (not taken to appeal) of the earlier application,PA21/00857/B ie that it should not be 2storey and needs to fit in with the landscape of the area (Appendix 4). The nearest residential properties are not traditionally designed so do not set any precedent for traditional design. The site and the proposal are not prominent in the landscape and the materials match in with the surroundings. As such the proposal complies with both Strategic Policy 1 and 5 and General Policy 2(b)

Other considerations

14 Arbory and Rushen Parish Commissioners stated “ At their February meeting the Commissioners considered and supported the following applications:

---b) 25/90046/B - Erection of a detached bungalow, Former Pound Lane Depot, Castletown Road.”

15 The Planning Officer in his current report appears to suggest that little weight should be attached to such comments as the Commissioners do not give any reason for supporting the application. There is no requirement for them to do so and the mere fact that they do support the application indicates that they accept the validity of the proposal in the context both of existing policy and the setting on the ground.

16 There have been no third party comments on the proposal let alone objections to it.

Relevant Planning Applications

17 PA25/00019/B Plot East of Roughlands, Castletown Road (Appendix5) is also supported by the Commissioners . At its meeting on the 19th May 2025 the Planning Committee supported the officer’s recommendation (Appendix 5a) that this application for a new dwelling on land similarly not zoned for development at the eastern end of Castletown Road should be approved. [At the time of writing the official decision notice and minutes of the Planning Committee meeting are not available]. The site sits above the road and the design of the property is non-traditional. Thus within a distance of 400m on land that carries the same statutory designation in the Area Plan for the South opposing decisions with regard to new development are being given.

18 PA 21/01161/A The Bungalow Sulby (Appendix 6) The proposal involved demolition of extensions to an existing bungalow and construction of an entirely new dwelling in their stead in the grounds of the remaining 1906 dated existing bungalow.

19 In the Inspector’s report on an appeal (Appendix 6b ) into the refusal of the initial application it was stated with regard to Strategic Plan Environment Policy 1

35 ----“The policy does not therefore preclude development that would not lead to harm to the countryside. That is as evidenced by a number of planning approvals referenced by the appellant for development on undesignated sites.”

36 “In such circumstances the effects of any development on the countryside location should be balanced, alongside any other considerations, against the aims and objectives of policies which seek to protect the countryside and character and appearance of the locality for its own sake. In making that assessment I accept that formally adopted planning policies should be afforded significant weight. Furthermore, as set out in the IMSP that “The Aim, Objectives, Policies and Spatial Strategy” must be looked at as a whole. They are intended to inter-relate and should not be read in isolation"; and

41 “Thus, I do not consider it would have a harmful effect upon the countryside location or be at odds with Policy EP1. In the same way it would not be at odds with the character and appearance of the lane and surrounds given the existing property, access, and other mature hedging to the front reflecting the character of other residential properties nearby. “

20 With regard to distance to settlement

46 ” In this case the site is within a mile of the local, school, shop and church and access is available along a 20mph footpath or through the Public Rights of Way. That seems to me to be relatively convenient and whilst the argument that any new house could not be considered properly part of Sulby, based on the settlement pattern, it is not so far out to discount access to services in Sulby. No argument has been made that it is not in a sustainable location, and it would be as sustainable as the existing dwelling on site and others along this section of road.” ; and

51 “As set out, whilst in principle the development would be at odds with Policies SP4 and SP5, I am not convinced any harm to the countryside or character and appearance of the locality would ensue. The countryside would remain protected and there would be further benefits as discussed which tip the balance in favour of the development.”

21 The appeal resulted in the overturning of the initial decision and approval of the application.

22 The reserved matters application PA 24/91116/B attached (Appendix ) was for a 2-storey modern non-traditional and not complying with Circular 3/91 dwelling in the [former] grounds of a single storey bungalow. The latter which has a linked 2-storey extension is to remain with the extension demolished. This was approved on 25th April 2025.

23 PA23/00267/A Port Soderick Santon (Appendix 7 ) Approval in principle to site dwelling and garage, discharging the siting and means of access

Initially refused the Inspector’s report (Appendix 7b) on an appeal stated 80 “The main issues to be considered are:

i. the effect the proposed development would have on the appearance and character of the site and its surroundings within the hamlet of Ballaveare and the wider landscape of the AHLV;

ii. ii. whether there are any particular local or personal circumstances in favour of the proposal, having regard to planning policy provisions relating to development within small rural settlements.”;

85 “Overall, I do not consider that the development would harm the appearance or character of the hamlet or the surrounding landscape of the AHLV, as protected by StrP3 and EP1-2 of the IMSP. Nor in my view would it disrupt the individual character, quality or distinctiveness of the hamlet of Ballaveare in terms of StrP4 and paragraph 7.34.1 of the IMSP, as well as the Landscape Character Assessment.” ;

88 ”Moreover, despite its rural location, the hamlet is relatively close to both the urban centre of Douglas and to the airport with a bus service available. In this respect, the development would be in line with StrP10 of the IMSP. “; and

89 “These particular local and personal circumstances weigh substantively in favour of the appeal proposal.”

24 These considerations of family ties to the area, the context of the site in relation to both its setting and the style of nearest development resulted in the appeal overturning the initial decision to refuse the application and planning approval being given (Appendix 7c).

25 The above applications and appeals demonstrate that reliance on one Strategic Plan policy, Environment Policy 1, has not been made in the recent past; accurate assessment of the sustainability of sites in terms of access to services by foot, cycle and / or public transport has to be made; appropriateness of design in terms of the landscape context including nearest existing built development has to be made; and close family ties including employment ties are an important consideration.

28 Taking all of the above into account, it is respectfully requested that the Appeal Inspector recommends overturning the initial refusal of this application and recommending approval on appeal.

Appendices

1 Extract Isle of Man Bus Timetables 2025/26

a Bus Routes

b Bus Timetable

2 PA20/00996/C Decision Notice…..

3 PA21/00857/B Officer report

4 PA 21/00857/B Decision Notice

5 PA 25/90019/B East of Roughlands , Castletown Road, Rushen

a Location Plan in relation to current appeal site

b Site Plan

c Extract planning statement image of site

d Officer Report

6 PA21/01161/A The Bungalow, Ballamanagh Road, Sulby

a Location Plan

b Inspector’s report

c Appeal Decision and Notice

7 PA23/0027/A Port Soderick, Santon

a Location Plan

b Inspector’s report

c Appeal Decision and Notice

01624 662525 www.findmybus.im www.bus.im

Mondays to Saturdays

Place	Service	1	s/hs
2	12a	1	2	12a	1	2	12a	1	2	12a	12	1a	2
Noble's Hospital, main entrance	M	0851	—	—	—	51	—	—	1451	—	—	1551	—	—	—	1651	—
Cranklouane, shelter		0855	—	—	—	55	—	—	1455	—	—	1555	—	—	—	1655	—
Willaston, shops		—	—	—	31	—	—	1431	—	—	1531	—	—	1626	—	—	—
Hailwood Avenue, Cat With No Tail		0859	—	—	36	59	—	1436	1459	—	1536	1559	—	1631	—	1659	—
Birch Hill, shop		—	—	—	42	—	—	1442	—	—	1542	—	—	1637	—	—	—
Trigot Avenue, Central Drive		0908	—	—	48	08	—	1448	1508	—	1548	1608	—	1643	1658	1708	—
Ballachrink, shop		—	—	18	—	—	1418	—	—	1518	—	—	1618	—	—	—	1718
Windermere Drive, Windermere Avenue		—	—	23	—	—	1423	—	—	1523	—	—	1623	—	—	—	1723
Port Jack, shelter		0910	—	30	50	10	1430	1450	1510	1530	1550	1610	1630	1645	1700	1710	1730
Detty Castle, MER Station	M	0911	—	31	51	11	1431	1451	1511	1531	1551	1611	1631	1646	1701	1711	1731
Douglas, Lind Street Stand C, arr +		0922	—	42	32	22	1442	1502	1522	1542	1602	1622	1642	1657	1712	1722	1742
Douglas, Lind Street Stand C, dep +		0930	—	50	10	30	1450	1510	1530	1550	1610	1630	1650	1705	1720	1735	1750
Grocery Road, NDC		0937	—	57	17	37	1457	1517	1537	1557	1617	1637	1657	1712	1727	1742	1757
Newtown, Old Chapel		0945	—	55	25	45	1505	1525	1545	1605	1625	1645	1705	1720	1735	1750	1805
Ballacalla Railway Station	V	0953	—	13	33	53	1513	1533	1553	1613	1633	1653	1713	1728	1743	1758	1813
Ronaldoway Airport	+	0957	—	17	37	57	1517	1537	1557	1617	1637	1657	1717	1732	1747	1802	1817
Castletown Square, Co-op	V	1005	—	25	45	05	1525	1545	1605	1625	1645	1705	1725	1740	1755	1810	1825
Colby Bridge, Methodist Church		1015	—	35	—	15	1535	1555	1615	1635	—	1715	1735	—	1805	—	1835
Garway, opposite Shore Hotel		—	—	—	53	—	—	1553	—	—	1653	—	—	1748	—	1818	—
Port St. Mary, Harbour, dep		—	—	—	—	—	—	1600	—	—	1700	—	—	1755	—	1825	—
Port Erin, Railway Station, arr	M	1023	—	43	07	23	1543	1607	1623	1643	1707	1723	1743	1802	1813	1832	1843
Port Erin, Railway Station, dep	M	1030	—	—	—	30	—	—	1630	—	—	1730	—	—	1813	—	1858
Port St. Mary, Harbour, arr		1039	—	—	—	79	—	—	1639	—	—	1739	—	—	1822	—	1807

Jelune dys Jesam

Mondays to Saturdays

Jelune dys Jesam

Place	Service	Mondays to Fridays	Saturdays
1	2	12a	1	2	12a	1	2	12a	1	2	12a	1	2	12a	1
Noble's Hospital, main entrance	M	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0747	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Cranklouane, shelter		—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0751	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Watterson Lane, Cemetery		0507	—	0557	—	—	—	—	0753	0507	0547	—	—	—	—	—	—
Willaston, shops		—	—	—	—	—	0833	—	0731	—	—	—	0636	—	0741	—	0831
Hailwood Avenue, Cat With No Tail		0509	—	0559	—	—	0700	—	0736	0755	0509	0549	—	0641	—	0746	—
Birch Hill, shop		0513	—	0603	—	—	0705	—	0742	—	0513	0553	—	0647	—	0752	—
Trigot Avenue, Central Drive		0517	—	0607	—	—	0711	—	0748	0804	0517	0557	—	0653	—	0758	—
Ballachrink, shop		—	—	—	0619	—	—	0719	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0818
Windermere Drive, Windermere Avenue		—	—	—	0824	—	—	0724	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0823
Port Jack, shelter		0519	—	0609	0631	—	0713	0731	0750	0806	0519	0559	—	0655	—	0800	0830
Detty Castle, MER Station	M	0520	—	0610	0832	—	0714	0732	0751	0807	0520	0600	—	0656	—	0801	0831
Douglas, Lind Street Stand C, arr +		0527	—	0617	0640	—	0722	0743	0802	0818	0527	0607	—	0707	—	0812	0842
Douglas, Lind Street Stand C, dep +		0535	0550	0620	0650	0710	0730	0750	0810	0830	0530	0610	0650	0715	0750	0820	0850
Grocery Road, NDC		0535	0555	0625	0656	0716	0736	0757	0817	0837	0535	0615	0656	0722	0757	0827	0857
Newtown, Old Chapel		0543	0603	0633	0704	0724	0744	0805	0825	0845	0543	0623	0704	0730	0805	0835	0905
Ballacalla Railway Station	V	0550	0610	0640	0711	0731	0751	0811	0833	0853	0550	0610	0711	0738	0813	0843	0913
Ronaldoway Airport	+	0553	0613	0643	0714	0734	0754	0817	0837	0857	0553	0633	0714	0742	0817	0847	0917
Castletown Square, Co-op		0600	0620	0650	0721	0741	0801	0825	0845	0905	0600	0640	0721	0751	0825	0855	0925
Colby Bridge, Methodist Church		0810	—	0700	—	—	0811	0835	—	0915	0810	0650	—	—	0835	—	0935
Garway, opposite Shore Hotel		—	0628	—	0729	0749	—	—	0853	—	—	—	0729	—	—	0903	—
Port St. Mary, Harbour, dep		—	0634	—	0736	0756	—	—	0900	—	—	—	0736	—	—	0910	—
Port Erin, Railway Station, arr	M	0617	0639	0707	0742	0802	0818	0843	0907	0923	0617	0657	0742	—	0843	0917	0943
Port Erin, Railway Station, dep	M	—	—	—	—	—	0825	—	—	0930	0618	0658	—	—	—	0925	—
Port St. Mary, Harbour, arr		—	—	—	—	—	0834	—	—	0939	0627	0707	—	—	—	0934	—

Glossary:

s/hs — On Schooldays operates 3 minutes later from Castle Rushen High School + — Change of bus may be required

For the full service between Lower Douglas and Willaston, Hailwood Avenue and Birch Hill please see pages 58 to 63

During the TT period Friday 23 May to Saturday 7 June bus services are subject to diversion. Enhanced services operate from Wednesday 28 May to Saturday 7 June. For full details please see the TT period leaflet and our website www.bus.im.

Pre TT Classic and Southern 100: During Billown Circuit closures on 23, 24 & 25 May and 7, 8, 9 & 10 July buses are unable to operate between Castletown and Port Erin/Port St. Mary. Neurer to these events, please see the detailed information displayed at primary bus stops and on our website www.bus.im.

Guidance Note

This decision was made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority delegated to them.

This decision refers only to that applied for under the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and its subordinate legislation.

A copy of the Officer’s report and any correspondence which led to the assessment and decision is available to view on the Government’s website (via Online Services www.gov.im/Viewapplications) or at the Department’s offices Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas.

Implementation The decision does not become final until either

 Any appeal has been concluded; or
 21 days have passed since the date on this notice and no appeal has been submitted

Development must progress in accordance with the plans approved under, and any conditions attached to this approval (irrespective of any changes that may separately be requested at the Building Control stage or by any other Statutory Authority). This approval does not remove the need to also comply with any other relevant legislation.

Any conditions requiring certain works, submissions etc. prior to commencement of development must be fulfilled prior to work starting on site. Failure to adhere to this approval and meet the requirements of all conditions may invalidate this approval or result in formal enforcement action.

