30 June 2025 · Delegated
Sulby Bridge Cottage, Sulby Bridge, Sulby, Isle Of Man, IM7 2eu
The proposal was an amended version of an earlier approval (24/00106/B), seeking to erect two semi-detached dwellings in place of the existing traditional Manx stone cottage at East View, Sulby Bridge. The key amendment was the removal of all three first-floor windows on the north elevation of Dwelling B. Three decisive concerns led to refusal. First, removing the first-floor windows from the north elevation undermined the architectural coherence of the scheme and disrupted the established vernacular character of the area, contrary to General Policy 2(b, c, g), Environment Policy 42, and Strategic Policy 5. Second, the submitted Flood Risk Assessment was found to be inadequate: it did not demonstrate that flood risk to future occupants would be acceptable, failed to consider off-site flood impacts, and lacked flood flow modelling and percolation testing required under Environment Policies 10 and 13. Third, the complete removal of first-floor windows in Dwelling B left those bedrooms without external outlook or adequate natural light, creating a substandard living environment and compromising passive security, contrary to General Policy 2(h) and 2(m).
The application was refused for three reasons: the revised north elevation, with all first-floor windows removed, harmed the architectural character of the development and its surroundings; the Flood Risk Assessment was technically insufficient and failed to demonstrate acceptable flood risk for occupants or the wider area; and the windowless upper floor of Dwelling B would result in poor living conditions and a lack of natural surveillance, falling below required residential standards.
Refusal Reasons
General Development Considerations
architectural coherence and contextual sensitivity
Designed to respect the character and identity of the locality
reflect existing architectural character
pment. 8.13.2 The extent of formal open space with in settlement boundaries in the South is identified on the Proposals Map (Map 3) and Inset Maps (Maps 4-7). The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (Environment Policy 42) seeks to protect these open spaces and indicates that: 8.13.3 "Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a partic ular area will not be permitted.''
Design and visual impact
highquality, contextually responsive design
Strategic Policy 5: New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies. 4.4 Economy 4.4.1 The Spatial Strategy identifies the Major Employment Areas around the Island. While the majority of business and employment is focused around the Douglas Metropolitan Area, there are other major employment areas at Castletown, the Airport/Freeport, Peel, Ramsey and Jurby. The Department considers the distribution of employment areas provides a spread of employment opportunities around the Island. While recognising the opportunities for small scale local employment within existing centres it is considered new employment should, in the main, be concentrated within existing settlements or those major employment areas referred to in the Island Spatial Strategy and illustrated on the Key Diagram. Existing Local and new Area Plans will provide detailed boundar ies for these areas. From time to time Government may judge it appropriate to offer financial incentives to encourage economic activity or investment in particular parts of the Island.
Development and flood risk
prevent flood hazards beyond the site boundary
Environment Policy 13: Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted. 7.13. Agriculture 7.13.1. Agriculture is an integral and vital part of the rural economy and rural society and to a great degree is responsible for the appearance and stewardship of the countryside. The Island's farms not only provide the community with a healthy proportion of meat and vegetable produce but also provide employment opportunities. It is important to sustain agric ultural industry by safeguarding its prime resources, by allowing appropriately designed and sited new buildings (where need is established) and by encouraging conservation -based land management regimes (including appropriate tree and shrub planting). Howe ver, this must not be at the expense of the appearance and character or openness of the landscape, or result in the loss of traditional hedgerows and field boundaries or the loss of limited areas of good quality agricultural land. A recent study on agricultural soils on the Isle of Man (1) revealed that the majority of the agricultural land on the Island (80.26%) fell within Class 3, based on the land use capability class system in England and Wales (classes range from Class 1 to 5, with Class 1 being the mo st versatile land). Class 3 land characteristics can be summarised as land with moderate limitations which restrict the choice of crops and/or demand careful management. Only 4.87% of agricultural land falls within Classes 1 and 2. According to the agricultural land use capability map (figure 4 of the study), all of the Class 1/2 land of which Class 1 is the dominant class can be found in the south of the Island to the east of Ballasalla. New Area Plans will include a general presumption against the rel ease of Class 1 and 2 agricultural land for development. The highest level of protection will apply to the highest graded quality of land with Classes 1 and 2 soils being afforded most protection from development and being taken out of agricultural use. Where there is a proposal to develop land which is categorised in the Agricultural Soils of the Isle of Man report as being mixed Classes 2 and 3, those wishing to develop the land should ascertain which parts of the site represent higher grade of soil wi th these parts being avoided for development purposes. 7.13.2 One of the prime considerations in the determination of development proposals in the countryside will continue to be the conservation and enhancement of the landscape. In terms of the di versification of farms and farm buildings, there may be some circumstances where this may be appropriate and it is acknowledged that small scale enterprises can promote healthy economic activity in rural areas whether this be for commercial, industrial, tourism, sport or recreation uses. There is, however, a general presumption against the introduction of new uses into the countryside (including industrial or office uses): (a) for which there is no local need; (b) which would materially effect the rural character of an area; (c) which would necessitate the creation of new buildings; and (d) which would be more appropriate in industrial zones, business parks or within urban centres. 7.13.3 In recent years there has been increasing demand for new development and buildings in the countryside, particularly for new modern agricultural buildings. Such buildings can have, and in a number of areas already have had an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the landscape, particularly when sited in exposed locations away from building groups and on elevated land. It is important that new development should be compatible with the character of the surrounding area, and the need for n ew buildings in the countryside will be balanced against the harm that development may have on the particular environment within which it is proposed. In terms of new agricultural dwellings, permission will not be granted unless real agricultural need is demonstrated and will in every case be assessed in terms of need, sensitive siting, design, and size, and be subject to an agricultural occupancy condition. (1) Agricultural Soils of the Isle of Man, Harris et al, (Centre for Manx Studies) 2001 7.13.4 It is recognised that there have been considerable changes in the economy in the last twenty years. The number of people in full time agricultural employment has reduced for a number of reasons including increased mechanisation, reductions in the number of farms; and increases in the size of farm holdings. In many cases smaller farms have been amalgamated into larger units to increase economic viability. This has often been accompanied by the sale of former farmhouses and cottages to those who do not earn their employment in agriculture. At the same time there has been an increase in part time involvement in farming either where the income from agriculture is supplemented by other employment or where the person's main employment is not in agriculture but they farm on a part time basis. In considering the applications for new houses in the coun tryside the Department will give careful consideration to agriculture justification based on full time employment in agriculture. See also Section 8.9 in Chapter 8 - Housing.
