Officer Report

Application No.: 25/90189/B Applicant: Barry Murphy Proposal: Erection of two semi-detached dwellings in place of existing detached dwelling (amendments to 24/00106/B) Site Address: East View Sulby Bridge Sulby Isle Of Man IM7 2EU Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken: 15.05.2024 Site Visit: 15.05.2024 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 11.06.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The revised North Elevation, which removes first-floor windows, undermines the architectural coherence and contextual sensitivity of the development. This alteration disrupts established vernacular character, weakening integration with the surrounding area, contrary to General Policy 2(b, c, g), which requires developments to respect local identity, scale, and form. Additionally, the proposal fails to meet Environment Policy 42, which mandates that new developments reflect existing architectural character, and Strategic Policy 5, which seeks highquality, contextually responsive design. - R 2. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) does not sufficiently demonstrate that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on-site or off-site, for future occupants of the proposed dwellings. Additionally, the assessment fails to consider whether the development would contribute to increased flood vulnerabilities or intensify flooding in the area, contrary to Environment Policy 13, which requires developments to prevent flood hazards beyond the site boundary. Furthermore, the FRA lacks key technical assessments, including flood flow modelling and percolation testing, failing to meet the requirements of Environment Policy 10, which mandates appropriate mitigation measures for flood-prone areas. - R 3. The proposal fails to provide satisfactory residential amenity, as the removal of all firstfloor windows in Dwelling B eliminates external outlook and restricts natural light access, resulting in a substandard living environment. This design compromises both residential quality and passive security, contrary to General Policy 2(h), which requires developments to ensure appropriate living conditions, and General Policy 2(m), which emphasizes natural surveillance and personal safety. Additionally, the scheme conflicts with RDG 2021 (Paragraph 3.6.3), which warns against density-driven designs that undermine residential standards. Given these deficiencies, the proposal is considered unacceptable in terms of amenity provision and fails to comply with the relevant planning policies. _________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal on the basis that they have submitted a relevant objection: - o DOI Flood Risk Management - o Lezayre Parish Commissioners It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given the Right to Appeal as they have submitted an objection that meets the specified criteria: - o 6 Carrick Park, Sulby - o 8 Carrick Park, Sulby - o 7 Carrick Park, Sulby _________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of East View, Sulby Bridge, Sulby, which is a detached two storey traditional Manx stone Cottage painted white with a single storey garage/outbuilding to the south that sits to the West of the highway. The dwelling has a footprint of 10m by 5.6m and the outbuilding a further 6.6m by 5.6m, with a total floor area of 80m2. - 1.2 The site is broadly level and shares a boundary with Mill View to the south and to the rear No.8 Carrick Park (Hillview) and also at the rear is No.7 Carrick Park. The design of the existing dwelling on site is such that does not allow views into neighbouring dwellings or their gardens from first floor level. - 1.3 Currently, the site is covered in mature overgrown vegetation which has fully enveloped the entire site area, such that access is currently not achievable into the site, whether through the vehicular access, or pedestrian access.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Erection of two semi-detached dwellings in place of existing detached dwelling (amendments to 24/00106/B). - 2.2 The proposal would include the demolition of the existing traditional dwelling on site, and its replacement with a new two storey semi-detached building on site. - 2.3 The new dwellings would be repetition of the design proposed under PA 24/00106/B which was refused for the site, save for the removal of all three first floor windows on the front elevation of building B which overlooks the rear garden of Plot 6 Carrick Park Sulby. This elevation can be viewed from approaching from the north along Main Road, Surby. There would be no change to the footprint of each dwelling as well as the combined footprint of both dwellings. - 2.4 There would be no windows serving the bedrooms on Building two which would each be served by a single Velux rooflight. - 2.5 The proposed dwelling would still provide:

• a. Two parking spaces per dwelling within the curtilage;
• b. Covered bike storage for three bikes within each site;

• c. Provision of 1 ASHP per dwelling: Mitsubishi PUHZ-W50/W85VHA2(-BS) Air Source Heat Pump. 960mm wide x 330mm deep x 740 / 943mm high. Located 300mm from obstructions air discharge facing away from neighbouring boundary;
• d. Installation of solar panels. A row of solar panels would be installed on the southern roof plane to serve one dwelling, while another row would be installed on the western (rear) roof plane. No details are provided on the type of solar panels or energy output.

2.6 The application is supported by a Planning Statement, Flood risk assessment, and ASHP specification document.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 Site Specific:

• 3.1.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area recognised on the Sulby Local Plan of 1998 as Predominantly Residential. The site is not within a designated conservation area, and there are no registered trees on site. While only part of the site was initially considered to have low fluvial flood risk, the Updated Flood Map (2025) now considers the entire site area to be prone to medium fluvial flood risk. Part of the highway to the front and surrounding land is identified as being prone to Surface water flood risk, with most of the surrounding land classed as being prone to high fluvial flood risks.

3.2 National: STRATEGIC PLAN

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

• 1. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations.
• 2. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources.
• 3. Strategic Policy 2 - Development focussed in existing towns and villages.
• 4. Strategic Policy 3 - Development to safeguard character of existing towns and villages and to avoid coalescence.
• 5. Strategic Policy 4 - Development to protect or enhance setting of Registered Buildings, landscape quality and biodiversity, and not result in unacceptable environmental pollution.
• 6. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact.
• 7. Strategic Policy 10 - Sustainable transport.
• 8. Strategic Policy 11 - Housing needs.
• 9. Spatial Policy 4 - Need for new development to maintain the existing settlement character, be of appropriate scale (local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities). Sulby included.
• 10. Environment Policy 4 - Protection of species and habitats.
• 11. Environment Policy 5 - Mitigation against damage to or loss of habitats.
• 12. Environment Policy 10 and 13 - Development and flood risk.
• 13. Environment Policy 22 - Protection of environment and/or residential amenity from pollution.
• 14. Environment Policy 42 - Designed to respect the character and identity of the locality.
• 15. Housing Policy 1 - Housing needs.
• 16. Housing Policy 4 - New Housing to defined existing towns.
• 17. Housing Policy 6 - Residential development to be undertaken in accordance with development brief or Paragraph 6.2 of Plan.
• 18. Transport Policy 1 - Proximity to existing public transportation services.
• 19. Transport Policy 4 - Highway Safety
• 20. Transport Policy 7 - Parking Provisions.
• 21. Paragraph 4.3.8:
• 22. "The design of new development can make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Island. Recent development has often been criticised for its similarity to developments across the Island and elsewhere - "anywhere" architecture. At the same time some criticise current practice to retain traditional or vernacular designs. As is often the case the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. All too often proposals for new developments have not taken into account a proper analysis of their context in terms of siting,

layout, scale, materials and other factors. At the same time a slavish following of past design idioms, evolved for earlier lifestyles can produce buildings which do not reflect twenty first century lifestyles including accessibility and energy conservation. While there is often a consensus about what constitutes good and poor design, it is notoriously difficult to define or prescribe."

