Loading document...
Application No.: 25/90196/B Applicant: Mr Frank Sweeney Proposal: Construction of 14 bungalows including vehicular access and associated infrastructure Site Address: Land Adjacent To Ginger Hall Hotel Ballamanagh Road Sulby Isle Of Man Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 04.02.2026
Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
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.
7241-001-01C PLOTS 1 AND 2 PLANS AND ELEVATIONS 7241-003-01C PLOTS 3 AND 4 PLANS AND ELEVATIONS 7241-005-01C PLOTS 5 AND 6 PLANS AND ELEVATIONS
approved hard and soft landscaping works or boundary treatments within or enclosing the curtilage of an individual dwelling shall be completed prior to the occupation of that dwelling, and the full landscaping works for the whole site shall be completed in accordance with the approved details in the first planting and seeding season following completion of the development. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.
Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development and suitable mitigation for the impact upon trees and wildlife on the site.
Reason: To prevent overdevelopment of the site and to control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
Rights to Appeal – Additional Persons It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DOI Highway Services No objection and conditions applied DOI Flood Risk Management No objection and conditions applied Manx Utility Authority No objection and condition applied It is recommended that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal on the basis that they have submitted a relevant objection:
Lezayre Parish Commissioners Objection
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:
26 Carrick Park, Sulby, IM7 2EY 28 Carrick Park, Sulby, IM7 2EY
THIS APPLICATION IS BEFORE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A LEGAL AGREEMENT AND COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
1.1 The application relates to land adjacent to the Ginger Hall Hotel, Ballamanagh Road, Sulby. The site is located to the eastern edge of the village of Sulby. The site is currently only accessed from River Meadowland, a rural lane passing along the south side of the village. The entrance to the site is from the north side of the lane, not far from the junction with Ginger Hall corner. - 1.2 The site is bounded on its north side by the rear of a row of detached bungalows on Carrick Park. On the east side, the site extends to the west side of the A3 main road and then tapers inwards where it adjoins the Ginger Hall Hotel and its car park. To the south is River Meadowland Lane. On the west side, the site adjoins the rear of two detached houses on a small residential culde-sac to the west. - 1.3 The site has an area of approximately 0.55 hectares (ha) and is broadly square shaped although it tapers inwards on its south east side. The site is undeveloped land and is mostly overgrown. There are a number of trees and bushes along the west boundary. The site falls in a north westerly direction towards the rear of the houses on Carrick Park. There is a low fence on the north side and the site is relatively open to the rear of the properties on Carrick Park. - 1.4 There is a drainage ditch on the inside of this north western perimeter of the site which then runs underneath the A3 main road to the east. On the east side, next to the Ginger Hall Hotel, there is a high fence. On the south side, next to River Meadowland Lane, is a roadside lane with a field gate where the access to the development will be located.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks planning permission for the erection of 14no. 2 bedroom dwellinghouses with access, public open space, play area, drainage and landscaping. - 2.2 The development comprises a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced properties, with ten being bungalows and 4 plots have rooms within the roof space (Plots 1, 5, 6 and 7). The maximum height to ridge of the proposed dwellings will be 6.5m. The appearance of the dwellings will vary across various plots to offer visual interest, with finished materials comprising white painted render and horizontal cladding to walls, dark (grey) uPVC windows, rainwater goods and fascias. The roofs will be of fibre cement roof tiles with flush fitting PV panels as indicated. - 2.3 Access will be derived off Lezayre Road (A3) to the northwest boundary of the application site. The site access affords visibility splays in both directions across the site frontage of 90m, with pedestrian access also provided from the proposed POS and local area play (LAP) to River Meadowland to the southeast boundary. All dwellings will benefit from 2 parking spaces, with Plots
2.4 The application proposes a total of 1173 m2 of POS, which includes a LAP. The proposed LAP has an area of approximately 200sq.m and all of the 14no. proposed dwellings are within 100m
3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The land is zoned under the Sulby Local Plan Order 1998 as being 'Predominately Residential Use & Woodland'. The site is not within a Conservation Area, nor is it within an area zoned as High Landscape Value or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. - 3.2 Due to the site's location, land use designation and the type of development proposed, the following Planning Policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Sulby Local Plan 1998 are relevant when determining the application: Strategic Policy
5 Design and visual impact Spatial Policy 4 Development in Remaining Villages General Policy 2 General Development Considerations Environment Policy 10 Development and flood risk 42 Designed to respect the character and identity of the locality Housing Policy 1 Housing need Transport Policy 4 Highway safety 7 Parking
3.3 Sulby Local Plan (NO.2) Order 1998 - Development Brief states: "3.15. It is recommended that the development of this area shall be undertaken in accordance with the following brief.