Appeal Any appeal must be in writing and submitted to the Department within 21 days of the date of this Notice. The appeal must contain:

 the grounds for making the appeal;
 payment of the planning appeal fee (currently £285); and
 if relevant, confirmation that the appellant wishes to have the appeal determined by means of an inquiry and payment of the additional inquiry fee (currently £100). Where the appeal is submitted by the applicant they must:
 specify in detail and by reference to material planning considerations the reasons why the appellant disagrees with that determination; and
 Where against a refusal, on the grounds of deficient detail or supporting documentation, set out why they consider the information or documentation forming part of the application was sufficient in the circumstance. If the appeal is submitted by someone who has interested Person Status but is not listed in Article 4(2) of the Development Procedure Order 2019, that person must relate their grounds for making the appeal to issues which they included in representations made prior to the application being determined.

Failure to meet all of the relevant above requirements will mean that the appeal cannot be validated.

An appeal form and more detailed guidance are available either from Planning & Building Control, Tel 685950, or from the Department’s website www.gov.im/planningappeal

If this decision becomes final because there is no appeal, the Department’s public reference copy (counter copy) of the planning application may be collected by the applicant or their agent from Murray House. Please note that if the counter copy of the application is not collected within thirty days following the last date on which a planning appeal can be made it will be destroyed without further notice.

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No. : 21/00857/B Applicant : Daryl Blake Construction Limited Proposal : Erection of a dwelling Site Address : Pound Lane Depot Castletown Road Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5LT Senior Planning Officer: Mr Jason Singleton Photo Taken : Site Visit : 09.12.2021 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 16.03.2022 _________________________________________________________________

Reasons for Refusal

R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons

R 1. The proposal is not within a named settlement in accordance with the settlement hierarchy and would encourage unsustainable development. Accordingly it is contrary to Strategic Policy 1, 2, 3 and 10. Also Spatial Policies 1,2,3,4 of the Strategic Plan.
R 2. The proposal is not of a nature which would be supported in the countryside under those policies which set out the exceptional forms of development which would be allowed in the countryside. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that there is an overriding national need and a site for which there are no reasonable and acceptable alternatives. Therefore the proposal is considered to undermine General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 4, of the Strategic Plan, which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake.
R 3. The application site is not zoned for development and is within an area of countryside. The creation of a new residential dwelling in an area not zoned for development would result in an inappropriate development in the countryside contrary to Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan.
R 4. The design, size and scale of the proposed dwelling, and its finishes, are not sympathetic to the rural character of the area and is considered over development with an adverse visual impact that affects the character of the setting, contrary to Strategic Policy 5 and General Policy 2 (b & c) of the Strategic Plan. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THE APPLICTION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

1.0 THE SITE
1.1 The site is a parcel of land which lies on the southern side of the Castletown Road (A5) which runs between Four Roads, Port St. Mary and Bay ny Carrickey, Rushen. The site has a frontage to the road of 11m and the site widens towards the rear boundary.
1.2 The site has stone walls along its frontage with sections of the site elevation partly enclosed in the stone which continues towards the rear elevation. The site is grassed and generally devoid of structures or features within.
1.3 The nearest adjacent properties are two residential dwellings to the west - Douval and Brook Cottage (both small bungalow with pitched roof and bookended with chimney stacks) and on the other side of the road, slightly to the east, is the Southern Civic Amenity site.
1.4 To the west of the application site is a public right of way / footpath U203 labelled on the Govt mapping as 'Pound Lane' that connects from Castletown Road and runs south and connects onto Beach Road. To the east/ south is agricultural field ref 414765 (10.4 acres) and to the north across the road field 414026 (3.95 acres) and to the east field 411610 (1.73 acres).
1.5 It is noted on the Government maps the site is adjacent to a small stream that runs underneath the highways which flows from north to south. The site is also identified on the DOI Flood risk maps as being a High risk flood zone (River) The highway to the front (north) is identified as also High Risk Flood zone (river and Tidal).

2.0 THE APPLICATION
2.1 Proposed is the erection of a dwelling house on the site. The property is characterised by a single storey attached garage (6.6m x 6.5m) at the front of the property with a hipped tiled roof and parking to the front and side (East). The dwelling house sits to the rear (South) and attached to the rear of the garage that has a slight contemporary style, in that is it one and a half stories tall and a footprint of 11.5m x 7.5m. The internal layout would provide to the ground floor a large living / dining room a separate kitchen and utility, W/C Porch and internal hallway. To the first floor accommodation within the roof space would offer three en-suite bedrooms. At first floor the two bedrooms on the gable ends would feature small metal balconies with glazed balustrade.
2.2 Externally the property would materially be finished with, Anthracite (dark grey) roof tiles and anthracite Upvc windows and doors with high performance glazing, Black garage door, dark grey stone cladding panels to the lower proportions and the remainder painted render and dark Upvc rain water goods.
2.3 The agent notes the "Existing culverted water course site is protected at a raised level of 250mm high over stream by a random stone wall along perimeter of site adjacent to water course... The existing lane to the west contains all the services".
2.4 Access to the site would utilise the existing entrance with modification to allow for the correct visibility splays (2.4m x 47m) in both directions and an entrance width of 7.0m wide. The hedgerow and boundary wall to be kept to below 1.05m to maintain clear sight lines for visibility and whilst the land is not owned by the applicant a third party agreement letter has been provided to support the application and maintenance of the laneway.

2.5 The owner of the site has provided a planning statement setting out; how they purchased the land from Government (DoI) as a storage compound and a parcel of land to the rear which has never been claimed for agricultural support… The land has been previously developed, noting the neighbouring dwellings, Douval and Brook Cottage and the Southern Amenity site… The proposals would be an improvement on the site and provide ample parking, turning provision, visibility splays for access and vehicle charging points….The propose home would be an "Eco-House" and built to exceed thermal values, solar roof and air-source heat pumps to minimise carbon footprint - in line with Govt Policies… Consideration has been given to the overall massing and level of finishes to soften the appearance and minimise visual impact.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY
3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South as not for a particular purpose (white land) on Map 7 - Port Erin / Port St. Mary. Map 2 identifies the site as an area of Incised Slopes.
3.2 Within the written statement for the area plan for the south; the site or surrounding area is not specifically identified but being surrounded by agricultural land the overall objective in the landscape strategy is to preserve the existing rural character appearance and distinctiveness of the area.
3.3 The site is not within a Conservation area, there are no registered trees identified on site but the site is identified as being within High Risk Flood Zone (River and Tidal) on the DoI's Flood map hub.
3.4 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:
3.5 Strategic Policy 1; efficient use of land
3.6 Strategic Policy 2; new development to identified towns and villages
3.7 Strategic Policy 3: To respect the character of our towns and villages
3.8 Strategic Policy 5: Design and visual impact
3.9 Strategic Policy 10 ; sustainable transport
3.10 Spatial Policy 1,2,3,4- designates Service Centres, towns, villages, for development.
3.11 Spatial Policy 5: building in defined settlements or GP3
3.12 General Policy 3: exceptions to development in the countryside
3.13 Whilst the land is not zoned for development, the general principles contained with General Policy 2 (a-n) offer guidance that specifically addresses those issues affecting building on site that would be general 'development control' and considered capable of being applied to this proposal.
3.14 Environment Policy 1: Protection of the countryside
3.15 Environment Policy 10: Potential risk of flooding
3.16 Housing Policy 4: Location of new housing and exceptions
3.17 Transport Policies: 4 Highway safety; 7 Parking provisions

3.18 The Strategic Plan (2016) states at paragraph 4.3.8 for LOCAL DISTINCTIVENESS;
3.19 Definition of Previously Developed Land from Appendix 1 of the Strategic Plan

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 PA 20/00008/LAW - A previous application for Certificate of Lawful Use for the use of site for storage of equipment and materials was DECLINED for the following reason:

"It has not been demonstrated that the use of the site for the storage of materials and plant has ever been carried on in a material sense or that it has been used for such for a period of ten years". As such, the site is still considered as land not designated for a particular purpose,

as there is no change in use status.

4.2 20/00996/C - Levelling of site, erection of wall up to 1.5M and laying of hardcore hard standing. Was Approved. The case officer noted the scope of works was;

"2.2.1The clearing out of rubble "infill" (hardcore) at the rear section of the site to existing site level of site frontage in order to form a level area for the entire site. This would make the entire site area level with the abutting highway. The site would be infilled with hardcore type 1 to ground area compacted to road level throughout site.

2.2.2 The erection of walls to join up the existing walls and to create a retaining wall to shore up the raised section at the rear sections of the site that are enclosed by the raised earth bank. This wall would be 1.5m high (matching the existing stone walls) with concrete coping stones on top and floated render finish to walling, and would form a retaining wall for the raised bank.
2.3 These works would be done to ensure the entire site area has the same level so that the site can be tidied up and grassed. As at the time if the site visit, the rear elements of the existing wall had been broken up with the site levelled to its proposed position, with raised bank firmly compacted".

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS (in brief)

5.1 Arbory Commissioners commented (22.08.21) with a number of concerns, noting the site is not designated for residential use; limited space for parking off the main road; would ask for a strongly worded condition that garage should not be converted to residential use should the application be supported; The traffic using the main road travels in excess of the 40 mph speed limit and wondered whether this had been considered by the DoI Highways officer when they wrote their supportive comments. The Commissioners are not fundamentally opposed to the proposal but do feel that it needs careful consideration particularly in relation to the points they have raised."
5.2 Highways Services commented (03/08/21) with no objection.
5.3 Highways Drainage commented (13/08/21) seeking a private drainage scheme to avoid surface water runoff onto the highway.
5.4 DEFA Eco-systems Policy officer commented (11/08/21) don't object but note the proximity of the site being surrounded by open countryside and the potential for a variety of wildlife. There should be no net loss of biodiversity on site and give suggestion on how to achieve this. They also raise the issue over the adjacent water course only 3m away and the need to contact Inland Fisheries.

6.0 ASSESSMENT

(i) Principle (STP1,2,3 and SP1,2,3,4,5 Gp2,k).
(ii) Exceptional circumstances (GP3 & HP4 & EP1).

(iii) Visual Impact (STP5; GP2b c,f;j)
(iv) Neighbouring Amenities (GP2g)
(v) Highway Safety (GP2 h&I; TP 4&7)
(vi) Flood Risk (EP10; GP2l)

Principle

6.1 The starting point here is the land designation, it is clear from the Area Plan for the South, the application site is technically within a rural and protected part of the countryside where any development is strictly controlled.
6.2 In considering this application, Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policy 3 identify areas of development to be located, generally within existing towns and villages, it cannot be said the site sits within either Port Erin or Port St. Mary's defined areas and is very much technically part of the open countryside as previously identified. However the site does sit on a service road where there are some residential dwellings to the south of the highway along its length and easily accessible from the highway.
6.3 Given the broad location of the site and its location, it does not sit within a remote part of the countryside where there are no provisions for accessible transport. The site is adjacent to a highway where there is public transport available and would be approx. 1.3 miles from Port Erin shops and the same from the shops and service at Port St Mary. As such it is a fine balance whether this aspect in isolation would be contrary to Strategic Policy 10 (a)-(d).
6.4 When considering Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policy 5, development in the countryside is only permitted in exceptional circumstances, as detailed in paragraph 6.3 of the Strategic Plan, which is General Policy 3 as referenced in Spatial Policy 5. However, when conjointly assessed against Spatial Policy 5 and Strategic Policy 2 and Strategic Policy 10 of the Strategic Plan it is considered that the proposal would not be deemed a sustainable location for 'development' and would be contrary to those policies, if an exception is not achievable through GP3 that allows exemption for development in the countryside.
6.5 The agents advises that this land was sold as a depot (see planning history) and to some degree should be considered as previously developed land, the definition from the policy (para.3.19) seeks that there is or was a permanent structure on site, as there is none, other than a boundary wall for which permission was granted (see para.4.2) it would not necessarily be compliant in these terms with the definition or would adhere to that of Gp3(c) for previous developed land. Stp1 further considers previously developed land or land that is being under used and whether an efficient use of the site would be acceptable for a dwelling house.
6.6 The test is whether the proposal for a new dwelling here would be an improvement on the landscape and wider environment and whether an overriding exception can be found under Ep1 to offset development in the countryside as an over -riding national need in land use terms that are reasonable and for which there is no alternative. This concludes the application is to be assessed for the creation of a new residential property in the countryside.
6.7 To summarise, As identified earlier within the planning policy section of this report, this presumption against is set out in four different ways; the application site is not zoned for residential development under the Area Plan for the South; Secondly, General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic plan, states that in such areas new dwellings will generally not be permitted; Thirdly, the site is not identified in an Area Plan being a town, village, or within a sustainable urban extension and there for contrary to the exceptions indicated in Housing Policy 4; Fourthly, The site is zoned within an area of countryside which seeks to prevent development, unless the development is for an overriding national need where there is no alternative and would not adversely affect the countryside (visual impact assessed below).

Unfortunately the proposal would fail on both counts and therefor a refusal can also legitimately be made on that basis.

Exceptional circumstances

6.8 In terms of planning policy there is a long established presumption against new residential development in the countryside. General Policy 3, and Housing Policy 4 both identify potential exceptions for development within such areas. More specifically, both General Policy

3 (paragraphs a, b & d) and Housing Policy 4 identifies three potential circumstances where residential development may be allowed. Firstly, if there is an essential need for an agricultural workers dwelling (agricultural condition attached requiring the property to be used only by full time agricultural workers only, which is proven to be justified); second, conversion of existing rural properties (i.e. traditional Manx stone barn); and thirdly the replacement of an existing dwelling with a new dwelling. Nevertheless, turning to the suitability of the site and noting the lack of support from the local authority, on balance, it is not considered for there to be an exception to be made in this application to create a new residential dwelling in the countryside and would be contrary to Gp3 and HP4.

Visual Impact

6.9 The proposal would be introducing an element of built development on site where at present there is none. There is no avoiding the fact that the proposed property in terms of its siting, scale, massing, height and finishes would be clearly visible from the highway and given the general flat-ish topography of the wider area, would be visible from a far. The nearest residential properties that would be considered to be the 'character of the streetscene' are only bungalows and this property would clearly be seen as dominant property on the landscape and within "the streetscene" and being of a contemporary design would exacerbate the situation. It is accepted that at either end of the Castletown Road there are properties of one and a half stores and some two stories but their distance from the site means they're not read within the same setting. When considering properties in the countryside, the rational is that they should ideally follow that of more traditional vernacular as noted in planning circular 3/91 to ensure any visual impact is appropriate for the countryside. In this case, the proposal would not be supported and would be contrary to aims of STP5 and GP2b&C where the proposal would have a detrimental visual impact upon the openness of the countryside for which EP1 seeks to protect. Neighbouring Amenities
6.10 Turning to whether there would be any adverse impact (overlooking, loss of light; over bearing impact, and loss of privacy) upon those nearest neighbouring properties namely, Douval and Brook Cottage. The general level and scale of development proposed here, is considered to not cause material harm the enjoyment of the neighbouring amenity given the siting of the dwelling and the design / room layout and general fenestration with window placement across both floors ensures that any aspects of overlooking or loss of privacy are kept to a minimum given the intervening distances (25m). Furthermore, there would not be any loss of light or overshadowing from the built form of the proposed dwelling and garage, given the siting and distance to the neighbouring properties which in turn ensures there is no overbearing effect. It is further noted we have not received any objections or comments from the adjoining neighbours. On balance, these aspects would be considered to be compliant with those sections of General Policy 2(g). Highway Safety
6.11 The application site already features an existing access and already serves the site. Highway Services have considered the merits of the proposal, access to and from the site from the highway noting visibility splays, as well as parking and highway safety. As the transport professionals their comments are heavily relied upon and as they do not object, the proposal would be considered to align with the principles of Transport Policy 4 and 7 in terms of highways safety.