3.3 Area: AREA PLAN FOR THE NORTH AND WEST

• 3.3.1 It must be noted at the time of writing, the draft area plan for the North and West is not formally adopted and is only, at this stage, a broad direction of how planning policy is reviewing the areas. Their proposals can still be challenged at a public enquiry where an inspector could reach a different opinion to the drafts. The final draft would also need to be ratified by COMIN. This means that the 1982 development plan remains the correct land use designation and no material weight is given to the draft area plan for the North and West.
• 4.0 OTHER MATTERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Residential Design Guidance 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. Section 2.0 on Sustainable Construction, Section 5 on Architectural Details, and 7.0 on Impact on Neighbouring Properties, are considered relevant to the current application.
• 4.1.2 Paragraph 3.6.3 "The Site Assessment Framework for the Area Plan for the East contained broad assumptions about typical densities for different locations and types of developments (see Figure 3.A below), and these can provide a helpful starting point. However, these should not be taken as targets and does not mean, however, that developments should be so densely developed that they provide inadequate outlook, amenity space, car parking, or an overall attractive environment to see or be within. In reality, the development that takes place may be of a higher or lower density and, as determined by the context of the site and/or the location."

4.2 IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025 seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary. Section 21 deals with Habitat loss actions through promoting a policy of 'no net loss' for semi-natural Manx habitats and species and to ensure that unavoidable loss is replaced or effectively compensated for. - 4.3 Section 68 of the Flood Risk Management Act (2013) indicates that any published Flood Risk Management Plan and the extent to which the proposed development creates an additional flood risk are material considerations.

- 5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 The application site has been the subject of the following previous planning applications that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. These include:

• 1. PA 06/01940/B for Alterations and extension to form additional living accommodation Approved. The scheme proposed a first floor, pitched roofed extension over the existing garage/store, which had its roof ridge set considerably lower than that of the main dwelling, making it appear as a subordinate extension. The existing hardstanding was also to be extended by the removal of the existing hedge and part of the existing lawn, to provide an additional off-street parking provision (total of two spaces). This scheme which did not propose any first-floor windows to the sides and rear of the dwelling was not implemented.
• 2. PA 10/01160/A for Approval in principle for erection of a dwelling. This was refused on 8 December 2010 for the following reason:

• "Whilst the area is designated for residential development, the planning application does not adequately demonstrate that a dwelling could be satisfactorily accommodated within the constraints of the application site, particularly providing a safe and convenient access and manoeuvring space which would not adversely affect the neighbouring property Riverside in terms of noise and loss of privacy."
• 3. A recent application under PA 20/01452/B for Erection of a replacement dwelling Refused. The application was refused on the following ground: "The proposal is considered contrary to General Policy 2 b, c, & g and Environmental Policy 42 and the recent Residential design guide 2021 as the design would be read at odds with the character of the surrounding street scene and is considered over development for the site leading to an adverse visual harm with a perceived harmful impact upon the neighbouring properties. It is therefore concluded that the planning application is recommended for refusal." The scheme proposed a total built frontage of 22.4m and a ground floor area of approximately 170sqm (including integral garage).
• 4. The most recent application for the site under PA 24/00106/B for Demolition of existing dwelling; construction of 2 replacement dwellings; minor relocation of existing entrance and formation of new entrance was refused at Appeal (AP24/0031). The Appeal Inspector in recommending refusal made the following comments which are considered relevant in the assessment of the current application:

"49. No issue is taken with the principle of the development proposed, the site lying within Sulby, a village identified in Spatial Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan as being appropriate for some residential development. The main issues in this case therefore, relate to the effect of the development proposed on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and its effect on the living conditions of adjoining occupiers, in particular the occupiers of No 6 Carrick Park, by reason of outlook and privacy.

Character and Appearance

• 50. Among other things, the Residential Design Guide seeks to encourage creative, innovative and locally distinctive designs that respond to the changing needs of the Island's communities. At paragraph 1.1.2 it confirms that it is not intended to stifle creativity, or to promote planning by numbers and off-the-peg designs. Rather it looks to provide a supportive context for good quality designs, be they traditional or modern. Paragraph 1.2.3 confirms that all applications will be judged on their own merits, taking account of the likely effect on neighbouring properties and the character of the building or street.
• 51. The Planning Authority describes the appeal scheme as overdevelopment. There is focus too on the mathematical density of development on individual plots in the vicinity, compared with the plots proposed. However, the most meaningful test, it seems to me, is how the development would be experienced on the ground in its site specific context and what harm there might be as a consequence of the scheme. The fact that a development maybe of a different scale or density from its immediate surroundings does not automatically equate to harm.
• 52. I saw that there is quite a mix in terms of building size, type and style in the locality of the appeal site, with no strong or coherent design theme to the streetscene here. Mill View and East View are of a completely different scale, design, and indeed density, in comparison with the much larger Carrick Park dwellings and plots which are clearly seen behind. Riverside, to the north, sits at a lower level, gable end on to the road, adding further variety to the streetscene. This is not a location therefore, where there is a strong sense of uniformity and consistency in terms of design. Whilst that does not mean that anything goes, it does allow for more flexibility than might otherwise be the case, including a modest, contemporary design approach.