boundaries designed to allow the maximisation of car parking space for use by the hotel.
boundary with the Claddagh Road. (B8).
landscaping buffer along the boundaries of the property.
introduced over any part of the foul sewer which crosses the site."
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 5.1 The following applications are most pertinent to the proposed development: PA14/01198/B - Erection of five dwellings - approved 03/07/2015.
PA17/00462/B- Erection of seven dwellings - approved 13/02/2017. AP18/0009 - Appeal against the approval of PA 17/00462/B - appeal dismissed 19/07/2018. PA22/01112/B - Amended scheme for seven dwellings (PA17/00462/B) - approved 09/05/2024.
6.1 The following Statutory Consultees have been consulted and their responses can be summarised as follows:
Lezayre Commissioners -Objection: The Commissioners have paid particular attention here to the access to properties by the refuse wagons. They are of the opinion that the roads are too narrow on the proposed estate to enable the refuse wagons to operate easily, especially when vehicles are parked on the road. They are also concerned about the tightness of the turning circle for the wagons.
The Commissioners reiterate that they still consider this planning application to be over-intensive development of the site and continue to object to it unanimously.
DOI Highway Services - First consultation response - Additional information required and summarised as follows: Overall highway safety and access remain broadly acceptable — The junction layout, visibility splays (2.4 m × 90 m), priority junction onto the A3, and ownership/highway envelope are consistent with previously approved schemes and meet highways requirements.
Increase in dwelling numbers (7 to 14) is material and heightens risks — This substantial uplift materially increases trip generation, conflicting movements, and potential for safety/operational problems (parking, turning, bus interactions), warranting design changes even where prior approvals existed.
Parking provision meets minimum standards but is vulnerable to underuse and overflow — All dwellings get 2 spaces per Strategic Plan requirements (Isle of Man), but garages are prone to conversion to storage (especially in less urban settings), laybys risk misuse as communal/visitor parking, and on-street overflow is inevitable (visitors, extra cars); design must actively minimise safety-impacting on-street parking.
Bus stop location creates an unacceptable safety conflict with the increased scale — A stationary
Turning/headroom and service vehicle access risk obstruction — Underuse of garage/drive spaces (especially at the three end dwellings P.05-P.07 and near P.01) could block the turning head or force large vehicles (refuse/delivery) to reverse long distances or onto the highway - needs mitigation.
Other detailed design elements are mostly acceptable or fixable — Upgraded bus stop with Kassel kerbs/hardstanding is welcomed; pedestrian access to Ny Claddagh is adequate (2 m footway, chicane barriers, low hedging max. 0.6 m); bicycle sheds meet MfMR dimensions but preferably should be within curtilages; refuse reversing manoeuvre needs waste team confirmation.
If issues cannot be resolved through redesign, a reduction in dwelling numbers may be necessary This is presented as a last-resort option to control parking/movement/turning risks.
In order to complete the assessment of the application, Highways Development Control request the following information / revisions to be provided:
Secondary response - No objection subject to conditions, which can be summarised as follows: Previous highway concerns have been satisfactorily addressed through design revisions and dialogue — All major issues flagged in the earlier response (21/03/2025) have now been resolved via alterations made by the applicant/agent.