Flood Risk
6.12 It is noted the site is within an area identified at risk of flooding, whilst this issue has been noted by the applicants on the drawing (para.2.3) and the proposed boundary wall as approved would offer a level of flood protection, it is pertinent to consider whether an additional dwelling here with hard surfaces and non-permeable surfaces, roofs and driveways would have an adverse impact. Judging from the information available, the proposal can only exacerbate any possibility of flooding in an area already evidenced at risk of flooding and could not be supported as a site viable for development without significant mitigation measures. While the site might have some degree of protection on three sides by a masonry boundary wall, the vehicle access to the north at 7.0m wide and the understanding that the main highway to the north is also subject to flooding, there is little evidence to the contrary that would comfortably offset the unreasonable risk of flooding to the ground floor of the dwelling house. Whilst there is a possibility an engineering solution could be found to mitigate and manage the risk of any flooding, as the initial principle of a dwelling here cannot be supported, development on this site could be seen to be contrary to Ep10 and Gp2l.

7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 On balance it is judged, the proposal is contrary to those aforementioned Policies of the Strategic Plan and does not meet the tests for exceptional development within the countryside. It is therefore concluded that the planning application is recommended for refusal.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

(a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
(b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
(c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
(d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
(e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
(f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
(g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

8.2 The decision maker must determine:

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 above who should be given Interested Person Status

8.3 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.

Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 28.03.2022

Signed : J SINGLETON Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.

Daryl Blake Construction Limited Unit 5 Harbour Court Loch Road Port St Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5EB

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019

In pursuance of powers granted under the above Act, and subordinate Orders and Regulations, the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture determined to REFUSE an application by Daryl Blake Construction Limited, Ref 21/00857/B, for the Erection of a dwelling at Pound Lane Depot Castletown Road Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5LT for the following reason(s):

1. The proposal is not within a named settlement in accordance with the settlement hierarchy and would encourage unsustainable development. Accordingly it is contrary to Strategic Policy 1, 2, 3 and 10. Also Spatial Policies 1,2,3,4 of the Strategic Plan.
2. The proposal is not of a nature which would be supported in the countryside under those policies which set out the exceptional forms of development which would be allowed in the countryside. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that there is an overriding national need and a site for which there are no reasonable and acceptable alternatives. Therefore the proposal is considered to undermine General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 4, of the Strategic Plan, which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake.
3. The application site is not zoned for development and is within an area of countryside. The creation of a new residential dwelling in an area not zoned for development would result in an inappropriate development in the countryside contrary to Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan.
4. The design, size and scale of the proposed dwelling, and its finishes, are not sympathetic to the rural character of the area and is considered over development with an adverse visual impact that affects the character of the setting, contrary to Strategic Policy 5 and General Policy 2 (b & c) of the Strategic Plan.

Date of Issue: 29th March 2022

Director of Planning and Building Control

Guidance Note

This decision was made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority delegated to it.

This decision refers only to that applied for under the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and its subordinate legislation.

A copy of the Officer’s report and any correspondence which led to the assessment and decision is available to view on the Government’s website (via Online Services www.gov.im/Viewapplications) or at the Department’s offices Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas.

Appeal Any appeal must be in writing and submitted to the Department within 21 days of the date of this Notice. The appeal must contain:

the grounds for making the appeal;

payment of the planning appeal fee (currently £295); and if relevant, confirmation that the appellant wishes to have the appeal determined by means of an inquiry and payment of the additional inquiry fee (currently £110).

Where the appeal is submitted by the applicant they must:

specify in detail and by reference to material planning considerations the reasons why the appellant disagrees with that determination; and

Where against a refusal, on the grounds of deficient detail or supporting documentation, set out why they consider the information or documentation forming part of the application was sufficient in the circumstance.

If the appeal is submitted by someone who has interested Person Status but is not listed in Article 4(2) of the Development Procedure Order 2019, that person must relate their grounds for making the appeal to issues which they included in representations made prior to the application being determined.

Failure to meet all of the relevant above requirements will mean that the appeal cannot be validated.

An appeal form and more detailed guidance are available either from Planning & Building Control, Tel 685950, or from the Department’s website www.gov.im/planningappeal

APPENDIX 5 PA25/90046 East of ROughlands, Castletown Road, Rushen Erection of detached dwelling

A Location plan with respect to current appeal site

B Site Plan

APPENDIX 5 PA25/90046 East of ROughlands, Castletown Road, Rushen Erection of detached dwelling A Location plan with respect to current appeal site

A location plan showing the site boundaries and surrounding properties in a rural area with handwritten notes indicating application references.

D Images of Site

This image displays a detailed site plan for a proposed new detached house, showing the building footprint, access driveway, and surrounding properties. It includes boundary lines, landscaping areas, and a schedule of... — This image displays a detailed site plan for a proposed new detached house, showing the building footprint, access driveway, and surrounding properties. It includes boundary lines, landscaping areas, and a schedule of areas on the right side.

E Officer’s report to Planning Committee

Architectural elevations showing the north, south, east, and west views of a proposed detached bungalow with solar panels and a garage.

APPENDIX 5A Extract Planning Statement PA25/9001918 Castletown Road, Rushen.

The Castletown Road street scene, viewed from the bottom of Castletown Road near the junction with Shore Road. The entrance to Sandpiper is to the right. The property to the left is known as Oxenbourne.

The site viewed from the top of Castletown Road. The gate to Roughlands is visible to the left of the site. The roof and chimney stacks visible beyond the site belong to a property known as The Mount.

and 7, and other relevant planning policies. While the site is located outside the designated settlement boundary, its proximity to existing residential areas and accessibility to infrastructure support its suitability for development. The design and layout integrate well with the surrounding context, ensuring minimal visual and residential amenity impacts, while appropriate mitigation measures address biodiversity concerns. Parking provisions exceed policy requirements, and the site is well-connected to transport networks, reinforcing compliance with Strategic Policy 10. Although the presence of overhead power lines requires diversion, conditions will ensure compliance with Energy Policy 2 and General Policy 2 (in) before continuation proceeds. Additionally, the site's classification as Class 3/4 agricultural land means the proposal does not result in the loss of high-quality agricultural land under Environment Policy 14. Subject to necessary planning conditions, the development is considered acceptable within the broader planning framework.

9.3 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE

9.3 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).

9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:

a) applicant (in all cases); b) a Local Authority; Government Department; Plans Utilities; and Plans National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and c) any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.

9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10.

9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):

a) any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant); b) the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area; c) any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and d) in the case of a petition, a single representative.

9.5 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 the Right to Appeal.

7.4.6 Based on these factors, the proposed development complies with General Policy 2 (g) & (h) of the Strategic Plan and aligns with the principles established by the Residential Design Guide. The design ensures that no unacceptable impacts on neighbouring amenity would arise, allowing the development to integrate seamlessly into its surroundings.

7.5 IMPACT ON HIGHWAY/PARKING

7.5.1 The proposed development incorporates adequate on-site parking provisions, exceeding the minimum standards set out in the Strategic Plan. The site design ensures that multiple vehicles can be accommodated off-road, reducing potential strain on surrounding streets. Additionally, Highways Services have raised no objections, confirming that the proposal raises no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking. Visibility delays, as evidenced in the submitted site plan, are considered acceptable for access subject to conditions as required by DOI Highways.

7.5.2 Strategic Policy 10 recognizes the critical link between development location and the transport network, emphasizing minimizing private car journeys, optimizing public transport use, and encouraging pedestrian movement. The current location meets these criteria, being situated near a bus transit corridor in Port St. Mary and well-connected to existing built development within the settlement boundary.

7.5.3 Given these factors, the proposal aligns with the provisions of Transport Policies 4 and 7 and complies with General Policy 2 (h) and (i) and Strategic Policy 10 of the Strategic Plan. The development will not create adverse highway safety impacts, and its design ensures integration with sustainable transport networks, reinforcing its suitability within the broader planning framework.

7.6 LOSS OF HIGH-QUALITY AGRICULTURAL LAND (EP 14)

7.6.1 Environment Policy 14 allows for development on agricultural land if they do not result in the loss of high-quality agricultural land. High quality agricultural land is defined as being Class 1/2, Class 2/3 and Class 3/2 as annotated on the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map. The proposal site is shown as being within Class 3/4 and as such falls outside the defined land protected by EP14.

7.6.2 Whilst the class of agricultural soils on the farm (Class 3) does not imply that the soils should not be managed appropriately, as 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, the nature and scale of the build is such that the agricultural potential of the adjoining fields would not be compromised, save for the section of the broader field area used for the proposed development, which would be removed from the field. Notably, the proposed site area is currently unused for agriculture, as it is covered in bramble and gome scrub. Given these factors, the proposal satisfies the requirements of Environment Policy 14, as it does not result in the loss of high-quality agricultural land.

7.7 IMPACT ON BEDDIVERSITY (EP4 & 5, & GP2)

7.7.1 The impact on ecology and biodiversity within the site primarily relates to the removal of vegetation required for the erection of the new dwelling, hardstanding, and landscaping areas. The site consists of bramble and gome scrub, which the DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team has identified as a habitat for nesting birds and invertebrates. Its removal carries ecological significance, requiring mitigation to safeguard biodiversity. The findings in Ecology Vanvlin's Site Walkover and Ecological Mitigation (Technical Note) dated March 2025 have been reviewed and are considered appropriate in assessing the site's ecological impact.

7.7.2 To address ecological concerns, mitigation measures such as the integration of native hedging and other ecological enhancements will be necessary, alongside the inclusion of bird and bat boxes to provide habitats for local species. Additionally, restrictions on external lighting and ensuring vegetation removal occurs outside the nesting season will help minimize disruption to wildlife. These strategies ensure compliance with Environment Policies EP 4 and 5, and General Policy 2, effectively balancing biodiversity preservation with site development.

7.7.3 While vegetation removal will impact biodiversity, the proposed mitigation ensures compliance with Environment Policies EP 4 and 5, and General Policy 2, maintaining ecological integrity alongside development.

7.8 PROXIMITY TO POWER LINES (Energy Policy 2 & GP 2)

7.8.1 Energy Policy 2 safeguards land within 9 meters of overhead high-tension power cables to ensure public safety and maintain infrastructure integrity. Whilst it is not clear whether the power lines that go over the site are high tension power lines, Manx Utilities Authority has confirmed that an overhead line crosses the development site, with a pole on the western boundary outside the applicant's landownership, requiring third-party consent for any diversion. Additionally, overhead lines on the eastern boundary necessitate unrestricted access for maintenance and repairs.

7.8.2 Manx Utilities Authority's Electricity division has since removed its objection, indicating that concerns regarding infrastructure impact and safety may now be addressed. While this suggests the proposal can move forward, final compliance with Energy Policy 2 and General Policy 2 (m) depends on securing all necessary approvals and ensuring the development meets established safeguarding standards.

7.8.3 Compliance with General Policy 2 (m) requires consideration of safety and infrastructure constraints in development design. The proposed site layout does not currently meet approved clearance requirements, and while a diversion plan has been suggested, it has not been formally agreed upon. To ensure compliance with General Policy 2 and Energy Policy 2, conditions will be imposed requiring the diversion of the power line before the erection of the dwelling, ensuring appropriate safety measures are in place prior to construction.

7.9 OTHER MATTERS

7.9.1 Excavation on site (Minerals Act 1986)

7.9.1.1 As part of the proposal to create the new dwelling, significant soil excavation will be required. While excavation itself does not pose a direct planning concern, the removal of excavated material from the site would require prior consent from the Department of Environment, Food, and Agriculture (DEFA) under the Minerals Act 1986. Additionally, where minerals are extracted and removed beyond the surface owner's landholding, royalty payments may become payable. The sloping nature of the site suggests that some level changes will be necessary, particularly in relation to the garage area, meaning that excavation would need to be adequately accounted for and communicated accordingly to the DEFA Energy & Minerals Team.

7.9.1.2 Given the consultation responses received from DEFA, it is necessary for the applicant to ensure compliance with mineral extraction regulations by securing the appropriate consents. These matters, however, are subject to separate legislative processes beyond the scope of planning approval.

8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1. Overall, the proposed development aligns with the requirements of General Policy 2, Strategic Policies 1 and 2, Environment Policies 4 and 5, Energy Policy 2, Transport Policies 4

The Design and Visual Impact (STP 2, 5, GP2, HP 4 & EP1);
Impacts on Neighbouring Residential Amenity (GP2 & ROG 2021);
Impacts on Highways and Parking (TP4 & 7, GP2 & STP 10);
Loss of Agricultural Soils (EP 14);
Impacts on Biodiversity (EP 4 & 5, & STP 4); and
Proximity to Power Lines (ENP 2 & GP2)

7.2. The Principle

7.2.1 The Strategic Plan establishes a general presumption against development in areas not designated for a particular purpose, emphasizing the protection of the countryside (EP 1 and GP3). However, certain factors must be considered regarding the specific context of the site.

7.2.2 The site is located on the edge of the settlement boundary of Port St. Mary and is bordered by established dwellings within a predominantly residential area. While the site and its adjoining neighbours to the east and west technically fall outside the settlement boundary and are classified as countryside, they exist within an urban transition margin. Although the Area Plan does not designate these areas as sustainable urban extensions, they align with many defining characteristics of such locations due to their proximity to essential facilities and services that support the settlement. Additionally, the site's easy integration into the settlement's fabric, particularly in terms of transportation and connectivity, strengthens its suitability and aligns with the provisions of Strategic Policy 10. While the Area Plan for the South classifies the site as 'Land not designated for any particular purpose,' the proposed residential use is highly compatible with the surrounding residential context. The physical relationship between the site and its neighbouring properties makes it impractical to separate it from existing residential development, reinforcing its logical urban connection, aligning broadly with the principles advocated by Housing Policy 4.