Development and flood risk
appropriate mitigation measures for flood-prone areas
irements of the relevant gas supply agency. Flood Risk 63 There was widespread concern about the adequacy of drainage and the risk of flooding, particularly in parts of Braddan, Onchan and Laxey. Environment Policy 10 of the Strategic Plan indicates that where development is proposed on any site where there is a potential risk of flooding, the prospective developer will be required to submit a flood risk assessment, together with details of proposed mitigation measures. This approach is reinforced in Utilities Proposal 6 of the draft Area Plan, which (among other things) requires the incorporation of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) into new developments, to attenuate the rate of surface water run-off. I consider these policies to be reasonable. Clearly, without adequate mitigation measures, new building should normally be resisted on land which is at serious risk of flooding, or where the proposed development would increase the flood risk elsewhere. 64 In my view, the format of Utilities Proposal 6 could be improved. First, as a Proposal of the Area Plan, I consider that it should be in a bold typeface, to differentiate it from the supporting text. (The same applies to a number of other policies e.g. Transport Policy 2, and Utilities Policies 2 and 5). Second, there appears to be an error of syntax at the start of the second sentence of Utilities Proposal 6, which should perhaps read 'Strategies to achieve this will include …'. Third, the third bullet point of this Proposal introduces SuDS. Subsequent bullet points describe features of SuDS, and are therefore subordinate to the third bullet point. For clarity, I consider that they should be indented. I recommend that the draft Area Plan be modified accordingly. Sewage Treatment 65 There was also some public concern about the adequacy of the sewerage system, both in terms of its capacity to accommodate the effluent from proposed residential development areas, and in terms of the current practice of discharging untreated sewage into the sea. Infrastructure Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan indicates that developments entailing the erection of multiple dwellings should take place only on sites that will ultimately be connected to the IRIS system, which takes sewage to a treatment works at Meary Veg. (IRIS is an acronym for Integration and Recycling of the Island's Sewage). However, as long ago as 2006/7, a review was undertaken to decide whether to continue with the IRIS strategy. This concluded that it would be beneficial to adopt a regional sewage treatment strategy (RSTS) for those settlements that were not already connected to the IRIS system, including Laxey, Baldrine and settlements in the Central Valley. To that extent, Infrastructure Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan is now out of date. 66 I understand that a planning application will soon be submitted for the development of a local sewage treatment facility for Laxey. Feasibility studies for the provision of a similar facility to serve Baldrine are ongoing. A replacement sewage works at Ballagarey, serving part of the Central Valley became operational in 2018. However, capacity limitations mean that planned development in Crosby is likely to have to rely on standalone sewage treatment for the time being, until the existing treatment works is replaced as anticipated in 2022. The Programme for Government (2016-2021) indicates an intention to complete the regional sewage treatment infrastructure within the lifetime of the present administration. 67 It seems to me that these considerations should be taken into account in the allocation and phasing of land for development. I will return to this matter when considering the draft Area Plan's proposals for housing. Electricity Renewable Energy 68 Peel Energy considered that the Area Plan should contain a detailed and specific chapter on renewable energy, providing measurable criteria against which applications for the development of renewable power generating facilities would be assessed. They cited the States of Jersey Island Plan 2011, which includes such material. And they pointed out that a Climate Change Emergency has recently been declared on the Isle of Man; that a Climate Change Bill is soon to be presented to Tynwald; and that there has been strong public support for the Government's Climate Change Mitigation Strategy. They argued that, in failing to provide detailed guidance on renewable power generation, the Area Plan was inconsistent with the Strategic Plan; and that since the Area Plan post-dated the Strategic Plan, its largely negative provisions would prevail. 69 Energy Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan applies to development proposals for renewable energy generated by wind, water, tidal or solar power. It indicates that any such proposals will be judged against that Plan's environmental objectives. Proposals for wind, water or tidal power would need to be supported by an Environmental Impact Assessment. The supporting text indicates that renewable energy schemes will be given similar scrutiny as is gi
General Development Considerations
ensure appropriate living conditions
General Development Considerations
natural surveillance and personal safety
Demolition of existing dwelling; construction of 2 replacement dwellings; minor relocation of existing entrance and formation of new entrance
Alterations and extension to form additional living accommodation
not implemented
Approval in principle for erection of a dwelling
refused on 8 December 2010
Erection of a replacement dwelling