Bus stop relocation improves (but does not eliminate) the visibility conflict — Moved to the furthest western extent of the ownership → increases available stopping sight distance and provides overtaking space for left-turning vehicles from the junction (mimicking A3 overtaking behaviour), making the arrangement safer and more acceptable despite a stationary bus still partially obstructing visibility.
Pedestrian access and junction transitions have been improved — Tapered/level footway ends added at the shared-use street junction → provides direct, level access for pedestrians entering/exiting without forcing them onto the tactile crossing near turning vehicles or across private land. Parking layout revisions reduce (but do not eliminate) on-street overflow risk — Key changes:
Plots 1 and 5 converted from garage to additional external driveway space (Plot 1 closer to junction
Plots 6 and 7 retain garage provision (no change) but updated tracking demonstrates forward-gear entry/exit remains possible even with on-street parking in turning head or along street → no increased safety risk.
Overall highway safety, access, and network efficiency are now acceptable — With the revisions, the proposal raises no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues.
Ecosystem Policy Team- No objection subject to conditions: Detailed Comments
Given that the Manx Wildlife Trust have been approached to update their Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report (PEAR), but do not have availability at present, we would be content in this instance to request that an updated report and accompanying mitigation plan is secured via a condition on approval.
We are content with the proposal to replace Prunus lusitanica with Corylus avellana, though we suggest that a condition is secured on approval for a soft landscaping plan to be provided, so that landscaping plans can take into account any potential recommendations made in an updated PEAR.
Despite the fall-back position regarding the proximity of Plot 14 to the retained trees, it would still be our recommendation that Plot 14 is removed from the plans. Potential conditions Should this application be approved, we recommend that conditions are secured for:
No works to commence unless an updated Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report and an Ecological Mitigation Plan has been submitted to Planning and approved in writing.
No works to commence unless a soft landscaping plan has been submitted to Planning and approved in writing.
No external lighting to be installed unless a sensitive lighting plan, following best practise as detailed 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.
DOI Flood Risk Management: No objection: Upon review of the drawings and calculations we are satisfied the 600mm dia culvert is sufficient for the 1 in 100 plus climate change event. The developer must be aware they may find it difficult to lay the 600mm dia pipe or two 450mm dia pipes if laid at the same level as the existing 3 x 225mm dia pipes due to the 6" cast iron water main running in the road. It may worth liaising with Manx Utilities to see if the water main can be relocated. Due to the proposed culvert being shallow we would recommend concrete protection above it.
The details for the inlet and outlet must be provide in the Flood Risk Management Act 2013 Section 20 application for the works. All design must be carried out to CIRIA guide C786 Culvert Screen and Outfall Manual.
If the 600mm dia pipe cannot be constructed, then a pipe or culvert that is capable of conveying the same flow as the 600mm pipe must be installed. This must be discussed and agreed prior to commencement of the site.
Arboricultural Officer - Objection: Thank you for consulting with us on this current application. We have now had an opportunity to undertake a cursory desktop review and have the following comments. We are aware of previous permissions on this site but this applications has been looked at on its own merits and the previous impacts of permitted development not undertaken largely ignored.
There are registered trees impacted and some other trees of note. It is proposed to lose several Cat B trees, some parts of groups and some individual and this in itself is contrary to our policies in such matters but aligned with the removal of more than 50% of the trees and no meaningful mitigation this is clearly an issue for us.
The impact on retained trees we also consider to be unsustainable and the TPP does nothing to alter this as the root loss on certain species is certain to lead to the death of the trees and at least one of these is registered. It would appear the Arboriculturalist was not listened to. The TPP does not contain access details, areas for delivery, storage, fuelling etc. Fence lines are within 2m of structures, and no shadow assessment provided. An AMS is also required to support the TPP.
On landscape grounds we note there is very little in the way of usable amenity space. There are a number of trees indicated to be planted but no details of this and 50% appear to be from one horticultural family, which is not diverse enough.