7.2.3 Although the proposed development does not comply with GP3, which restricts development in non-designated areas, Strategic Policies 1 and 2 provide a framework supporting the establishment of new dwellings within sustainable extensions of existing settlements and unused lands, optimising the use of available infrastructure, facilities, and services. Furthermore, the site's position relative to adjoining properties suggests that the development would constitute appropriate infill, utilizing available land efficiently while maintaining compatibility with existing residential patterns.

7.2.4 Given the sustainable urban extension characteristics of the site, its proximity to settlement facilities, and the flexibility provided by Strategic Policies 1 & 2, the principle of developing the designated section of the site for residential purposes is well-founded. The proposal aligns with broader strategic planning objectives, ensuring a logical extension of residential development in a manner that could not be judged to be averse to the existing settlement structure.

7.3 Design & Visual Impact

7.3.1 In assessing the design and visual impact of the proposed development, it is considered that the overall layout, design and external appearance of the proposed dwelling is in keeping with the context of the surrounding street scene which is varied in its current context; comprising a balanced mix of modern and traditional dwellings, some of which are particular basis in terms of architectural design and detailing.

7.3.2 Likewise, the external materials align with the varied material use in the immediate vicinity, whilst the overall building height, proportions, fenestration size and positions, are also largely in keeping with the locality. Additionally, the fact that the new dwellings would be built into the landscape would serve to minimise the visual impact upon the site and

surroundings, whilst helping to blend the new dwellings into its surroundings. It is also important to note that the design and layout which allows for split levels fits with the site character and topography which rises from the site frontage and adjoining highway.

7.3.3 Granting, the new dwelling would still stand out and be noticeable, given the topography of the site and the proposed number of floors, the new dwelling would fit in with the character of the site and street scene which is varied in its current context. Moreover, the proposal would be reflective of its time when compared to the existing dwellings in the area, being contemporary in design and would serve to add to the diversity of dwelling design and styles in the area.

7.3.4 Accordingly, the overall design, siting, layout, size, landscaping and finishes of the dwelling would all be acceptable and would create a pleasant housing development, without having significant adverse visual impacts to the amenities of the street scene, site, or area.

7.4 Residential Amenity

7.4.1 When assessing potential impacts on neighbouring properties, it is crucial to evaluate the relationship between the proposed dwelling and its directly adjoining neighbours, as well as those situated to the south and separated by Castletown Road. This will determine whether the development poses any risk to residential amenity.

7.4.2 Regarding Roughlands to the west, the proposed dwelling would be positioned approximately 23.6 meters from its western external wall and 19.2 meters from the mature landscaping along the boundary. This separating distance, combined with the site's topography and the single-storey appearance of the dwelling from this vantage point, ensure there are no concerns regarding overlooking, overshadowing, or overbearing impacts for Roughlands.

7.4.3 For Sandpiper to the east, the proposed dwelling would sit 29.9 meters from this neighbouring property, with a 7.5m gap to the boundary. Although the terrace would also be 7.5 meters from the boundary, the presence of mature landscaping and established trees significantly mitigates privacy concerns. Additionally, the sections of the dwelling closest to Sandpiper are largely single storey, further reducing the potential for overlooking. The substantial separating distance ensures there would be no overshadowing or overbearing effects.

7.4.4 In relation to Bramble Tor, northeast of the proposed dwelling, the neighbour's position approximately 28 meters away diminishes any risk of overlooking. This is further mitigated by the single-storey nature of the rear elevation, which, due to the site's topography and elevated rear garden, ensures that the new dwelling presents only a single-storey profile from the rear. Consequently, the proposal does not result in loss of light or undue visual intrusion.

7.4.5 Concerning the properties south of Castletown Road; Belmont, Kinreen, Tides Reach, and Overbourne, the separating distance of more than 20 meters in all cases mitigates potential privacy concerns. Specifically, the first-floor terrace of the proposed dwelling would maintain a 31-meter gap to Belmont (with 19.8 meters to its front garden, which is not a private area). The distances to Kinreen, Tides Reach, and Overbourne are 50 meters, 23.3 meters (to the rear of the newly converted garage), and 28 meters, respectively. Additionally, the rear gardens of Tides Reach and Overbourne are effectively shielded from overlooking due to the position and height of boundary walls and fencing, as well as the lower elevation of the gardens compared to Castletown Road.

5.0 Planning History

5.1 Planning approval was granted under PA 00/0005/8 for the extension and landscaping of the Southern Civic Amenity site into parts of Field 414623 on 31 Oct 2000. This, however, did not stretch onto the current site for the proposed application.

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS

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

6.1 DOI Highway Services find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking. They note that HDC would not support a secondary access onto the adopted highway due to Manual for Manx Road policies - the layout should ideally be amended so the driveway on the eastern side does not go up to the front boundary of the property. Conditions on site access, site access visibility, driveway handstanding within 6m of the adopted highway, internal vehicular driveway layout and parking, should be attached to permission and retained thereafter (21 January 2025).

6.2 DOI Highways Drainage (11 February 2025):

They state that allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway is prohibited under Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and relevant guidance in the Manual for Manx Roads. They advise the applicant ensure compliance with these regulations.

6.3 Manx Utilities Authority - Electricity (29 January 2025):

They note that an existing overhead line crosses the proposed development site and that the site plan includes details for its diversion. However, they have not been consulted on the proposed diversion and do not approve it at this stage.
They highlight that a pole on the western boundary is located outside the applicant's landownership. Therefore, the applicant must obtain necessary permissions and consents from the adjacent landowner before any diversion can be agreed.
They state that an existing overhead line and poles are present on the eastern boundary, requiring the applicant to ensure suitable unrestricted access for Manx Utilities staff, plant, and equipment to allow for future maintenance and repairs.
They request that any decision on the application be deferred until the applicant has contacted Manx Utilities and agreed on necessary diversion works and ongoing access requirements.
They advise that the applicant can initiate this process via the Electricity Network Enquiry system available on their website.

6.3.1 Manx Utilities Authority - Electricity (20 March 2025):

They state that their Electricity division removes its objection to the planning application.

6.4 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team (8 April 2025/21 February 2025):

They note that Ecology Vannin's Site Walkover and Ecological Mitigation (Technical Note) dated March 2025 is in order.
They state that the application site consists of bramble and gorse scrub, providing habitat for nesting, feeding, and sheltering birds, as well as invertebrates.
They note that while the site is not zoned for residential development, they have no objection, provided ecological mitigation conditions are secured.
They request that a condition is secured to prevent external lighting unless a sensitive lighting plan, following best practice outlined in the Bat Conservation Trust and Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidance Note 8/23 on Bats and Artificial Lighting (2023), has been submitted to Planning and approved in writing.
They request additional conditions to ensure ecological mitigation measures, including:

a soft landscaping plan incorporating native hedging to be submitted to Planning and approved in writing before works commence. b A bird brick plan to be submitted and approved in writing before works commence, recommending integrated bird bricks suitable for starlings or house sparrows instead of bird boxes, as bricks do not require replacement. c A plan detailing measures to prevent bat strikes on clear glass balustrades to be submitted and approved in writing before works commence, with acceptable mitigation such as etching, ultraviolet coatings, or decals.

They advise that the applicant should be aware of the high potential for legally protected nesting birds in the bramble and gorse scrub and recommends removing vegetation outside of the March-August nesting season to avoid committing an offence.

6.5 DEFA Energy & Minerals Team Consultation:

6.5.1 Comments Received 21 January 2025:

They state that all minerals in their natural condition are vested in DEFA under the Minerals Act 1986 and are subject to licensing and royalty payments if removed from the landholding.
They note that the proposal may intersect DEFA's minerals, and any removal of material from the site requires prior consent from DEFA's Energy & Minerals Team.
They highlight that although the planning form states no change in site levels, the sloping nature of the site and design documents suggest excavation will be required, particularly for the garage area.
They point out that the site survey lacks spot levels across the full development area, especially where there is a 6m level change on the eastern edge, making it difficult to assess the extent of excavation.
They recommend correcting the planning form to reflect changes in surface levels and submitting updated drawings to allow assessment of potential stone removal.

6.5.2 Comments received 26 February 2025:

They acknowledge receipt of updated site section plans and the estimated cut/fill balance.
They reiterate that DEFA owns any minerals beneath the site and that removal of stone from the development area requires Mining Permission and may incur royalty payments.
They direct the applicant to the Isle of Man Government's Mines and Minerals webpage for further details and the application form.

6.6 Arbery and Rushen Parish Commissioners

6.6.1 Comments received 23 January 2025:

The Commissioners noted that the site is not designated for residential development.
They observed that the site currently consists of coastal scrubland and questioned whether the loss of this habitat would significantly impact local biodiversity.
They stated that if biodiversity experts do not consider the site worthy of protection, they would have no objection to the development, provided it does not overlook neighbouring properties.

6.6.2 At their February meeting, the Commissioners considered and supported the application (23 February 2025).

6.7 No Comments have been received from neighbours.

7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The key considerations in the assessment of this planning application are:

The Principle of the Proposed Development (GPS, HP 4, STP 1 & 2, & SP 3 & 5);

2.4 The new dwelling would be finished externally in painted render combined with stone cladding on the external walls, while the roof would be finished in artificial slate with solar photovoltaic panels integrated in an in-roof tray. All the window units would be UPVC or powder-coated aluminium frames (colour not defined) with clear glazing. The fesci's and bergaboard would be composite or powder-coated aluminium (colour not defined), and rainwater goods would be powder-coated aluminium or UPVC (colour not defined). The garage doors would be coated galvanized steel or composite (colour not defined). External decking would be finished in timber or composite timber decking, and balustrades would be frameless glass.

2.5 A new soakaway would be provided for the site to cater for surface water runoff, while foul sewage would be discharged to the existing systems in the area. A 5m wide access connected to a 5m wide arched driveway would be provided for the site.

2.6 The application is supported by a Client Planning Statement, Design and Planning Statement prepared by Modus Architects, Site Walkover and Ecological Mitigation (Technical Note) prepared by Ecology Varnin and dated March 2025, Biodiversity Plan, and Correspondence to address comments from DEFA the Energy & Minerals Team (dated 29 January 2025).

3.0 PLANNING POLICY

3.1 Site Specific:

3.1.1 The site lies within an area not zoned for any particular purpose on the Area Plan for the South 2011, and the property is not within a Conservation Area or a Flood Risk Zone, although parts of the northern boundary sits in an area considered to be prone to high flood risks. There are no registered trees on site, and the site is not within a registered tree area.

3.2 Area: Area Plan for the South 2013

Paragraph 2.1.11

"The Housing Chapter also sets out in more detail the proposals to secure the provision of housing through a process of 'Plan, Monitor and Manage.' The Area Plans are to include Urban Capacity Assessments as part of a sequential approach to the provision of new housing. This approach will seek to develop within existing settlements, or on previously developed land or by the redevelopment, regeneration, and conversion of existing housing. Only then will greenfield sites be brought forward, as extensions to existing settlements."

Paragraph 4.2.2

"In accordance with the Strategic Policies set out in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, key objectives of the Area Plan are:

to ensure an adequate supply of housing land;
to locate new housing primarily within existing towns and villages as identified in the Island Spatial Strategy of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, or where appropriate, sustainable urban extensions of such;
to provide for affordable housing; and
to allow housing in the countryside only in exceptional circumstances."

Paragraph 4.4.7

"Area Plans will include Urban Capacity Assessments as part a sequential approach to the provision of new housing. This approach will seek to develop within existing settlements, or on previously developed land or by the redevelopment, regeneration, and conversion of existing housing. Only then will greenfield sites be brought forward, as extensions to existing settlements." (Island Spatial Strategy, Isle of Man Strategic Plan, 2007, Page 23)".

3.3 National: STRATEGIC PLAN (2016)

3.3.1 Relevant Strategic Plan Policies:

General Policy 3 - Exceptions to development in the countryside.
General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations.
Environment Policy 1 - Protection of the countryside and inherent ecology.
Environment Policy 4 - Protects biodiversity (including protected species and designated sites).
Environment Policy 5 - Mitigation against damage to or loss of habitats.
Environment Policy 14 - Prohibits development leading to the permanent loss of high-quality agricultural land (Classes 1-2) unless there is an overriding need and no lower-quality land is available.
Strategic Policy 2 - Priority for new development to identified towns and villages.
Strategic Policy 3 - Development to respect the character of our towns and villages.
Strategic Policy 4 - development proposals must protect or enhance the nature conservation and landscape quality of urban as well as rural areas.
Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact.
Strategic Policy 10 - development should promote integrated journeys, minimise car use and facilitate other modes of travel.
Spatial Policy 3 - Identifies service villages which includes Port St Mary, especially as it relates to the provision of housing development.
Spatial Policy 5 - new development will be in defined settlements only or in the countryside only in accordance with GF3.
Sustainable Urban Extensions - Planned expansion of a city or town and can contribute to creating more sustainable patterns of development when located in the right place, with well-planned infrastructure including access to a range of facilities, and when developed at appropriate densities.
Transport Policy 1 - Proximity to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle, and rail routes important for new development.
Transport Policy 4 - Highway safety.
Transport Policy 7 - Parking considerations/standards for development.
Community Policies 7, 10 and 11 provide guidance in respect of minimising criminal activity and reducing spread of fire, while Infrastructure Policy 5 deals with methods for water conservation.
Energy Policy 2 - Land within 9m either side of an overhead High Tension power cable will be safeguarded from development.

4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Residential Design Guide (2021)

4.1.1 This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction.

4.2 The Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy (2015 - 2025)

4.2.1 The Department's Biodiversity Strategy is capable of being a material consideration. It seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary.

4.3 Minerals Act 1986.

4.3.1 The ownership of minerals in the Isle of Man is vested in the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture under the Minerals Act 1986. The Department permits operation/developers to extract minerals via mining losses, mining licences and mining permissions and the Minerals Act 1986 broadly sets out the circumstances and procedures by which these Agreements are granted.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and as such thereafter.

Any retained tree or plantings within the site which within five years of the approved development being occupied or completed (whichever is the later) dies, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced by a similar species, of a size to be first approved in writing by the Department, during the next planting season or in accordance with a programme of replacement to be agreed in writing with the Department.

Reason: In the interests of protecting and enhancing the biodiversity of the environment.

C 10. Prior to commencement of development hereby approved, a bird brick plan shall be submitted and approved in writing, recommending integrated bird bricks suitable for starlings or house sparrows instead of bird boxes. The bird and bat mitigation measures shall then be fully implemented in accordance with the approved plans and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To ensure adequate safeguards for the ecological species existing on the site and locality, in line with Environmental Policies 4 and 5.