• 53. I recognise that the proposed dwellings would be semi-detached, whereas the other dwellings here are mainly detached, but I see no harm in that. Indeed, a little further along Lezayre Road to the south, Lhen View and Holly Bank comprise a pair of semi-detached dwellings adjacent to the road. I also saw detached properties sitting quite happily next to semi-detached dwellings around the Sulby Bridge bend.
• 54. The proposed properties would be much smaller than the Carrick Park dwellings, but then Mill View and East View are already much smaller. Moreover, the building footprints of each of the proposed dwellings are not greatly dissimilar to the existing building footprint for East View. On that basis, albeit that they are semi-detached, the two dwellings proposed would not, in my view, result in any material harm to the established character or appearance of the area. In coming to that view, I am mindful that they would not be visually 'hemmed in': Mill View to the south is set some way off the shared boundary, separated by a single-storey detached garage building and vegetation. Moreover, the site is not adjoined by buildings to the north, the rear garden to No 6 Carrick Park separating it from Riverside, roughly 30m away. There are no buildings opposite either, the site facing open fields.
• 55. As for the proposed design, yes the development would be around 1.5m higher than the cottage it would replace, but it would still only be 7.5m to the ridge, just over 5m to eaves. The frontages to both dwellings would be traditional, with a single window to either side of a central entrance porch, with three first floor windows, all with a vertical emphasis, sitting below a pitched slate roof. Very similar, in fact to the frontages of Mill View and East View and, further to the south, Lhen View. Each property would also have a chimney.
• 56. For the most part, the walls would be painted smooth render. However, the gable end to Dwelling B, which would sit adjacent to the main road, would be of a more contemporary design. Half would be in timber/composite cladding and the other half would be recessed to provide for a small balcony area at first floor level, facing east. The recessed part of the gable would be fully glazed. To my mind, the treatment of the roadside gable adds interest to the elevation, creating profile and light and shade. I consider the proposed design to be visually attractive. Whilst this element of the scheme is different, it is sufficiently respectful of the character of the surrounding area so as not to appear jarring or incongruous.
• 57. All told, I consider that there would be no harm to the character or appearance of the area as a consequence of the size, design or density of the dwellings proposed. There would be no conflict, in this regard, with Strategic Policy 3(b), Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2 (b), (c), (g) and (f) and Environment Policy 42, which together and among other things seek to protect the character, appearance and identity of an area. There would be no conflict either with the Residential Design Guide, which encourages good quality, contemporary design where it is informed by, and is respectful of, its context. Living Conditions
• 58. The main concerns in this regard relate to No 6 Carrick Park, the rear garden to which is laid mainly to lawn, with a large, raised decking area at the eastern end, adjacent to the A3. The front elevation of proposed Dwelling B, would face north, looking straight across the rear garden of No 6. Windows to two habitable rooms are shown at first floor level on this elevation, to a bedroom and first floor lounge. There is a third window, but that is to a bathroom and would be obscure glazed.
• 59. In terms of overlooking and privacy, the Residential Design Guide focuses on windows serving habitable rooms that face each other, suggesting a 20m separation. It does not, so far as I can see, deal with situations such as here, where dwellings are set at right angles to each other - the dwellinghouse at No 6 is offset to the northwest of Dwelling B. It is pertinent to note though, that the minimum 20m separation shown on Figure 7.B in the Design Guide

• (shown below) implies minimum garden lengths of 10m as being unlikely to give rise to privacy concerns.
• 60. In this instance, the garden in front of Dwelling B would be around 9m from the boundary with the garden to No 6. As is clearly demonstrated on the plan at Fig 1 of the Authority's appeal statement (shown below) the whole of the rear garden to No 6, including that part of the garden closest to the house which might be expected to be most heavily used, and the decking area, would be in full view of those first-floor windows.
• 61. The appellant suggests that since one of the windows would be to a bedroom, that would minimise overlooking concerns. However, the first-floor windows in the figure in the Design Guide would be expected to be bedroom windows and so that is already taken into account. Moreover, one of the windows would be to a lounge, a room likely to be more heavily used than a bedroom, with people sitting for longer and looking out. Indeed, siting the lounge at first floor and including the number of windows shown to that room, suggests that the intention was to maximise the opportunity for views out. I recognise that the other two windows to the lounge would be within the east facing gable elevation of Dwelling B, one of which would comprise sliding doors giving access onto a balcony space. But, even were I to agree with the appellant that the north-facing lounge window proposed would somehow be secondary to those, it would still facilitate direct overlooking of the adjacent garden from a habitable room.
• 62. In terms of window-to-window distances, the rear, east facing elevation of No 6 Garrick Park contains three large dormers and a rooflight. As I saw during my site visit, the dormer nearest to the appeal site is to a bedroom, and below that, at ground floor level, is another bedroom window. However, they would be more than 20m away at their closest.4 Moreover, views would be oblique, rather than direct. I find no material harm in this regard.
• 63. I recognise that the outlook for the occupiers of No 6 would change as a consequence of the development proposed, as it would for the occupiers of Nos 7 and 8 Carrick Park. However, there is already a dwelling on the plot, albeit currently overgrown. The appeal scheme would bring slightly taller built development closer to the site boundaries, but the overall modest scale of the proposed dwellings means that they would not be seen as unduly overbearing in their context. I find no material harm in this regard either.
• 64. I note concerns in relation the potential for noise from the proposed air source heat pumps. However, as confirmed by the planning officer, that is a matter that could be controlled by condition were the appeal to succeed.
• 65. To conclude on this issue, whilst I find no harm in relation to any loss of privacy in terms of window to window views, the relationship of the first floor bedroom and lounge windows with the rear garden to No 6 Carrick Park is such that the entire space would be directly overlooked, resulting in a material loss of privacy for the adjoining occupiers. There would be conflict therefore, with General Policy 2(g) and (k) and the Residential Design Guide which seek, among other things, to protect such interests. Other Matters
• 66. Whilst a small part of the site is identified as being at risk of flooding, I note that the adjacent main road, which rises here, is not included within the area of flood risk. In any event, the appellant's Flood Risk Assessment confirms that the floor level of the proposed dwellings would be 0.21m above the existing ground floor level, some 0.2m above the level of the adjacent road. It also confirms that the property benefits from flood defence works carried out in 2005. I am mindful, in this regard, that the DoI Flood Risk Management Team raises no objection. Whilst I note the comments of the Commissioners in relation to flood risk, there is no substantiated evidence before me to support their concerns.

OVERALL CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

1. I have found no harm in relation to the effect of the development proposed on the character and appearance of the area. Neither have I found any harm in relation to any window to window overlooking or outlook. I have, however, found that overlooking of the entirety of the rear garden to No 6 Carrick Park, and the consequent loss of privacy, would be unacceptable. That is not a matter that could reasonably be overcome by conditions. On balance therefore, for the reasons set out above, and having considered all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed and that the decision of the Authority to refuse planning permission be upheld.

Reason: Whilst there is no objection in principle to residential development of this site, and nor would there be any harm to the established character and appearance of the area, there would be unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 6 Carrick Park with particular regard to privacy, prejudicing use of the rear garden. That brings the development into conflict with General Policy 2(g) and (k) and the Residential Design Guide, which seek to protect such interests. "

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

6.1 Comments from Consultees

• 6.1.1 DOI Highways Division find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking providing the same conditions are attached to this application as per application number 24/00106/B. (03 Mar 2025).
• 6.1.2 Manx Utilities Drainage have not made any comments on the application although they were consulted on 25 February 2025.
• 6.1.3 DOI Flood Risk Management Team Comments (28 May 2025):

• 1. They note that East View is within the 1 in 100 (medium risk) flood zone, requiring a flood risk assessment to evaluate potential impacts on third-party properties.
• 2. They state that the current flood risk assessment does not address this issue, and they require further modelling to confirm whether the 40% increase in footprint will affect flood flows and water depths in surrounding areas.
• 3. They raise concerns about surface water discharge, noting that approximately 60% of the site will be paved.
• 4. They suggest that the flood risk assessment lacks sufficient detail on how soakaways will function and recommend percolation tests to BRE Digest 365 (1991) standards to determine suitability.
• 5. They state that if soakaways prove unsuitable, the applicant must explore alternative drainage solutions to ensure that water does not shed onto neighbouring properties.
• 6. They also emphasize that national flood maps provide broad-scale assessments but should not be used for individual property evaluations, and a site-specific review is necessary for an accurate risk determination.