Additionally there are no details of the drainage system and how the additional storm water load will be dealt with on site following the conversion of a permeable site to an impermeable site. This on such a densely developed site will be a very important constraint for both tree retention and planting.
Therefore on the grounds of sustainability we cannot support this proposal in its current form and register our objection to this on the grounds of tree loss. If this matter were to proceed we would expect to see a redesigned site to remove the impact of tree loss, detailed service info, and the points above addressed.
Manx Utilities Authority: No objection: Manx Utilities notes that the number of properties on this development has increased from the previous application. There is an existing live overhead line which crosses the site including wood poles and stay wires which are located within the site boundary. The increased size of development
now encroaches on this overhead line and associated equipment; specifically the corner of plot 14 and children's play area. From a health and safety perspective this is far from ideal.
Manx Utilities request that a condition is placed upon the development that the overhead line is removed and placed underground through the development site between pole 07072 on the main road and pole 07069 on Ballamanagh Road. This work is to be undertaken at the developers cost.
6.2 4 representations have been received from members of the public to the original submission, which can be summarised as follows: The planning application was granted on the previous application for 8 bungalows (and nothing was progressed with construction etc); this time a new application is being sought to increase the 8 bungalows to 14 bungalows and am unsure if the field is large enough to support such a large number now. The increase in dwellings is excessive. The sewage system is struggling to keep pace and requires investment There is no clear pathway for the storm water system to function until the 600mm pipe is installed. Use of the ditch cannot be an option. The ditch has been maintained by adjoining owners for 27 years. The ditch can become blacked and takes water from The Grange Farm Hill, the mountain and Ballamanaugh Estate. Who will be responsible for maintaining the ditch? Carrick Park already has drainage issues. Even allowing for the proposed attenuation tank, surely introducing additional storm water discharge will have a negative impact in any future flood event? Relying on the use of three soakaways to reduce surface water run-off will only work until they silt up. Who will maintain/replace them? If the ground permeability is acceptable for soak aways, is there scope to enhance onsite water retention by installing permeable block paving to the parking bays rather than Bitmac? Will introducing the foul water from this development into the head of the Carrick Park system have a negative impact on its existing poor drainage? There are five vehicular access roads within a few metres of one another: Carrick Park, Mill lane, Ginger Hall car park, River meadow land and Narrowdale. Introducing a sixth will not enhance road safety. The service road looks narrow, making reversing out of individual driveways difficult and there's no footpath provision. With no serious turning head at the end near plots 8 and 14, refuse lorries will need to reverse for some distance creating a safety hazard. Play area - What safety surface, if any, is proposed beneath the play equipment? - 6.3 3 representations have been received from members of the public to the amended/updated plans and reports, which can be summarised as follows: Amended plans show chalet type dwellings not in keeping with the area. Responsibility for ditch maintenance remains unclear. Home in Carrick Park has experienced two 1 in 50 year flood events in the past two years and so any development of the site should be refused. House numbers should be as few as possible and no more than 7 as a maximum to prevent flood risk increasing. The development will increase flood risk to Carrick Park. Flood prevention measures should be put in place to prevent flooding of Ginger Hall and Carrick Park. Provision of the 600mm dia pipe for surface water must be installed if permission is granted.