C 11. The clear glass balustrades must be installed with methods for the prevention of bird strike which may include etching, decals or ultraviolet coatings prior to the building being brought into use and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of preventing bird strikes, given the large size of glazing and location of dwelling.

C 12. Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, a formal power line diversion plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The plan shall ensure compliance with Energy Policy 2 and General Policy 2 (m), addressing public safety, infrastructure integrity, and required clearances. The diversion works shall be fully implemented prior to the erection of any dwelling on-site and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To ensure the safe and compliant relocation of the existing overhead power lines, maintaining public safety and infrastructure integrity in accordance with Energy Policy 2 and General Policy 2 (m).

Reason for approval: The proposed development does not fully align with the broader principles of General Policy 3 (GP 3), Housing Policy 4 (HP 4), Environment Policy 1 (EP1), and Strategic Policy 3 (SP 3), which seek to restrict development outside designated areas and preserve the countryside. However, Strategic Policies 1, 2, and 10 provide flexibility for sustainable extensions to existing settlements, particularly where access to infrastructure, transport, and essential services is optimized. The site's proximity to existing residential areas and public transport networks, including a bus transit corridor in Port St. Mary, ensures strong connectivity, reducing reliance on private car use in line with Strategic Policy 10. The design and layout integrate well with the built environment, maintaining visual and residential amenity while biodiversity concerns are addressed through mitigation measures. The proposal exceeds parking requirements, ensures adequate highway access, and incorporates necessary infrastructure safeguards, including conditions for power line diversion under Energy Policy 2 and General Policy 2 (m). Additionally, the site's Class 3 agricultural soil classification confirms it does not result in the loss of high-quality agricultural land, meeting the requirements of Environment Policy 14.

Right to Appeal

It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:

DOI Highway Services - No objection
DOI Highways Drainage - No objection
Mara Utilities Authority (Electricity) - No objection
Arbory and Rushen Parish Commissioners - No objection

Planning Officer's Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The application site is part of Field 411543, which sits to the north of Castletown Road, Port St. Mary, and on the edge of the settlement boundary of Port St. Mary. The site sits between two dwellings: 'Roughlands' to the west, and 'Sandpiper' to the east, with the northern boundary backing onto the broader field area for Field 411543. The site frontage which fronts onto the Castletown Road directly overlooks the front boundary of 'Belmont', and rear elevations of 'Kinnew', 'Tides Reach', and 'Overdoume', which are all situated along Beach Road, Port St Mary.

1.2 This site which sits close to the junction between Castletown Road and Shore Road, Port St Mary, rises towards the northern boundary and the adjoining field area to the north. The site frontage is bounded by a low stone boundary wall which rises to about 1m.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Planning approval is sought for erection of a new dwelling on site. The proposed scheme would be for a contemporary two storey detached dwelling types.

2.2 The proposed dwelling which would be a split-level dwelling with floor area measuring about 298sqm on the ground floor, and about 295sqm on the first floor, resulting in a dwelling that measures about 593sqm.

2.3 The new dwelling will have a layout accommodating an integral four car garage, a bedroom with ensuite, a utility room, plant room, and entry area with foyer and spiral stairway, and a lift area on the ground floor. The first floor would support an open plan living room/kitchen/dining area, a hallway with access to the rear garden which is on the same level as the rear elevation which appears a single storey, two bedrooms each with ensuite, a study, WC adjoining the lift and stair area. There would be a wrap-around first floor terrace area that measures about 170sqm, which sits to the front elevation of the dwelling and offers views towards the bay. Access to the first-floor terrace would be via an external stairway to the side (east elevation) of the dwelling.

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 19th May 2025

Item 5.7
Proposal: Site Address: Encluse of a new dwelling
Plot East Of Roughlands
Castletown Road
Port St Mary
Isle Of Man
IMS 5LT

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Russell and Jane Collister
Application No.: 25/00019/8 - did to view
Planning Officer: Paul Violgeh

RECOMMENDATION: To APPROVE the application

Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval
C: Conditions for approval
N: Notes (if any) attached to the conditions

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

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

C.2.
Prior to the occupation of any dwelling hereby approved, the garage, car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than for purposes associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.

Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety.

C.3.
The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until all access design and visibility spikes have been provided in accordance with the approved plan (Drawing No. 2403_102 Rev A). The visibility spike shall have no obstructions greater than 1m in height within the spiky zone and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking in the interests of highway safety.

C.4.
The access to the site shall be bound and consolidated within 5 meters of the adopted highway boundary.

Reason: To ensure a durable and stable surface that prevents debris from being carried onto the public highways, in the interest of highway safety.

with the character and appearance of the lane and surrounds given the existing property, access, and other mature hedging to the front reflecting the character of other residential properties nearby. Furthermore, given this was an application in principle with matters reserved for future consideration, there would be opportunity to ensure appropriate design and siting without detriment to the character and appearance of the immediate surrounds
42. As discussed at the Inquiry a condition restricting the floor area of any new dwelling to 192 square metres, as per the application details, would further ensure any effect was minimal. The retention of the existing dwelling
43. I accept that planning applications or indicative proposals have not been submitted and in that light it has not been fully demonstrated that the existing dwelling could not be altered/extended or improved. In addition, no scheme has been explored for redevelopment of the site overall. I also accept, given the findings of the Registered Buildings Officer that the benefits of removing previous extensions would be minimal.
44. However, having heard the oral submissions of the appellant and her partner

at the inquiry I am in no doubt about their passion for and desire/ambition to renovate what they see as a historic building and secure their long-term occupation. That renovation would be funded by the development of the new dwelling which would take advantage of existing services and access points for two dwellings. Further benefits would be improving the energy efficiency of the existing property with minimisation of construction related embedded emissions.

45. Furthermore, the argument that the existing house could be demolished and a ‘trophy house’ built in its stead is not without merit. There is no dispute that such a development could be secured under Housing Polices 12 and 14 which address the replacement of existing dwellings. I am also in no doubt that a new dwelling on the existing footprint which, in accordance with policy, could potentially be larger in terms of floor area, would have a significantly different and potentially more harmful visual effect on the character and appearance of the locality. A matter in my view which weighs in favour of the proposal. Distance to settlement
46. In this case the site is within a mile of the local, school, shop and church and access is available along a 20mph footpath or through the Public Rights of Way. That seems to me to be relatively convenient and whilst the argument that any new house could not be considered properly part of Sulby, based on the settlement pattern, it is not so far out to discount access to services in Sulby. No argument has been made that it is not in a sustainable location, and it would be as sustainable as the existing dwelling on site and others along this section of road.
47. Furthermore, whilst there is no dispute that the site is outside of the settlement boundary for Sulby and is not allocated in the draft Area Plan for the North/West, I am mindful of the erection of two dwellings on Glen Road (ref:15/00991/B) which was considered by the Minister. In that case it was found that significant time had passed since the adoption of the Local Plan and consideration of that site for development would not prejudice the due process

A location plan showing the proposed site for a new detached dwelling with surrounding roads, boundaries, and nearby landmarks.

of the new Area Plan. The draft Plan is still in draft form and inevitably carries little weight. In addition, there is no dispute that the site lies within the same study area as that given approval. I see no reason why, in the same way, consideration of this site would also not prejudice the draft Plan.

Other matters

48. The proposed drawings show an indicative layout, but I see no reason to disagree with the Planning Authority’s view that, given the size of the plot and the distance from the existing dwelling to that proposed, no harm would occur to the living conditions of occupier of either property or those nearby. In any event the potential effects through overlooking, loss of light, overbearing impact, privacy and visual amenity, all matters which would be considered at any future Reserved Matters Application
49. The one tree to be removed is of poor form and limited stature, its removal will have minimal effect. No objections have been raised by Highway Services subject to conditions. The same applies in respect of Ecology and Trees. Overall Conclusion
50. For the reasons set out above and having considered all matters raised I recommend that the decision to refuse the application should be overturned and planning approval be granted. Given the very particular circumstances of this case, I find that the considerations in favour of this application in principle outweigh the planning policy considerations relating to development in the countryside. The matters are finely balanced, and the Officer’s report cannot be criticised, these are matters of judgment.
51. As set out, whilst in principle the development would be at odds with Policies SP4 and SP5, I am not convinced any harm to the countryside or character and appearance of the locality would ensue. The countryside would remain protected and there would be further benefits as discussed which tip the balance in favour of the development. Conditions
52. I consider that in addition to the standard time condition and approval of reserved matters, conditions relating to landscaping; submission of details of matters to be included in any future reserved matters application; the submission of an energy statement; and details of access and manoeuvring areas. These conditions comprise those set out at the end of the Planning Authority statement of case and as discussed during the Inquiry. They have been amended in line with those discussions. Recommendation
53. I recommend that the appeal be allowed; that the Planning Authority decision be set aside and that planning approval be granted in principle for the erection of a new dwelling, closing up of existing access, creation of new access and demolition of part of The Bungalow, addressing details of the means of access at The Bungalow, Ballamanagh Road, Sulby, Isle Of Man IM7 2HB, subject to the conditions set out in the Schedule below and in accordance with the submitted drawings; Site Plans 21 1529 01 & 02, South-West Visibility Splay 21 1529 03, North-East Visibility Splay 21 1520 04, Location Plan 211529 05. Reason: Overall, it is considered the proposed dwelling in principle would be acceptable. It would be of a size in proportion to the whole site, whilst not

Architectural drawing sheet displaying four elevations, a first-floor plan, and a cross-section of a proposed modern detached bungalow. The drawings include details of solar panels on the roof and internal room layouts.

having significant impacts upon the residential amenity of neighbouring properties. The dwelling would not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside and would accord with Policy EP1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan2016. Furthermore, when added to the further benefits demonstrated, planning policy considerations relating to development in the countryside are outweighed.

Richard Perrins

R J Perrins MA Independent Inspector 23 September 2022

Schedule of Conditions C1. Approval of the following (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Department in writing before any development is commenced:

(a) the details of siting, design, external appearance and internal layout of the new dwelling;
(b) the drainage and landscaping of the site; and
(c) the details of the proposed works to the existing dwelling (‘The Bungalow), including design, external appearance and internal layout. Reason: To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019. C2. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Department before the expiration of two years from the date of this approval and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved. Reason: To avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C3. Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in condition 1 shall include details of;

(a) the new dwelling limited to a floor plan of 192 square metres;
(b) the surface treatment of any roadways and other parts of the site which will not be covered by buildings;
(c) all external materials to be used in the development;
(d) existing and proposed ground and floor levels;
(e) foul and surface water drainage.
(f) existing and proposed ground and floor levels; and
(g) provide sustainable drainage systems. Reason: in the interest of the character of the area and drainage on/off site. C4. Any future Reserved Matters application shall also include details of:

(a) Bicycle, EV charging points and car parking provisions in accordance with the adopted standard;
(b) Waste bin storage and collection;
(c) Integrated measurers to support bio-diversity net gain; and
(d) How the site is to be subdivided between dwellings to create two curtilages, including boundary treatments, along with the provision of turning and parking areas. The new dwelling shall not be occupied unless the site has been so subdivided and laid out and shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and Biodiversity, and to ensure that two separate and individually adequate curtilages are provided in the interested of the amenity of future occupiers. C5. No development shall commence until a bat survey has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The bat survey shall identify

impacts on bat species together with mitigation, where appropriate, including a timetable for its implementation. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the bats. C6. Prior to the commencement of any works an Energy Statement shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Department (planningplanning) which demonstrates the new dwelling has a Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) rating of at least 97 (or similar rating system) and prior to the occupation of the dwelling a further Energy Statement post completion shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department (planning) to demonstrate that the SAP rating of at least 97 (or similar rating system) has been achieved. Reason: A reason why the application is considered acceptable is due to the overall environmental impacts as outlined on Housing Policy 14 and namely the eco efficiency credentials of the new dwelling. C7. The development hereby approved shall not be commenced until a tree planting plan is submitted to and agreed in writing by the Department. Where applicable the plan shall adhere to the recommendations of BS8545:2014 (Trees: from nursery to independence in the landscape - recommendations) and in all cases shall include the following details:

(a) the exact location, species, nursery specification and planting specification of each tree (or group of trees) to be planted. Where groups or larger areas are to be planted state the area and planting density.
(b) the approximate date when they are to be planted
(c) how they will be maintained until successfully established. Reason: to ensure an appropriate standard of visual amenity in the local area and that thedevelopment is appropriately landscaped to sit comfortably and acceptably in its locationC8. The tree planting shall take place as agreed and any trees which, within a period of 5 years from their first planting, are removed, or, in the opinion of the Department, become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Department gives written consent to any variation. Reason: to ensure an appropriate standard of visual amenity in the local area and that the development is appropriately landscaped to sit comfortably and acceptably in its location C9. The new dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied unless the access and visibility splays, as shown on the approved plans, have been provided and they shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: in the interests of highway safety 21 1529 01 Site Plan; 21 1529 02 Site Plan; 21 1529 03 South -West Visibility Splay (but also labelled north-west); 21 1529 04 North-East Visibility Splay; 21 1529 05 Location Plan End of Schedule

D Minister’s Decision

APPENDIX 7 PA23/00267/A PORT SODERICK, SANTON

A Location Plan

B Inspector’s report

Report on a Planning Appeal by the Written Procedure

Site Inspection: Monday 23 October 2023 Appeal made by Oliver Blaker and Eleanor Kelly against the refusal of a planning application for approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling and garage on land adjacent to Merrion Park, Old Castletown Road, Port Soderick, Isle of Man, IM4 1BB. _________________________________________________________ Procedural Matters

1. Although the application and appeal are for approval in principle, the matters of siting and means of access are for detailed consideration at this stage. The Appellants state that siting of the dwelling as shown on the application drawings is merely indicative but, as this matter is not reserved, the appeal falls to be determined on the basis of the layout submitted.

Description
2. The appeal site is 28.5m wide and 56.8m deep and in current use for grazing. It has trees and hedges along its south eastern boundary and south western roadside frontage but is open to the rest of the field to the north west.
3. The site is immediately south west of the detached dwelling at Merrion Park, which itself forms part of a small group of houses on the north west side of the A25, including Claremont and Fuschia Cottage. The appeal site slopes gently upwards from the A25, which at this point has 1.6m wide verge extending across the whole site frontage.
4. Immediately to the south west is an access track serving a pair of singlestorey dwellings some 100m from the road. On the other side of the track are two more substantial detached properties. There is a further row of five frontage dwellings on the opposite side of the A25. The appeal site has a gated road access close to the adjacent access track.
5. The proposal is to site a dwelling and garage approximately in the centre of the site with a new, central vehicle access direct to the A25. The present gate would be close off with new boundary planting. Planning Policy
6. The site is in the countryside outside any recognised settlement, is undesignated for any type of development and lies within a designated Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV).
7. Within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP), Environment Policies 1 and (EP1-2) together protect the countryside of the AHLV for its own sake This is

regarded as the most important consideration unless the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape or its location is essential.