• 6.1.3.1 Following review of Comments made by DOI FRM, the applicants have provided the following response dated 1 June 2025:

• 1. The application was submitted on 25 February 2025, accompanied by a flood risk assessment based on then-current mapping data. The Flood Risk team did not comment within the 21-day consultation window. Updated flood mapping was released on 15 May, and their comments on 28 May were based on this new data.
• 2. Due to processing delays and revised mapping, the application was reassessed under altered conditions, the "goal posts" effectively changed mid-review.
• 3. There's no change to the actual risk of flooding to the proposed dwelling. The concern now lies in the minor reduction of overall floodplain capacity during a 1-in-100-year event.

• 4. The proposed dwelling footprint has increased by 34 sq.m (127 sq.m vs. 93 sq.m), which is considered minimal in context of the wider Sulby area. Floor levels have been raised to reduce flood risk, but paved areas remain at existing levels to preserve runoff capacity.
• 5. The new proposal improves upon the current situation by including engineered soakaways, permeable paving, and a detailed surface water management system, with fallback discharge to public drainage if needed. The existing dwelling has no such provisions.
• 6. Final Position: (1) The flood risk statement was previously approved based on the mapping data available at submission; (2) the 34 sq.m increase in built area is minimal relative to the wider floodplain; (3) there are no further measures that can be introduced to mitigate such a minor impact; and (4) the proposed engineered surface water control will actually enhance area resilience.
• 7. The request that assessment should proceed based on the submitted flood risk assessment document and consideration of the above.

• 6.1.3.2 DOI FRM have advised that they would be making no further comment to their consultation made on 28 May 2025 in their response dated 10 June 2025.

• 6.1.4 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Comments (20 March 2025):

• 1. They have no objection to the application, subject to conditions.
• 2. They state that:

• a. The proposal will result in the loss of the existing front hedge, which provides nesting space for birds. While replacement features, including a new boundary hedge and five native trees are proposed, they request the installation of two nest bricks/boxes (one per property) to compensate for lost habitat.
• b. The existing building, a Traditional Manx Cottage, may support roosting bats and nesting birds due to its countryside location and proximity to recorded bat activity. A preliminary assessment for these species by an ecological consultant is recommended before demolition. If bats are confirmed, additional seasonal surveys may be required.
• c. Bat surveys should follow Bat Conservation Trust guidelines to determine species, abundance, and breeding status, informing appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures.

• 3. Requested Conditions:

• a. Approval of a soft landscaping plan before works commence (avoiding invasive species).
• b. Approval of a bird box plan before works commence to ensure no net biodiversity loss.

• 4. They provide advisory guidance regarding the legal protection of bats and birds under the Wildlife Act 1990.

• 6.1.5 Lezayre Commissioners (21 March 2025):

• 1. The Commissioners object to the proposal, though the decision was not unanimous.
• 2. Concerns were raised about the age of the existing pipework and whether it is adequate for two properties.
• 3. The placement of the soakaway along the boundary with a neighbouring property was highlighted as a potential issue.
• 4. The majority of Commissioners believe that constructing two dwellings constitutes overdevelopment of the site.

6.2 Representation from Neighbours

• 6.2.1 Owners/Occupiers of 6 Carrick Park, Sulby (16 March 2025):

• 1. They continue to object to the revised planning application in the strongest possible terms.
• 2. Key concerns raised:

• a. They believe Sarah Corlett's planning statement is misleading, particularly regarding the description of the northern area, which is not open space but private gardens belonging to Nos.

6 and 7. Slides 4.1 and 4.2 also allegedly misrepresent property boundaries by showing them as they were 20 years ago rather than their current extended state reaching the A3.

• b. They dispute the characterization of Nos. 6, 7, and 8 as simply "behind the site," arguing that Nos. 6 and 7 are also adjacent due to their extended gardens.

• c. They reaffirm previous objections, particularly concerns over overdevelopment and continued opposition from local residents and government representatives.
• d. They argue the site is unsuitable for two dwellings, citing the rotation of one property by 90 degrees to fit within the site. This would increase intrusion, overlook No. 6, and lack adequate screening, making the proposal unacceptable.
• e. They believe the removal of top-floor windows negatively impacts the property's appearance, does not prevent north-facing intrusion, and compromises privacy for No. 6.
• f. They note that Paragraph 5.7.3 of the planning statement appears incomplete.

• 6.2.2 Owners/Occupiers of Hill View, 8 Carrick Park, Sulby (16 March 2025):

• 1. They object to the application, stating that only minimal changes have been made compared to the previous proposal, with the replacement of first-floor windows being the only notable revision.
• 2. They argue that the scheme still represents overdevelopment, as it increases the number of dwellings from one to two while significantly expanding the overall building size, making it taller and wider than the existing structure. Additionally, they raise concerns about the introduction of another access point to the TT Course.
• 3. They criticize the proposed design, describing it as a blend of Manx cottage with modern contemporary elements that feel is inconsistent with the architectural style of the surrounding area.
• 4. They express frustration that the revised scheme will be situated closer to their property than before, making the development more overbearing due to its increased size and prominence.
• 5. Finally, they highlight potential noise disturbances from two air source heat pumps, particularly during the winter months, when their operation may be more frequent and disruptive.
• 6.2.3 Owners/Occupiers of 7 Carrick Park, Sulby (4 March 2025):

• 1. They object to the proposed development and raise several concerns regarding overdevelopment, boundary proximity, and potential drainage issues.
• 2. They express frustration that the plans lack clarity on how far the new homes will be from their boundary or the width of the rear gardens, noting that only side measurements are provided. Additionally, they challenge the claim that a hedge will be placed next to an existing fence, asserting that no fence currently exists.
• 3. They criticize the suitability of the plot, arguing that two three-bedroom family homes would be too cramped, leaving children with insufficient outdoor play space, only a small strip of grass.
• 4. They raise concerns about soakaways positioned along their garden fence, pointing out that their garden is already waterlogged in winter, and fear that overflowing soakaways could worsen the situation.
• 5. They object to the close proximity of the buildings to their garden, stating that the development will feel overly imposing, despite some design efforts to reduce overlooking.
• 6. Finally, they insist that the existing boundary fence belongs to them and must not be altered, noting that one section is missing.