8. General Policy 3 (GP3) of the IMSP resists new building outside areas zoned for development but makes certain exceptions, none of which apply in this case.
9. Housing Policies 1 and 4 (HP1; HP4), consistent with Strategic Policy 1 (StrP1) and Spatial Policy 2 (SpP2), provide for new housing to meet Island needs but primarily within settlements and only exceptionally in the countryside, with similar exceptions to those of GP3. StrP10 provides that new development should be located so as to minimise car journeys and make the best use of public transport.
10. Section 8.8 of the supporting text of the IMSP, referring specifically to small groups of houses in the countryside, recognises that, in the countryside, there are such groups of buildings not having the characteristics of a settlement but with a sense of place and community. Whilst adding new dwellings to such groups does not accord with settlement and sustainability policy, if sensitively related to the existing development pattern and the landscape, they may assist in meeting the needs of rural areas, help maintain social and family associations, and support the local economy.
11. StrP3 protects the individual character of villages. StrP4 also protects the landscape from the adverse effects of development.

12. Supporting paragraph 7.34.1 of the IMSP seeks the conservation and enhancement of the individual character of settlements with a high standard of design and landscaping and recognises that infill development can be acceptable but that the value of spaces between buildings should not be underestimated.
13. The Isle of Man Landscape Character Assessment of July 2008 (LCA) defines the surrounding area of incised slopes where the aim is to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area, with its scattered settlement pattern. Planning History
14. The appeal site itself has not been the subject of any previous planning application. Together

with Claremont and Merrion Park, it forms part of a field running down to the road between Fuschia Cottage and the access track, until Claremont and then Merrion Park were approved respectively about 2005-2007. The Case for the Appellants The material points are: Appraisal

15. The development is in a locality, known as Ballaveare, which has previously been recognised as a hamlet where development could be successfully accommodated and, upon that basis, much residential development has been approved. The aerial photograph submitted by the Planning Authority dates from 2006 and is incomplete with regard to later developments adjacent to the appeal site. The images provided by the Appellants are more up to date and should be preferred.
16. This proposal is for infill development, not sporadic or isolated development in the countryside. The Area Plan for the East (APE) totally ignores IMSP Section

8 in failing to identify any small settlements for the provision of appropriate new development. The appeal proposal falls into that category, being for a young local couple with local connections and is designed to marry in with existing development.

17. The principle physical features of Ballaveare are Old Castletown Road itself, the access lane on the south west side of the site and the tree- and hedge-lined property boundaries. None would be harmed by the proposed development.
18. The refusal of the application gave insufficient weight to the lack of harm to

the countryside which would arise from the development, as recognised by former Ministers as key to the application of EP1-2 of the IMSP.

19. The location of the site is such that alternative forms of transport to Douglas are available and therefore car journeys could be minimised, in line with StrP10.
20. No substantive objections have been received from statutory consultees or third parties. The Appellants own the appeal site. Their relatives farm Ballashamrock and Southampton Farms and also own the field immediately behind the site.

21. Although not zoned for development, the land appears as a natural infill plot located within a hamlet, surrounded by residential development on both sides of the highway.
22. The site can be serviced adequately with both water and electricity. The proposed dwelling would be similar in size to the two neighbouring dwellings, Merrion Park and Claremont, to the east.
23. An indicative footprint shows how a dwelling and garage would be accommodated on the site. Substantial separating distances could be achieved between the dwelling and neighbouring properties to avoid any adverse impact on outlook, privacy or light.
24. The dwelling would be sympathetically designed in keeping with the area and would be eco-friendly, highly insulated and substantially airtight, to reduce energy consumption, being powered largely by solar energy from photovoltaic panels and an air source heat pump. An electric vehicle charging point would be provided in line with Government climate change objectives.
25. The location shown for the dwelling is behind the frontage building line and outside the canopies of existing boundary trees alongside the adjacent lane.
26. If approval is forthcoming, the Appellants will consult with the Planning Authority, prior to a reserved matters application, to agree detailed proposals.
27. Aesthetically, the development would be in keeping with the building styles in the area.
28. Foul sewage would discharge to a new Kingspan/Klargester Biodisc treatment tank to accord with building regulations. Storm water would discharge to Aquacell soakaways a minimum of 5m from any building or boundary.
29. The existing g gate would be sealed up and replaced by a new access located at the centre of the site frontage in accordance with Government guidelines, with minimum sight lines of 2.4m by 90m. The latter are achievable in both directions, well in excess of Highway Authority guidelines. The access would be set back by at least 6m in a similar way to those of the neighbouring properties. Off-road parking and turning space and cycle storage would be provided as required. Pre-submission consultation with the Highway Authority has been favourable. The existing access has slightly restricted visibility due to the existence of an electricity pole so would be blocked up in favour of a new entrance with adequate vision splays over the 1.6m wide grass roadside verge.
30. Both neighbouring properties were also approved on land not zoned for development, with the Merrion Park site referred to as being located within an existing settlement which could not be classed as open countryside. The assessment commented that, given the surrounding development, the Merrion Park proposal did not represent the consolidation of ribbon development but an infill plot, leaving the present appeal site as one further such plot. The present appeal site has thus already been accepted as a potential building plot.

31. The Appellants are aware of several other examples of dwellings approved on land, not zoned for development.
32. Development here would consolidate the settlement without expanding into the countryside and would not be harmful to the character or appearance of the landscape.
33. Every application should be judged on its own merits and favourable

consideration should be given to this proposal, bearing in mind its location, previous development in the locality and the favourable officer comments made in connection the earlier Merrion Park approval.

34. The Appellants wish build their family home where one of them has always lived, instead of having to rent a property in Douglas. They are seeking a longterm, sustainable, energy-efficient home, suitable for modern living in a familiar community. The plot is in their ownership and is the one remaining piece of land in the corner of the original field which already has two properties approved and completed within it. The adjoining farmland is owned and managed by relatives.
35. There is a roadside bus stop only about 180m east of the appeal site serving a circular bus route from Douglas.
36. The appeal land slopes down to the road between the houses and is in the middle of the north side of Ballaveare.
37. The site is screened from the road side by Manx hedges incorporating hedgerow shrubs and mature trees.
38. The proposed siting of the house and garage and positioning of the rear north west boundary matches the alignment of Merrion Park and Claremont to the east. The Appellants will happily accept any conditions with regard to the design of a future house on their site to match in with existing surrounding properties. Conclusions
39. The IMSP recognises that adding further dwellings to small hamlets such as Ballaveare may assist in meeting the needs of rural areas such as by maintaining social and family associations and assisting in sustaining the rural economy when sensitively related to the existing settlement pattern and the landscape and having particular regard to the value of existing spaces. In this light, the refusal of the present proposal is inequitable.
40. Over half of the properties in Ballaveare are non-traditional and post-date the modern planning policy and many have been subject to approvals not in strict accord with the IMSP.
41. Ballaveare is clearly a roadside residential area typical of the Old Castletown Road. The site itself is surrounded by development. Roadside properties have strong boundary hedgerows with trees or Manx hedgebanks. The site is similarly well screened and the open field backdrop would remain. The proposal would therefore fit into the character and visual appearance of the locality.

42. The only view into the site is from the existing access at the corner and from there it appears as a garden associated with Merrion Park. There is no sense of it providing a break between recent houses to the north east and older development to the south west, which has itself been modernised. A further house would not spoil the setting of either. The proposal in itself does not constitute ribbon development and would merge naturally into the existing settlement.
43. In its existing state, the appeal site is of no specific benefit to the surrounding area as open space. The development would not adversely block views of the countryside to the rear which comprise a vista of a rising grass field. The development would follow the settlement pattern and would set no precedent. Once additional screening vegetation has matured, visibility of the proposal would be minimised. The character and quality of the surrounding countryside and its landscape would not be harmed.
44. There is a bus service via Ballaveare to Douglas which is only about four miles distant and the settlement is only some five miles from the airport, and both are within easy cycling distance. The fact that alternative forms of transport to the nearest employment centre are available means that the use of the car can be minimised and therefore that the proposal is in line with StrP10.
45. The appeal site is well landscaped and screened and the development details could be controlled at the reserved matters stage. The development would meet a local need and would not affect the amenity of neighbouring properties.
46. Overall, the proposed development would not be harmful to the countryside or the visual aspects of the landscape and so would not conflict with EP1 of the IMSP. Insufficient weight has been given to this.
47. There are no objections to the proposal from Braddan Commissioners, the Highway Authority or local residents.
48. The appeal should be allowed and the refusal overturned. Planning Conditions
49. Conditions suggested by the Planning Authority regarding biodiversity and replacement planting ignore the fact that no species of particular interest for retention have been identified in the site, given the appeal land currently remains in use for grazing.
50. Any condition relating to existing trees and hedgerows should not be applied to the east boundary of the adjacent access lane as they are outside of the appeal site and not in the control of the Appellants. Those trees and hedgerow could be practically be protected during any construction by fencing within the site at an appropriate distance from the boles of the trees. Additional planting could take place inside the site if required. The only loss of hedgerow or trees would be for the new 4m wide access, to be replaced by new hedgerow. There would be additional native planting adjacent to the access, shown on the submitted plans.

51. It is therefore considered that those proposed conditions (4 and 6) are inappropriate in their current form, bearing in mind how little impact on the existing boundaries, trees and hedges would occur. The Case for the Planning Authority Issues
52. The relevant elements are the principle of the development, visual impact and highway safety. Principle
53. The appeal site is not allocated for any type of development and lies within a protected part of the countryside where any development is strictly controlled.
54. Although approval was previously granted for residential development on the adjoining two plots for Claremont and Merrion Park, to which the present site was previously attached as a single field, this field remains undesignated for development. The surrounding residential development also lies in protected countryside, as it does not have a defined a settlement boundary and is regarded as a cluster of dwellings outside any settlement.
55. In principle therefore, the proposed residential development would be contrary to StrP2 and SpP4 of the IMSP.
56. It is noted that the Appellants regard the appeal site as an infill plot and claim exceptional circumstances in that they have farming connections to the locality and would like to build their family home in the community where one of them has always lived, instead of having to rent a property in Douglas.
57. However, StrP2, GP3, H4 and H7 of the IMSP together prioritise the location of new residential development within existing towns and villages and provide that development in the countryside will only be permitted in certain exceptional circumstances, none of which apply in this case, notwithstanding the local agricultural connections of the Appellants.
58. Whilst two previous planning permissions have resulted in the development of adjoining land for two open market dwellings, Merrion Park and Claremont, these permissions of 2005-7 pre-date the current provisions of the IMSP of 2016.
59. Whilst the previous development plan contained similar policies, planning applications for development should be considered against the provisions of the current Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, it is considered that insufficient personal circumstances have been put forward to outweigh adopted policies Visual Amenity
60. It is key that any dwelling should be in keeping with and sympathetic to the character of the site and surrounding area which, in this case, is characterised mainly by two-storey, detached and semi-detached dwellings. Neighbouring dwellings are within spacious plots with mature landscape screening, albeit Merrion Park and Claremont are both relatively new.

61. The main public views of the site are from Old Castletown Road and, to a lesser extent, from the adjoining track just to the south west. Any new dwelling and garage would be most obvious when viewed from directly opposite the site entrance.
62. The character and appearance of the site is presently emphasised by its grass sward, mature roadside hedging and the tree-lined south west boundary and it represents an important visual break in development in this relatively loose-knit cluster of dwellings in the countryside.
63. It is considered that the erection of dwelling and garage on the site would unacceptably alter the character and appearance of this part of Old Castletown Road and result in the loss of this important soft, green visual gap between older and more recent development. This gap adds to the semi-rural character of the site and its surroundings.
64. In this regard it is considered that the proposed development would be contrary to the provisions of EP1 of the IMSP, which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake, in the absence of evidence regarding any overriding national need in land use planning terms or the lack of any reasonable and acceptable alternative.
65. In addition, it is considered that the siting, scale and visual impact of a dwelling and garage on the character of the site, adjoining dwellings, and overall surroundings would fail to accord with the provisions of GP2(b) and (c) of the IMSP. Highway Safety
66. Old Castletown Road is relatively wide and straight in the vicinity of the site and subject to a 30mph speed limit. The development could provide visibility splays of 2.4m by 90m, exceeding Highway Authority requirements of 2.4m x 43m. On-site turning areas and parking provision, along with cycle parking and electric vehicle charging, could be accommodated on the site. Accordingly, there is no objection on highway grounds and the proposal complies with GP2 of the IMSP all technical requirements in this regard, subject to standard conditions. Planning Conditions
67. Planning conditions are suggested without prejudice.

There is an extensive area of montbretia in the road verge that would require to be removed to facilitate the construction of the new access. Montbretia is a Wildlife Act 1990 Schedule 8 invasive non-native plant species. A montbretia avoidance and eradication plan has been submitted and, in the event that planning approval is granted, the works should be required to comply with this plan in order to comply with EP4-5 of the IMSP.

69. The proposal involves the use of a BioDisc packaged sewage treatment plant and Aquacell storm water soakaways. The DEFA Environmental Protection Officer has raised no objection in principle to these proposed arrangements, subject to further information being submitted to meet future drainage license

Miss Pippa Edmonds The Bungalow Ballamanagh Road Sulby Lezayre Isle of Man IM7 2H8

Telephone: (01624) 685958 Email: [email protected] Contact: Mr S Stanley Our Ref: MEC /AP22/0020 Date: 14th November 2022

Dear Miss Edmonds,

On Appeal

PA No: 21/01161/A

Address: The Bungalow, Ballamanagh Road, Sulby, Isle of Man, IM7 2HB

Proposal: Approval in principle for the erection of a new dwelling, closing up of existing access, creation of new access and demolition of part of The Bungalow, addressing details of the means of access

I refer to the appeal in respect of the above planning application.

In accordance with the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, I herewith give notice of the appeal decision.

The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Hon C Barber MHK, has considered the report, concurs with the appointed person's conclusions, and accepts the recommendation that the appeal should be allowed. Accordingly, she has directed that the Department's refusal of the application should be reversed, and that the application should be Approved subject to conditions. Formal notice of this decision is attached.