• 6.2.4 In response to the comments from neighbours, the applicant's agent has made the following comments:

• 1. Design - The design mirrors local architectural styles, incorporating traditional features with some modern elements. The Appeals Inspector previously found the design attractive and respectful of the area's character.
• 2. Over Development - The new proposal remains the same in size as the previous application. The Appeals Inspector concluded that the development would not harm the character or appearance of the area.
• 3. Proximity to Boundary - There is no change in boundary distance from the previous application. The Appeals Inspector had determined that separation distances were adequate and did not cause material harm.

• 4. Noise from Air Source Heat Pumps - Noise calculations remain unchanged from the prior submission, and the Appeals Inspector found that noise levels would be within acceptable limits.
• 5. Surface Water Soakaway System - The drainage system remains the same as previously proposed, with both soakaway and direct drainage options approved by the Drainage Authority.

- 7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are:

• 1. Impacts on the character and appearance of the site and area (STP3, STP5, GP2, EP42, RDG'21);
• 2. Impact on Neighbouring Amenity (GP2(g), EP 22 & RDG'21);
• 3. Amenity for future occupants (GP 2h, STP 1b & Paragraph 3.6.3 of RDG 2021);
• 4. Highway Safety (STP10, GP2 h&i, TP4&7);
• 5. Potential Flood/Drainage Matters (GP2, EP 10 & 13);
• 6. Biodiversity Impacts (EP 4, EP 5 & GP2).
• 7.2 The principle of development was established under the previous scheme (PA 24/00106/B) and deemed acceptable. Therefore, no further assessment is required for this aspect of the scheme, as the broad design, footprint, and height of the building, as well as its relationship with the site context and surrounding area in terms of layout and positioning, will remain largely unchanged.

- 7.3 VISUAL IMPACT

• 7.3.1 In assessing the visual impact of the revised scheme submitted for the site, it is considered that the removal of first-floor windows from the North Elevation introduces a significant design change that fundamentally alters the scheme's architectural coherence and contextual sensitivity. This modification contradicts the appeal inspector's previous findings, which emphasized the importance of vernacular reference and visual quality. The inspector had previously endorsed the traditional frontage of the dwellings, noting the presence of vertically aligned windows as a positive attribute that aligned with the character of nearby properties such as Mill View and East View. By eliminating these windows, the revised elevation disrupts this established rhythm and weakens the overall integrity of the design, conflicting with General Policy 2 (b), which requires developments to respect site and surroundings in terms of scale, form, and layout.

• 7.3.2 Furthermore, the removal of first-floor windows directly contradicts the inspector's positive assessment of the original proposal. In paragraph 55 of the appeal decision, the inspector highlighted the traditional composition of frontages, which included a central entrance porch flanked by ground-floor windows and three vertically aligned first-floor windows. This arrangement was considered a key contributor to the scheme's visual attractiveness and its respectful nod to local character. The revised elevation now features a blank first-floor façade, undermining this traditional composition and reducing the scheme's architectural clarity. This alteration negatively impacts the streetscape, violating General Policy 2 (c), which ensures that new developments do not adversely affect the character of surrounding landscapes and townscapes. Additionally, the design fails to meet the objectives of Strategic Policy 5, which requires new development to enhance its environment rather than detract from it.

• 7.3.3 From a vernacular perspective, the revision represents a departure from the Manx cottage typology, which is characterized by simple, symmetrical façades with vertically aligned fenestration. The revised North Elevation lacks this visual rhythm, resulting in a façade that appears incomplete and uncharacteristic of the local architectural language. This undermines the stated aim of the proposal to reflect the Manx vernacular and risks introducing a utilitarian aesthetic that is inconsistent with the intended character. Such a design choice contradicts Environment Policy 42, which mandates that new development must take account of the existing architectural character and identity of the locality. The absence of proportional

harmony in the North Elevation reduces the development's ability to integrate with its surroundings, diminishing its contribution to the streetscape and contradicting General Policy 2 (g), which emphasizes the need to preserve the character of the locality.

• 7.3.4 Additionally, the revised design weakens the proposal's response to its site context. While the inspector acknowledged the varied character of the surrounding area and allowed for design flexibility, they emphasized that this flexibility should still yield high-quality, contextually responsive development. The North Elevation, which faces the north of Main Road and is visible from public vantage points, now presents a less engaging and less appropriate response to its setting. The lack of articulation in the façade diminishes its contribution to the streetscape, reducing visual permeability. This negatively impacts public interaction with the built form, conflicting with the principles of General Policy 2 (b, c, and g), which prioritize aesthetically coherent and environmentally sensitive architectural responses.

• 7.3.5 In summary, while there is no harm in the scheme's density, footprint, or semidetached form, as noted in the inspectors Assessment under the previously refused scheme (PA 24/00106/B), the revised North Elevation introduces new design failings that were absent in the previously assessed version. The removal of first-floor windows results in a loss of vernacular authenticity, diminished streetscape quality, and a less contextually appropriate design. These changes violate General Policy 2 (b, c, and g), Environment Policy 42, and Strategic Policy 5, as well as the Residential Design Guide 2021, which promotes high-quality, contextually responsive development. The revised elevation compromises the established architectural character of the locality, undermines its visual coherence, and fails to create a positive contribution to its surroundings, making the proposed amendment inconsistent with fundamental planning principles.

- 7.4 AMENITY FOR FUTURE OCCUPANTS

• 7.4.1 The proposal provides adequate outdoor amenity space, secure bin storage, and parking provisions, ensuring basic functional requirements for residents. However, the constrained plot size has dictated the layout of Dwelling B, resulting in the removal of all windows from its first-floor bedrooms to reduce overlooking of neighbouring properties at first floor level, particularly for No. 6 Carrick Park. Consequently, these rooms rely solely on rooflights measuring approximately 0.84sqm, which restricts natural light access and eliminates external outlook, creating a living environment that falls below acceptable residential standards. General Policy 2(h) requires developments to provide satisfactory amenity standards, ensuring sufficient living conditions, including appropriate space, access, and servicing provisions. The absence of windows in principal rooms contradicts this requirement, limiting the daylight penetration and removing any connection to the surrounding environment. Outlook plays a fundamental role in residential quality, allowing for natural surveillance, engagement with outdoor spaces, and psychological well-being, all of which are absent from the upper-floor bedrooms of Dwelling B.