Yours faithfully

Redacted

Mr S Stanley Interim Chief Executive For and on behalf of the Minister

cc. Penketh – Millar, 23 West Quay, Ramsey, Isle Of Man, IM8 1DL

The Town And Country Planning Act 1999

The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019

Miss Pippa Edmonds The Bungalow Ballamanagh Road Sulby Lezayre Isle of Man IM7 2HB

In pursuance of his powers under the above Act and Order/Regulations, the Minister for the Department of the Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Hon C Barber MHK does hereby in the name of and on behalf of the Department APPROVE planning application 21/01161/A by Miss Pippa Edmonds for Approval in principle for the erection of a new dwelling, closing up of existing access, creation of new access and demolition of part of The Bungalow, addressing details of the means of access - The Bungalow, Ballamanagh Road, Sulby, Isle of Man, IM7 2HB, subject to the following conditions:-

Conditions Of Approval:

Approval of the following (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Department in writing before any development is commenced:

(a) the details of siting, design, external appearance and internal layout of the new dwelling; (b) the drainage and landscaping of the site; and (c) the details of the proposed works to the existing dwelling (The Bungalow), including design, external appearance and internal layout.

Reason: To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019.

Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Department before the expiration of two years from the date of this approval and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved.

Reason: To avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in condition 1 shall include details of;

(a) the new dwelling limited to a floor plan of 192 square meters; (b) the surface treatment of any roadways and other parts of the site which will not be covered by buildings; (c) all external materials to be used in the development; (d) existing and proposed ground and floor levels; (e) foul and surface water drainage; (f) existing and proposed ground and floor levels; and (g) provide sustainable drainage systems.

Reason: In the interest of the character of the area and drainage on/off site.

Any future Reserved Matters application shall also include details of:

(a) Bicycle, EV charging points and car parking provisions in accordance with the adopted standard; (b) Waste bin storage and collection; (c) Integrated measurers to support bio-diversity net gain; and (d) How the site is to be subdivided between dwellings to create two curtilages, including boundary treatments, along with the provision of turning and parking areas.

The new dwelling shall not be occupied unless the site has been so subdivided and laid out and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and Biodiversity, and to ensure that two separate and individually adequate curtilages are provided in the interested of the amenity of future occupiers.

No development shall commence until a bat survey has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The bat survey shall identify impacts on bat species together with mitigation, where appropriate, including a timetable for its implementation. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the bats.

Prior to the commencement of any works an Energy Statement shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Department (planning) which demonstrates the new dwelling has a Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) rating of at least 97 (or similar rating system) and prior to the occupation of the dwelling a further Energy Statement post completion shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department (planning) to demonstrate that the SAP rating of at least 97 (or similar rating system) has been achieved.

Reason: A reason why the application is considered acceptable is due to the overall environmental impacts as outlined on Housing Policy 14 and namely the eco efficiency credentials of the new dwelling.

The development hereby approved shall not be commenced until a tree planting plan is submitted to and agreed in writing by the Department. Where applicable the plan shall adhere to the recommendations of BS8545:2014 (Trees: from nursery to independence in the landscape - recommendations) and in all cases shall include the following details:

(a) the exact location, species, nursery specification and planting specification of each tree (or group of trees) to be planted. Where groups or larger areas are to be planted state the area and planting density; (b) the approximate date when they are to be planted; and

Reason: To ensure an appropriate standard of visual amenity in the local area and that the development is appropriately landscaped to sit comfortably and acceptably in its location.

The tree planting shall take place as agreed and any trees which, within a period of 5 years from their first planting, are removed, or, in the opinion of the Department, become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Department gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: To ensure an appropriate standard of visual amenity in the local area and that the development is appropriately landscaped to sit comfortably and acceptably in its location.

The new dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied unless the access and visibility splays, as shown on the approved plans, have been provided and they shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety. NOTE: This approval relates to the following: This decision has been made for the following reasons(s): The proposed development is considered to comply with Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. Date of issue: 14th November 2022 By Order of the Minister

Redacted

Mr S Stanley Interim Chief Executive

Note 1: A copy of the report of the appointed person is appended hereto.

Note 2: All parties should note that there is no prescribed right of appeal relevant to the Minister’s decision herein and accordingly the only right of challenge is by a petition of doleance brought to the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man. Such doleance proceedings required to be issued promptly and in any event within 3 months.

Note 3: The letter which accompanies this notice forms part of the notice in accordance with Article 13 (3) of the Town & Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019.

DRAWING NUMBER/DOCUMENT TITLE

Site Plan – Drwg No: 21 1529 01
Site Plan – Drwg No: 21 1529 02
South -West Visibility Splay (but also labelled north-west) – Drwg No: 21 1529 03
North-East Visibility Splay – Drwg No: 21 1529 04
Location Plan – Drwg No: 21 1529 05

The dwelling hereby approved shall not be first occupied until the submitted montbretia eradication and avoidance plan, for the area of montbretia in that part of the road verge to be removed to form the site access, has been implemented and measures taken to prevent the spread of this invasive plant into the wild, contrary to the Wildlife Act 1990 and to replace it with native replacement planting. Reason: To ensure compliance with the Wildlife Act 1990 and Environment Policies 4 and 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in the interests of biodiversity.
7. Details of foul and surface water drainage provision to serve the development, hereby approved, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. Such approved drainage scheme shall be installed prior to the development hereby permitted being first occupied and shall thereafter be retained and maintained at all times. Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately drained and does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.

--- end of appendix ---

A location plan showing the proposed site outlined in red and the surrounding land outlined in blue, with nearby properties and roads labeled.

C Minister’s Decision

Supporting paragraph 7.34.1 of the IMSP seeks the conservation and

enhancement of the individual character of settlements with a high standard of design and landscaping and recognises that infill development can be acceptable but that the value of spaces between buildings should not be underestimated.

The Isle of Man Landscape Character Assessment of July 2008 (LCA) defines

the surrounding area of incised slopes where the aim is to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area, with its scattered settlement pattern. Planning History

The appeal site itself has not been the subject of any previous planning

application. Together

The development is in a locality, known as Ballaveare, which has previously

been recognised as a hamlet where development could be successfully accommodated and, upon that basis, much residential development has been approved. The aerial photograph submitted by the Planning Authority dates from 2006 and is incomplete with regard to later developments adjacent to the appeal site. The images provided by the Appellants are more up to date and should be preferred.

This proposal is for infill development, not sporadic or isolated development

in the countryside. The Area Plan for the East (APE) totally ignores IMSP Section 8 in failing to identify any small settlements for the provision of appropriate new development. The appeal proposal falls into that category, being for a young local couple with local connections and is designed to marry in with existing development.

The principle physical features of Ballaveare are Old Castletown Road itself,

the access lane on the south west side of the site and the tree- and hedge-lined property boundaries. None would be harmed by the proposed development.

The refusal of the application gave insufficient weight to the lack of harm to

the countryside which would arise from the development, as recognised by former Ministers as key to the application of EP1-2 of the IMSP.

The location of the site is such that alternative forms of transport to Douglas

are available and therefore car journeys could be minimised, in line with StrP10.

No substantive objections have been received from statutory consultees or

third parties. The Appellants own the appeal site. Their relatives farm Ballashamrock and Southampton Farms and also own the field immediately behind the site.

Although not zoned for development, the land appears as a natural infill plot

located within a hamlet, surrounded by residential development on both sides of the highway.

The site can be serviced adequately with both water and electricity. The

proposed dwelling would be similar in size to the two neighbouring dwellings, Merrion Park and Claremont, to the east.

An indicative footprint shows how a dwelling and garage would be

accommodated on the site. Substantial separating distances could be achieved between the dwelling and neighbouring properties to avoid any adverse impact on outlook, privacy or light.

The dwelling would be sympathetically designed in keeping with the area and

would be eco-friendly, highly insulated and substantially airtight, to reduce energy consumption, being powered largely by solar energy from photovoltaic panels and an air source heat pump. An electric vehicle charging point would be provided in line with Government climate change objectives.

The location shown for the dwelling is behind the frontage building line and

outside the canopies of existing boundary trees alongside the adjacent lane.

If approval is forthcoming, the Appellants will consult with the Planning

Authority, prior to a reserved matters application, to agree detailed proposals.

Aesthetically, the development would be in keeping with the building styles

in the area.

Foul sewage would discharge to a new Kingspan/Klargester Biodisc

treatment tank to accord with building regulations. Storm water would discharge to Aquacell soakaways a minimum of 5m from any building or boundary.

The existing g

gate would be sealed up and replaced by a new access located at the centre of the site frontage in accordance with Government guidelines, with minimum sight lines of 2.4m by 90m. The latter are achievable in both directions, well in excess of Highway Authority guidelines. The access would be set back by at least 6m in a similar way to those of the neighbouring properties. Off-road parking and turning space and cycle storage would be provided as required. Pre-submission consultation with the Highway Authority has been favourable. The existing access has slightly restricted visibility due to the existence of an electricity pole so would be blocked up in favour of a new entrance with adequate vision splays over the 1.6m wide grass roadside verge.

Both neighbouring properties were also approved on land not zoned for

development, with the Merrion Park site referred to as being located within an existing settlement which could not be classed as open countryside. The assessment commented that, given the surrounding development, the Merrion Park proposal did not represent the consolidation of ribbon development but an infill plot, leaving the present appeal site as one further such plot. The present appeal site has thus already been accepted as a potential building plot.

The Appellants are aware of several other examples of dwellings approved

on land, not zoned for development.

Development here would consolidate the settlement without expanding into

the countryside and would not be harmful to the character or appearance of the landscape.

Every application should be judged on its own merits and favourable

The Appellants wish build their family home where one of them has always

lived, instead of having to rent a property in Douglas. They are seeking a long- term, sustainable, energy-efficient home, suitable for modern living in a familiar community. The plot is in their ownership and is the one remaining piece of land in the corner of the original field which already has two properties approved and completed within it. The adjoining farmland is owned and managed by relatives.

There is a roadside bus stop only about 180m east of the appeal site serving

a circular bus route from Douglas.

The appeal land slopes down to the road between the houses and is in the

middle of the north side of Ballaveare.

The site is screened from the road side by Manx hedges incorporating

hedgerow shrubs and mature trees.

The proposed siting of the house and garage and positioning of the rear

north west boundary matches the alignment of Merrion Park and Claremont to the east. The Appellants will happily accept any conditions with regard to the design of a future house on their site to match in with existing surrounding properties. Conclusions

The IMSP recognises that adding further dwellings to small hamlets such as

Ballaveare may assist in meeting the needs of rural areas such as by maintaining social and family associations and assisting in sustaining the rural economy when sensitively related to the existing settlement pattern and the landscape and having particular regard to the value of existing spaces. In this light, the refusal of the present proposal is inequitable.

Over half of the properties in Ballaveare are non-traditional and post-date

the modern planning policy and many have been subject to approvals not in strict accord with the IMSP.

Ballaveare is clearly a roadside residential area typical of the Old Castletown

Road. The site itself is surrounded by development. Roadside properties have strong boundary hedgerows with trees or Manx hedgebanks. The site is similarly well screened and the open field backdrop would remain. The proposal would therefore fit into the character and visual appearance of the locality.

The only view into the site is from the existing access at the corner and from

there it appears as a garden associated with Merrion Park. There is no sense of it providing a break between recent houses to the north east and older development to the south west, which has itself been modernised. A further house would not spoil the setting of either. The proposal in itself does not constitute ribbon development and would merge naturally into the existing settlement.

In its existing state, the appeal site is of no specific benefit to the

surrounding area as open space. The development would not adversely block views of the countryside to the rear which comprise a vista of a rising grass field. The development would follow the settlement pattern and would set no precedent. Once additional screening vegetation has matured, visibility of the proposal would be minimised. The character and quality of the surrounding countryside and its landscape would not be harmed.

There is a bus service via Ballaveare to Douglas which is only about four

miles distant and the settlement is only some five miles from the airport, and both are within easy cycling distance. The fact that alternative forms of transport to the nearest employment centre are available means that the use of the car can be minimised and therefore that the proposal is in line with StrP10.

The appeal site is well landscaped and screened and the development details

could be controlled at the reserved matters stage. The development would meet a local need and would not affect the amenity of neighbouring properties.

Overall, the proposed development would not be harmful to the countryside

or the visual aspects of the landscape and so would not conflict with EP1 of the IMSP. Insufficient weight has been given to this.

There are no objections to the proposal from Braddan Commissioners, the

Highway Authority or local residents.

The appeal should be allowed and the refusal overturned.

Planning Conditions

Conditions suggested by the Planning Authority regarding biodiversity and

replacement planting ignore the fact that no species of particular interest for retention have been identified in the site, given the appeal land currently remains in use for grazing.

Any condition relating to existing trees and hedgerows should not be applied

to the east boundary of the adjacent access lane as they are outside of the appeal site and not in the control of the Appellants. Those trees and hedgerow could be practically be protected during any construction by fencing within the site at an appropriate distance from the boles of the trees. Additional planting could take place inside the site if required. The only loss of hedgerow or trees would be for the new 4m wide access, to be replaced by new hedgerow. There would be additional native planting adjacent to the access, shown on the submitted plans.

It is therefore considered that those proposed conditions (4 and 6) are

inappropriate in their current form, bearing in mind how little impact on the existing boundaries, trees and hedges would occur. The Case for the Planning Authority Issues

The relevant elements are the principle of the development, visual impact

and highway safety.

Principle

The appeal site is not allocated for any type of development and lies within a

protected part of the countryside where any development is strictly controlled.

Although approval was previously granted for residential development on the

adjoining two plots for Claremont and Merrion Park, to which the present site was previously attached as a single field, this field remains undesignated for development. The surrounding residential development also lies in protected countryside, as it does not have a defined a settlement boundary and is regarded as a cluster of dwellings outside any settlement.

In principle therefore, the proposed residential development would be

contrary to StrP2 and SpP4 of the IMSP.

It is noted that the Appellants regard the appeal site as an infill

plot and claim exceptional circumstances in that they have farming connections to the locality and would like to build their family home in the community where one of them has always lived, instead of having to rent a property in Douglas.

However, StrP2, GP3, H4 and H7 of the IMSP together prioritise the location

of new residential development within existing towns and villages and provide that development in the countryside will only be permitted in certain exceptional circumstances, none of which apply in this case, notwithstanding the local agricultural connections of the Appellants.

Whilst two previous planning permissions have resulted in the development

of adjoining land for two open market dwellings, Merrion Park and Claremont, these permissions of 2005-7 pre-date the current provisions of the IMSP of 2016.

Whilst the previous development plan contained similar policies, planning

applications for development should be considered against the provisions of the current Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, it is considered that insufficient personal circumstances have been put forward to outweigh adopted policies

Visual Amenity

It is key that any dwelling should be in keeping with and sympathetic to the

character of the site and surrounding area which, in this case, is characterised mainly by two-storey, detached and semi-detached dwellings. Neighbouring dwellings are within spacious plots with mature landscape screening, albeit Merrion Park and Claremont are both relatively new.