• 7.4.2 Additionally, General Policy 2(m) emphasizes the importance of community and personal safety in development design, including natural surveillance and passive security principles. These considerations align with the Social Well-being Aim of the Strategic Plan (Paragraph 2.3), which seeks "to enable the people individually and collectively to live healthily and fulfil their potential within a secure environment." The removal of external windows restricts passive observation and engagement with outdoor surroundings, creating an isolated internal space that does not reflect best practices in modern housing design. Secure, open sightlines are fundamental to residential planning, contributing to well-being, security, and a sense of connection with the environment, elements that are severely diminished in this proposal.
• 7.4.3 Additionally, the Quality Environment Aim (Paragraph 2.3) highlights the need "to protect and improve the quality of the environment," which extends to built environments and housing design principles that ensure liveability and long-term sustainability. The proposed

removal of external windows undermines these principles, prioritizing external privacy at the expense of internal living quality. From a strategic planning perspective, Strategic Policy 1(b) reinforces the need for efficient land use while maintaining appropriate residential standards. While site constraints necessitate careful design, efficiency should not come at the expense of residential amenity, and the proposed layout does not offer a balanced solution. Further supporting this argument, RDG 2021 (Paragraph 3.6.3) warns against density-driven development that compromises residential standards. While maximizing site use is essential, it should not override key principles such as adequate outlook and amenity space. The elimination of windows in the upper-floor bedrooms within Dwelling B contradicts these guidelines, leading to an enclosed residential setting that does not align with accepted urban planning principles. Developments should strive for a balance between density and liveability, ensuring that internal spaces remain functional, comfortable, and integrated with their surroundings.

• 7.4.4 On balance, it is considered that the proposed scheme does not fully comply with General Policy 2(h), as it fails to provide satisfactory amenity standards, nor does it align with General Policy 2(m), which emphasizes residential safety and natural surveillance. Additionally, it contradicts the Social Well-being and Quality Environment Aims of Paragraph 2.3 of the Strategic Plan, both of which emphasize liveability, security, and sustainable housing design. Furthermore, the proposal fails to fully satisfy Strategic Policy 1(b), as site efficiency should not compromise internal residential standards. The RDG 2021 guidance reinforces these concerns, emphasizing the necessity of balancing density with residential quality. Given these deficiencies, the absence of external windows in principal rooms represents a significant shortfall in residential amenity. Therefore, it is considered that the scheme conflicts with the principles promoted by GP 2 (h & m), Strategic Policy 1 (b), the principles promoted by Paragraph 2.3 of the Strategic Plan, as well as Paragraph 3.6.3 of the RDG 2021.
• 7.5 IMPACTS ON NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES

• 7.5.1 The primary concern regarding neighbouring amenity relates to privacy and overlooking, particularly for the rear garden of 6 Carrick Park. The previous application was refused due to significant privacy concerns, with the inspector concluding that the first-floor windows of Dwelling B would overlook the entire garden of No. 6, resulting in unacceptable harm. In response to this issue, the current proposal removes all three first-floor windows on the north-facing elevation of Dwelling B, ensuring that no habitable room overlooks No. 6's garden. This amendment directly addresses the inspector's concerns regarding privacy loss for this property. Additionally, bedrooms in Dwelling B will no longer have external-facing windows but will instead be served by Velux rooflights, further mitigating overlooking concerns. With these changes, the primary issue that led to refusal has been eliminated, and there is now no direct overlooking of No. 6's private garden space from habitable rooms. Therefore, the previous privacy impact is no longer considered a significant issue.

• 7.5.2 Concerns have been raised by residents of Nos. 6, 7, and 8 Carrick Park regarding the proximity of the new dwellings, fearing that the development will feel overly imposing. The inspector previously reviewed this concern, acknowledging that the new dwellings would be taller and closer to site boundaries but ultimately concluding that they would not be unduly overbearing due to their modest scale. The current proposal does not alter the footprint or height of the buildings, meaning the inspector's previous assessment remains valid. While the occupants of these neighbouring properties may perceive the development as intrusive, it does not reach a level that would warrant refusal on overbearing grounds, given the separation distances and scale.
• 7.5.3 The placement of Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHPs) has raised concerns among residents, particularly regarding potential noise impacts. The appeal inspector previously reviewed this issue, concluding that projected noise levels were below the permitted threshold and could be controlled through conditions. The current proposal retains the ASHPs, specifying one unit per dwelling, using the Mitsubishi PUHZ-W50/W85VHA2(-BS) model, positioned 300mm away from

• obstructions, with air discharge directed away from neighbouring properties. These details demonstrate efforts to minimize noise impact. Given that the positioning and model of the ASHPs remain unchanged, there is no basis to deviate from the inspector's previous assessment. Therefore, it is not considered that the concerns with noise are sufficient to warrant refusal of the proposal.
• 7.5.4 The revised proposal comprehensively addresses the primary reason for refusal by removing all first-floor windows from Dwelling B's north-facing elevation, eliminating direct overlooking of No. 6 Carrick Park's private garden. The inspector previously confirmed that concerns regarding the scale and proximity of the dwellings were not overly intrusive, as their footprint and height remain modest. This unchanged aspect ensures that the development does not create an undue sense of enclosure. Additionally, concerns about Air Source Heat Pump (ASHP) noise were assessed by the inspector, who determined that projected noise levels were within acceptable thresholds. The current proposal retains the same ASHP specifications, maintaining compliance with permitted standards. While neighbouring objections persist, they do not introduce new material considerations beyond those already reviewed by the inspector. Given the amendments made, particularly regarding privacy, the proposal now meets acceptable residential amenity standards, and subject to appropriate conditions, refusal is not warranted.
• 7.5.5 The outstanding issues raised by neighbours relate to drainage concerns, which are addressed in the drainage section, and boundary fence matters, which are considered under other relevant matters section of this report. As all other objections, including those related to privacy, visual impacts, overbearing effects, and architectural compatibility, have been assessed within this and other sections, no additional matters require further review in this context.
• 7.6 HIGHWAY SAFETY

• 7.6.1 The proposed access arrangements, including the creation of a new entrance and associated visibility improvements, are deemed appropriate given the site layout and the number of dwellings proposed. The design ensures a safe and efficient connection to the existing highway, supporting ease of access for residents while minimizing potential risks to road users. These measures reflect best practice principles for residential access and contribute to maintaining network functionality and road safety.

• 7.6.2 In terms of off-road parking provision, each dwelling would benefit from at least two dedicated parking spaces, meeting the requirements outlined in Transport Policy 7 (Appendix 7 of the IOMSP). Additionally, the site is positioned along a public transport corridor, offering future occupants alternative transport options and promoting sustainable mobility choices that align with broader transport planning objectives. Each of the dwellings also benefit from three cycle parking provisions which supports sustainable transport goals.
• 7.6.3 The DOI Highways Division has reviewed the proposal and determined that it does not pose any significant negative impacts on highway safety, network functionality, or parking capacity, provided that the access arrangements follow the original layout under the refused scheme. This assessment confirms that the proposal aligns with established highway standards and ensures that vehicular movements to and from the site remain safe and practical, given that there has been no change to the layout which is same as that proposed under PA 24/00106/B.
• 7.6.4 Given the findings of Highway Services and policy compliance, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with STP10, TP4 & 7, and GP 2(h & i) of the Strategic Plan, which set out requirements for safe and sustainable transport infrastructure, off-road parking provision, and highway safety considerations. With appropriate conditions, the development meets the necessary standards and does not introduce new material concerns that would warrant refusal on highway safety grounds.

7.7 FLOOD RISK/DRAINAGE MATTERS Flood Matters

• 7.7.1 Flood mapping confirms that the entire site is at risk of fluvial flooding, necessitating a detailed assessment under Environment Policy 10. The applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), which argues that flooding risks are low based on the absence of previous flooding at the site, the presence of flood defence works installed in the area in 2005, and the elevated floor level of the proposed dwelling, which is set 210mm higher than the existing dwelling and 200mm above the adjacent roadway that falls outside the identified flood risk zone. However, the FRA does not provide any form of mitigation and fails to assess the potential for increased flooding off-site, which is a requirement under EP 13. This policy stipulates that new development should not result in an unacceptable flood risk within and beyond the site boundary.

• 7.7.2 In addition to concerns about fluvial flooding, the proposed development introduces significant changes to site conditions that may exacerbate flood risks. The increase in the building footprint from approximately 93.58sqm to 133.4sqm represents a growth of 39.9sqm (42.5% increase in building footprint), and the proposal also incorporates extensive new hardstanding areas. Compared to the existing site, which is predominantly covered with mature and overgrown vegetation, these changes would significantly increase impermeable surfaces, reducing natural infiltration capacity and leading to greater surface water discharge. As a result, over 60 percent of the site would be covered by either buildings or hard surfacing, limiting percolation and increasing runoff, which could elevate flood risks both on-site and offsite. Given the site's medium likelihood of fluvial flooding, this additional runoff could compound flood impacts, yet these factors have not been considered within the FRA. In the absence of a detailed technical review, reliance on site elevation alone cannot be assumed to be an adequate mitigation strategy.
• 7.7.3 Whilst the applicant considers the introduction of engineered soakaways, permeable paving, and a fallback discharge to the public network to represent an improvement over the existing dwelling, which lacks any formal surface water management, these measures have not been supported by technical evidence to demonstrate their effectiveness or capacity. Permeable paving, while preferable to impermeable surfacing, does not replicate the infiltration performance of unbuilt ground, and no quantitative analysis has been provided to assess runoff generation or downstream impacts. As such, the scheme fails to address a core requirement of EP 13: to demonstrate that the development will not increase flood risk beyond the site boundary.

• 7.7.3 The technical sufficiency of the submitted FRA is also a concern, as it has not been prepared in accordance with the requirements set out in Appendix 4 of the Strategic Plan. Paragraph A.4.3 specifies that a FRA must include a location plan identifying nearby watercourses, a contoured site plan indicating existing and proposed levels, details of flood alleviation measures, data on historical flood events, an assessment of structures affecting local hydraulics, and a site cross-section showing floor levels relative to flood predictions. While the FRA addresses some aspects, such as identifying local flood defences and structural influences on water flow, it lacks key elements such as topographical contour mapping, flood event depth assessments, and scaled site-level modifications following development.
• 7.7.4 Furthermore, Paragraph A.4.5 requires that flood defence arrangements be detailed, along with an evaluation of their effectiveness under extreme flood conditions. The submitted FRA fails to include such assessments, leaving uncertainty as to whether adequate mitigation measures exist for both future residents and neighbouring properties. No formal flood protection strategies other than reliance on site elevation have been proposed, despite the requirements for a comprehensive review of potential flood hazards. Given these deficiencies, it remains unclear whether the development sufficiently addresses flood risks, particularly in light of the updated flood mapping and the increased impermeable surface coverage. Without the

missing technical data outlined in Appendix 4 of the Strategic Plan, reliance on site elevation alone is an inadequate mitigation strategy, failing to account for surface water displacement, runoff management, and the combined effects of fluvial flooding. Additionally, the FRA fails to assess or mitigate potential off-site impacts arising from increased surface water discharge, in direct conflict with Environment Policy 13. Mitigation options, including flow balancing, on-site attenuation, or downstream infrastructure improvement, have not been adequately explored. A more detailed assessment is necessary to determine whether additional flood protection measures should be imposed to ensure the development does not contribute to increased flood hazards within and beyond the site boundary.

• 7.7.5 Further to the above, DOI FRM has raised concerns regarding the adequacy of the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). They note that East View is within the 1 in 100 (medium risk) flood zone, requiring a detailed assessment of potential impacts on third-party properties. They highlight that the current FRA does not address this issue and recommend further modelling to determine whether the 40% increase in the building footprint will influence flood flows and water depths in surrounding areas. Additionally, DOI FRM raises concerns about surface water management, stating that approximately 60% of the site will be paved, yet the FRA lacks sufficient detail on how soakaways will function. They advise that percolation testing should be carried out to BRE Digest 365 (1991) standards to confirm suitability, with alternative drainage solutions proposed if soakaways prove inadequate. DOI FRM also cautions against relying on national flood risk maps for individual property assessments, stressing that a site-specific review is necessary for an accurate determination of flood risks. While the applicant was contacted to consider these updated concerns, no supplemental FRA or mitigation modelling was provided in response. As such, the development remains in conflict with EP 13. Drainage matters
• 7.7.6 In addition to flood risks, uncertainty remains regarding the drainage infrastructure, particularly the adequacy of existing pipework and the effectiveness of the soakaway system in preventing water intrusion into adjacent properties. The Lezayre Commissioners have expressed concerns about whether the current pipework can adequately support two dwellings, whilst also querying the placement of the soakaway system along the boundary of a neighbouring property. Additionally, residents of No. 7 Carrick Park worry that the soakaway system could lead to surface water overflow, exacerbating winter waterlogging in their garden. Although this issue was not directly assessed in the previous appeal decision, an alternative drainage solution had already been considered acceptable by MU Drainage under the previous scheme under PA 24/00106/B in case of soakaway failure, and this aspect remains unchanged in the current scheme.
• 7.7.7 For clarity, it is important to reiterate that the Drainage Authority (Manx Utilities) had previously requested modifications to the site plan to illustrate a proposed surface water drain connection to the existing public drainage network as an alternative disposal method, should percolation testing prove inadequate for the soakaway system under the previous application (24/00106/B). The revised site plan (Drawing No. 1081-11 Rev B) within the current scheme confirms that this alternative drainage solution has been incorporated, mirroring that which was requested by MU Drainage and addressing their request from the previous scheme. Therefore, since the drainage proposal remains unchanged from the previous application, which was deemed acceptable by Manx Utilities, it continues to meet their requirements in its current form. Conclusion
• 7.7.8 The proposed development includes adequate drainage provisions, as the soakaway system and alternative surface water drain connection were previously deemed acceptable. The revised site plan retains these measures, ensuring compliance with established drainage standards. However, significant concerns remain regarding fluvial flood risks and the impact of increased impermeable surfaces. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) does not provide