The main public views of the site are from Old Castletown Road and, to a

lesser extent, from the adjoining track just to the south west. Any new dwelling and garage would be most obvious when viewed from directly opposite the site entrance.

The character and appearance of the site is presently emphasised by its

grass sward, mature roadside hedging and the tree-lined south west boundary and it represents an important visual break in development in this relatively loose-knit cluster of dwellings in the countryside.

It is considered that the erection of dwelling and garage on the site would

unacceptably alter the character and appearance of this part of Old Castletown Road and result in the loss of this important soft, green visual gap between older and more recent development. This gap adds to the semi-rural character of the site and its surroundings.

In this regard it is considered that the proposed development would be

contrary to the provisions of EP1 of the IMSP, which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake, in the absence of evidence regarding any overriding national need in land use planning terms or the lack of any reasonable and acceptable alternative.

In addition, it is considered that the siting, scale and visual impact of a

dwelling and garage on the character of the site, adjoining dwellings, and overall surroundings would fail to accord with the provisions of GP2(b) and (c) of the IMSP.

Highway Safety

Old Castletown Road is relatively wide and straight in the vicinity of the site

and subject to a 30mph speed limit. The development could provide visibility splays of 2.4m by 90m, exceeding Highway Authority requirements of 2.4m x 43m. On-site turning areas and parking provision, along with cycle parking and electric vehicle charging, could be accommodated on the site. Accordingly, there is no objection on highway grounds and the proposal complies with GP2 of the IMSP all technical requirements in this regard, subject to standard conditions.

Planning Conditions

Planning conditions are suggested without prejudice.

The proposal involves the use of a BioDisc packaged sewage treatment plant

and Aquacell storm water soakaways. The DEFA Environmental Protection Officer has raised no objection in principle to these proposed arrangements, subject to further information being submitted to meet future drainage license

requirements, if approval were granted. Such mitigation details would meet the provisions of GP2l, EP7 and EP22 of the IMSP.

An additional condition should be imposed to secure appropriate design

details for the access, permanent closure of the existing gate and advance provision of on-site parking and cycle storage, in the interests of highway safety and sustainability. A further condition should require a tree protection plan in order to maintain a good level of tree cover. Conclusions

The principle of development for the erection of a dwelling and garage is not

accepted because the site lies within a rural and protected part of the countryside where any development is strictly controlled and the site is not allocated for any development.

The personal circumstances put forward by the Appellants are not considered

to be of such significance as to warrant a departure from adopted planning policy.

It is further considered that the erection of dwelling and garage on the site

would unacceptably alter the character and appearance of the area and result in the loss of this important soft, green visual gap between older and more recent development. In this regard it is considered that the proposed development would be visually harmful to the rural character and appearance of the site and surroundings, contrary to the provisions of the IMSP.

For these reasons, it is submitted that this appeal should be dismissed.

Other Representations

Braddan Commissioners have no objection to the appeal proposal

DOI Highway Services have no objection commenting that the proposed

vision splays are acceptable for the prevailing 40mph speed limit on the A25 and subject to a condition that details of parking and internal layout be submitted for advance approval The DEFA Environmental Protection Officer comments that the discharge method for sewage be detailed and appropriate discharge licence obtained.

The DEFA Ecosystem Policy Officer comments that there is an extensive

area of protected montbretia evident in the road verge that is to be removed to form the new proposed access and that working methods could enable the spread of this invasive plant into the wild, contrary to the Wildlife Act 1990 and a condition should require that no works take place unless a montbretia avoidance and eradication plan and native replacement planting has been submitted and approved. Assessment by the Inspector Planning Issues

The appeal site is located outside any settlement boundary in the

countryside of an AHLV. Therefore, there is no dispute that the appeal proposal conflicts with the overarching policies of the IMSP regarding the location of new built development.

The main issues to be considered are:

i. the effect the proposed development would have on the appearance and character of the site and its surroundings within the hamlet of Ballaveare and the wider landscape of the AHLV; and

ii. whether there are any particular local or personal circumstances in favour of the proposal, having regard to planning policy provisions relating to development within small rural settlements.

Appearance and Character

By virtue of the previous approval in 2005 to 2007 of Claremont and Merrion

Park, the appeal site is left as a road frontage infill plot within the established hamlet of Ballaveare.

The dwellings comprising the hamlet are of varying age and design but of

generally consistent style, given later modifications to the older properties. I see no reason why the proposed dwelling and garage should not fit harmoniously into this frontage.

This would mean the loss of the site as a narrow finger of farmland which

reaches down to Old Castletown Road and, together with the adjacent access lane, forms a green gap between two groups of houses. However, I do not recognise the site as a green space of any particular value in this case.

The proposed buildings, along with the existing frontage development, would

continue to be seen against the rural backdrop provided by the open farmland rising to the north west. Otherwise, the site and the proposed development would continue to be partly screened by its existing boundary vegetation which could be enhanced by further landscape planting secured by planning condition, thereby softening its visual impression when viewed from the road.

Overall, I do not consider that the development would harm the appearance

or character of the hamlet or the surrounding landscape of the AHLV, as protected by StrP3 and EP1-2 of the IMSP. Nor in my view would it disrupt the individual character, quality or distinctiveness of the hamlet of Ballaveare in terms of StrP4 and paragraph 7.34.1 of the IMSP, as well as the Landscape Character Assessment. Local Circumstances

The IMSP at Section 8 clearly recognises that small groups of buildings in the

countryside, which do not have the characteristics of a settlement, may still have a sense of place and community. In such locations, sensitively adding a new dwelling to the group can help meet rural needs, maintain social and family associations and support the local economy.

In this particular instance, I agree with the Appellants that the hamlet of

Ballaveare is just such a rural group of dwellings. A sensitively added dwelling on the appeal site would consolidate the hamlet without significant expansion into the open countryside and provide a home for a local family strongly connected with the farming economy.

Moreover, despite its rural location, the hamlet is relatively close to both the

urban centre of Douglas and to the airport with a bus service available. In this respect, the development would be in line with StrP10 of the IMSP.

These particular local and personal circumstances weigh substantively in

favour of the appeal proposal.

Planning Conditions

If planning approval is granted the development should be controlled by

conditions to secure the parking and turning space and vison splays, as proposed in the interest of highway safety. Further conditions should secure the safe removal of noxious weeds from the site frontage as well as appropriate foul and surface water drainage facilities, as proposed by the Appellants.

I consider that a condition to secure tree protection is also necessary,

despite some

boundary trees being strictly outside the site, and none being present within the main part of the land, which has been in long-term agricultural grazing. For this latter reason, I do not consider that a condition to protect ecology is necessary, in the absence of evidence of the presence of species of concern.

Conclusion

In terms of the first issue of appearance and character, the proposed

development would cause no harm to the locality. Given that, under Manx law, the development plan policies carry no legal primacy, that lack of harm could be judged sufficient alone to justify approval, in my view.

However, in this case, approval is supported by local and personal

circumstances of substantive weight.

I therefore conclude that the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the

application should be overturned and the approval sought granted, subject the conditions outlined above.

Recommendation

I therefore recommend that the appeal be allowed and planning approval

granted in principle for the erection of a dwelling and garage on land adjacent to Merrion Park, Old Castletown Road, Port Soderick, Isle of Man, IM4 1BB, in accordance with Drawings Nos HLK/22/178-2 and 3, dated February 2023, and for the reason for approval and subject to the conditions set out in the Appendix to this Report.

If accepted, this recommendation will have the effect of overturning the

decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application.

B J Sims Brian J Sims BSc (Hons) CEng MICE MRTPI Independent Inspector 2 November 2023

APPENDIX Reason for Approval and Recommended Planning Conditions Reason for Approval Whilst strictly contrary to strategic planning policy for the location of new dwellings, in particular General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP), the proposed development would cause no harm to the appearance or character of the locality and particular local and personal circumstances weigh in favour of the proposal in this case, resulting with compliance with Strategic Polices 3 and 4, Environment Policies 1 and 2, paragraph 7.34.1 and Section 8 of the IMSP. Planning Conditions

The development hereby approved shall be begun either before the expiration

of four years from the date of this approval or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters. Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019.

Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the

Department before the expiration of two years from the date of this approval and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved. Reason: To avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

Approval of the details of internal layout, drainage, design, landscaping and

external appearance (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Department in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019.

The reserved matters application shall be supported by a tree protection plan, prepared in

accordance with the recommendations with British Standard 5837:2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction). This plan shall provide details of existing trees to be retained, the trees to be removed to facilitate the creation of the site access, and the management approach for the trees on the site. Any retained tree which within five years of the approved development being occupied or completed (whichever is the later) dies, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced by a similar species, of a size to be first approved in writing by the Department, during the next planting season or in accordance with a programme of replacement to be agreed in writing with the Department. Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the development and the surrounding area, and to ensure that replacement tree planting takes place to mitigate the tree removal required to facilitate the development.

Detailed drawings of the following shall be submitted to and approved in

writing by the Planning Authority within the "the reserved matters" application: site access, internal pedestrian and vehicle areas, car and bicycle parking, waste bin storage and arrangements for collection. The details hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with that approval. Reason: In interests of highway and road user safety.

The dwelling hereby approved shall not be first occupied until the submitted montbretia eradication and avoidance plan, for the area of montbretia in that part of the road verge to be removed to form the site access, has been implemented and measures taken to prevent the spread of this invasive plant into the wild, contrary to the Wildlife Act 1990 and to replace it with native replacement planting. Reason: To ensure compliance with the Wildlife Act 1990 and Environment Policies 4 and 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in the interests of biodiversity.

Details of foul and surface water drainage provision to serve the development,

hereby approved, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. Such approved drainage scheme shall be installed prior to the development hereby permitted being first occupied and shall thereafter be retained and maintained at all times. Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately drained and does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. --- end of appendix ---

C Minister’s Decision

Oliver And Eleanor Blaker And Kelly 41 Farmhill Meadows Douglas IM2 2LL

Telephone (01624) 685958 Email: [email protected] Contact: Mr S Gallacher Our Ref: NEC /AP23/0036 Date: 20th December 2023

Dear Sir/Madam,

On Appeal

PA No: 23/00267/A Address: Land West Of Merrion Park Old Castletown Road Port Soderick IM4 1BB Proposal: Approval in principle to site dwelling and garage, discharging the siting and means of access

I refer to the appeal in respect of the above planning application.

In accordance with the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, I herewith give notice of the appeal decision.

The Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Hon C Barber MHK, has considered the report, concurs with the appointed person's conclusions, and accepts the recommendation that the appeal should be allowed. Accordingly, she has directed that the Department's decision to refuse the application should be reversed, and that the application should be Approved subject to conditions. Formal notice of this decision is attached.

Yours faithfully, Redacted

Scott Gallacher Chief Officer

cc. Ms Patricia S Newton, 2 Glen View, South Cape, Laxey, IM4 7HY

The Town And Country Planning Act 1999

The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019

Oliver And Eleanor Blaker And Kelly 41 Farmhill Meadows Douglas IM2 2LL

In pursuance of his powers under the above Act and Order/Regulations, the Minister for the Department of the Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Hon C Barber MHK does hereby in the name of and on behalf of the Department APPROVE planning application 23/00267/A by Oliver And Eleanor Blaker And Kelly for Approval in principle to site dwelling and garage, discharging the siting and means of access - Land West Of Merrion Park Old Castletown Road Port Soderick Isle Of Man IM4 1BB subject to the following conditions:-

Conditions Of Approval:

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.

Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Department before the expiration of two years from the date of this approval and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved.

Reason: To avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

Approval of the details of internal layout, drainage, design, landscaping and external appearance (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Department in writing before any development is commenced.

Reason: To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019.

The reserved matters application shall be supported by a tree protection plan, prepared in accordance with the recommendations with British Standard 5837:2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction). This plan shall provide details of existing trees to be retained, the trees to be removed to facilitate the creation of the site access, and the management approach for the trees on the site. Any retained tree which within five years of the approved development being occupied or completed (whichever is the later) dies, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced by a

Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture Thie Slieau Whallian, Foxdale Road, St John's, Isle of Man, IM4 3AS Page 1 of 3

similar species, of a size to be first approved in writing by the Department, during the next planting season or in accordance with a programme of replacement to be agreed in writing with the Department.

Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the development and the surrounding area, and to ensure that replacement tree planting takes place to mitigate the tree removal required to facilitate the development.

Detailed drawings of the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority within the "the reserved matters" application: site access, internal pedestrian and vehicle areas, car and bicycle parking, waste bin storage and arrangements for collection. The details hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with that approval.

Reason: In interests of highway and road user safety.

The dwelling hereby approved shall not be first occupied until the submitted montbretia eradication and avoidance plan, for the area of montbretia in that part of the road verge to be removed to form the site access, has been implemented and measures taken to prevent the spread of this invasive plant into the wild, contrary to the Wildlife Act 1990 and to replace it with native replacement planting.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the Wildlife Act 1990 and Environment Policies 4 and 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in the interests of biodiversity.

Details of foul and surface water drainage provision to serve the development, hereby approved, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. Such approved drainage scheme shall be installed prior to the development hereby permitted being first occupied and shall thereafter be retained and maintained at all times.

Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately drained and does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.

NOTE: This approval is in accordance with Drawings Nos HLK/22/178-2 and 3, dated February 2023.

Reason for Approval:

Whilst strictly contrary to Strategic Planning Policy for the location of new dwellings, in particular General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP), the proposed development would cause no harm to the appearance or character of the locality and particular local and personal circumstances weigh in favour of the proposal in this case, resulting with compliance with Strategic Policies 3 and 4, Environment Policies 1 and 2, paragraph 7.34.1 and Section 8 of the IMSP.

INFORMATIVE NOTE: Please be aware that a ban on the installation of fossil fuel heating systems in any new building(s) and or extension(s), will come into force on 1st January 2025. You therefore are encouraged to ensure that your proposed development includes alternatives to fossil fuel heating systems if you believe that such works will not be completed by that date. To this end, if you propose an alternative, such an air source or ground source heat pump(s), or any other heating system that would require planning approval, the details of this should be addressed now. This may require you to resubmit your planning application to accommodate the alternative, permitted heating system proposed.

Date of issue 20th December 2023 By Order of the Minister Redacted

Scott Gallacher Chief Officer

Note 1: A copy of the report of the appointed person is appended hereto.

Note 3: The letter which accompanies this notice forms part of the notice in accordance with Article 13 (3) of the Town & Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019.

SOC AP25-0012 Appellant SOC

Source & Provenance