mitigation measures or assess off-site flood consequences, failing to meet the requirements of Environment Policy 13. The reliance on site elevation as a flood prevention strategy does not address the potential for increased runoff due to the 40% expansion in building footprint and 60% site coverage by impermeable surfaces. Additionally, DOI FRM has raised concerns about the lack of third-party flood impact assessment and the absence of percolation testing to verify the soakaway system's effectiveness. The FRA is technically insufficient, as it lacks detailed flood modelling and critical assessments outlined in Appendix 4 of the Strategic Plan. While drainage provisions meet existing standards, the unresolved flood risks cast doubt on whether the development sufficiently mitigates potential hazards, highlighting the need for further analysis and mitigation strategies. These inherent shortcomings raise significant concerns about the proposal's acceptability.

- 7.8 BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS

• 7.8.1 The proposed demolition and redevelopment of East View raise biodiversity concerns due to the site's prolonged vacancy and extensive overgrown vegetation, which may serve as habitats for local species, including protected ones such as nesting birds and roosting bats. To comply with Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan, which mandates biodiversity safeguarding, ecological assessments should have been conducted and submitted as part of the current application. The absence of upfront ecological survey data significantly weakens the proposal, as bat roost and nesting bird activity must be assessed to determine habitat significance. Given that a preliminary ecological appraisal was required in the previous, rejected scheme, its omission from the current submission is a considerable shortcoming, particularly as the applicants have had sufficient time to include it.
• 7.8.2 Despite the absence of an ecological survey, the DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team considers the proposed mitigation measures, including the installation of a new boundary hedge (except at entrances) and five native trees to be broadly acceptable, despite the unspecified tree species. However, the removal of the front hedge may temporarily eliminate breeding space for nesting birds, prompting the team to recommend installing two nesting bricks or boxes (one per property) to compensate for habitat loss. This indicates that further ecological enhancements, in addition to the proposed mitigation, could be acceptable if appropriately conditioned. Applying relevant conditions to address ecological impacts would ensure compliance with Environment Policies 4 and 5.
• 7.8.3 While the absence of an ecological survey initially weakens the proposal, the inclusion of mitigation measures such as conditioned biodiversity surveys, replacement planting, and nesting provisions demonstrates compliance with statutory environmental policies. The integration of these elements suggests that, subject to appropriate conditions, the proposal aligns with biodiversity safeguarding requirements within the Strategic Plan.

- 7.9 OTHER MATTERS

• 7.9.1 Fences and Boundary Issues Concerns have been raised regarding boundary fencing at No. 7 Carrick Park, where a hedge is proposed adjacent to an existing fence. The occupiers of No. 7 assert that no alterations should be made to this boundary. While these concerns are acknowledged, boundary issues are civil matters and fall outside the scope of the planning system. As such, they do not carry weight in the determination of this planning application and are not considered relevant to its assessment.

• 7.9.2 Procedural Considerations and Consultation Timing

• 7.9.2.1 Although formal consultation with DOI FRM had not occurred at the commencement of drafting, their input was subsequently sought during the drafting process due to its relevance in addressing outstanding flood matters. Their comments, received on 28th May 2025, identified key shortcomings in the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), including the absence of offsite flood impact analysis and failure to incorporate updated flood extents, concerns also raised by neighbouring residents.

• 7.9.2.2 Although received outside the standard 21-day consultation period, these comments remain a material consideration under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, as Article 8 requires the Department to assess the application bundle and any representations made under Article 7, based on all relevant information available at the time of determination. The applicant was given the opportunity to respond but did not provide further technical evidence. Consequently, the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) remains incomplete, failing to reflect the updated evidence base and statutory feedback. The assessment, therefore, incorporates all material information at the time of determination, including DOI FRM's unresolved concerns.
• 7.9.2.3 The applicant has raised concerns about application processing delays and flood mapping updates after submission. However, Article 8 requires decisions to be based on all available evidence at the time of assessment, not solely on data at submission. Previous acceptance of submissions does not override new flood risk classifications, which must be considered to ensure compliance with Environment Policy 13 (EP 13). Additionally, while the applicant asserts that no mitigation measures can be introduced, EP 13 requires either mitigation or a justified technical explanation for its absence. The claim that site elevation alone mitigates flooding remains unverified without supporting technical evidence on runoff and displaced floodwaters. Therefore, irrespective of timing, DOI FRM's concerns, and updated flood mapping remain material considerations in assessing the acceptability of this proposal.

- 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 While the proposed redevelopment of East View retains several elements of policy compliance, including its previously approved footprint, layout, and scale, it introduces significant concerns that require further scrutiny. The access arrangements and parking provisions align with Transport Policy 7 and Strategic Policy 10, promoting safe connectivity. Additionally, biodiversity mitigation measures adhere to Environment Policies 4 and 5, supporting ecological compensation. The removal of first-floor windows in Dwelling B addresses privacy concerns under General Policy 2(g), and the drainage proposal remains consistent with prior assessments, albeit without addressing off-site flood risks.

8.2 However, these positives are outweighed by critical shortcomings that undermine the scheme's acceptability. The removal of first-floor bedroom windows in two of the three bedrooms for Dwelling B negatively impacts residential amenity, reducing natural light access and external outlook, failing to meet General Policy 2(h). Additionally, the revised North Elevation diminishes architectural coherence, contradicting General Policy 2(b, c, g), Environment Policy 42, and Strategic Policy 5, which require contextually responsive design. Most critically, the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) fails to evaluate off-site flood impacts or provide adequate mitigation measures, contravening Environment Policy 13. The DOI Flood Risk Management Division has identified technical gaps, reinforcing the need for further assessments.

8.3 While some aspects of the proposal meet planning requirements, the substantial deficiencies in residential amenity, architectural integration, and flood risk mitigation remain unresolved. The failure to address flood hazards, coupled with negative impacts on living conditions, make the scheme unacceptable within the framework of General Policy 2, Environment Policies 13 and 42, and Strategic Policy 5. Given these fundamental conflicts, the proposal does not meet key planning policy requirements, and refusal is recommended. - 9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE

9.1 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:

• o applicant (in all cases).
• o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and
• o 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):

• o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant);
• o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure, and the local authority for the area;
• o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and
• o 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.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status, and/or rights to appeal.

Decision Made : Refused Date : 23.06.2025 Determining Officer

Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management

Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/ customers and archive record.