7.1 The key considerations in the determination of the application are:
7.2 The application site is located within the plan boundary for Sulby and it has been established through the historical grant of planning consents that residential development of the site would be a sustainable form of development, broadly compliant with housing delivery and land zoning policies within the Development Plan. - 7.3 It is recognised that within the 1998 Sulby Local Plan, the land is designated as predominantly residential for no more than 2 dwellings. A development of 14 dwellings as proposed therefore conflicts with the provisions of the Local Plan. However, material to the consideration of this application is the previous grants of planning permission on the site, which since 2017, has included two applications that were each permitted for the development of seven dwellings and associated garaging and access of the A3 in the same position as this proposal. - 7.4 The Strategic Plan indicates at Strategic Policy 1 that development should make the best use of resources by using unused and under-used land and buildings. Accordingly, while the proposed development constitutes a significant increase on what has previously been approved and what the Sulby Local Plan permits, the increase in dwellings is not an automatic reason to refuse the application. - 7.5 Notwithstanding the fact that the 1998 Local Plan identifies the site for two dwellings only, with the land identified as being suitable for housing and it having been acknowledged on several occasions in the past that the site is within an accessible and sustainable location for new housing, the principle of development is considered to be acceptable. The proposed development of fourteen dwellings would make and efficient use of the land and is therefore assessed as according with the housing delivery aims of Strategic Polices 1 and 2 and Housing Policy 4. - 7.6 In pure land use planning terms, there is no differentiation between a residential development of 7 dwellings or 14, as the principle of the land use remains the same. The key consideration is the impact of the more intense development scheme upon the area. Those material considerations and policy assessments are made in the subsequent sections of the report. DESIGN AND IMPACT UPON THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE AREA - 7.7 The application site is an undeveloped parcel of land that has been left to nature and does not appear to have been regularly maintained. It is bounded by tree planting and domestic fencing in sections, with residential development to the west/northwest and Ginger Hall to the northeast corner of the site. The site is therefore partially framed by built form as seen from public vantage points. - 7.8 The proposed development has doubled the number of dwellings on the site, but physical built form is not significantly greater than the previous approval for 7 dwellings. That development, of fewer but larger bungalows, had a GIA of approximately 1009sqm and the development of 14 smaller bungalows has a GIA of 1164sqm, an increase of some 155sqm, or 15%. - 7.9 The layout of the estate creates active street frontages with dwellings fronting on to the main highway. The layout is relatively uniform and is largely reflective of the estate to the northwest at Carrick Park. Each dwelling is served by suitable parking provision and private amenity space, with plots and gardens being generally reflective of the pattern of development in the immediate area. The site layout is legible and offers free movement through the site, with pedestrian access onto the highway also provided around the play area. - 7.10 The proposed house types are largely of a traditional style, with front elevations incorporating recessed elements to further break up their already modest forms. The use of render and horizontal cladding creates an attractive finished appearance across the site that will work well with the dark coloured window frames, rainwater goods, and roof finishes. The design approach is considered to be of a high standard and reflective of other modern housing in the area and being developed across the Island. - 7.11 The overall design scheme is considered to be well considered and although the number of dwellings has increased, the overall extent of built form is only marginally greater than what has
been approved previously. A denser development makes a more effective use of land and can be achieved without compromising living conditions of design quality. On this basis, the development is considered to comply with Strategic Policy 1, Spatial Policy 4, General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan.
7.12 The application site will be served by a new vehicular access off the A3, Lezayre Road, with visibility splays extending to a minimum of 90m in both directions along the road frontage. Although forming part of the main TT course, the site is located within a 30mph zone and vehicle speeds are generally tempered by the two beds within the road to the north and east of the site. The section of highway along which the access is proposed, is well aligned with good forward visibility. - 7.13 The positioning of the access to the application site, directly onto the A3, has been a contentious issue historically with one Planning Inspector finding that such an arrangement would cause sufficient harm to highway safety as to refuse the planning application. Notwithstanding, the recommended decision was not upheld by the Minister and permission was subsequently granted for
7 dwellings.
7.14 The application provides a suitable location for the relocated bus stop on the A3 and the access design provides for tactile crossing. Parking provision was amended during the process to ensure that the likelihood of vehicle sparking along the new road is minimised, acknowledging that garages are rarely used for vehicle parking today. The updated vehicle tracking plans show that even with the presence of on-street parking within the turning head and along the street, the required movements to enter and exit in a forward gear are achievable and do not cause any increased road safety risk. - 7.15 The proposals include bicycle storage within new sheds to each property which is suitable, and waste storage can be provided to private garden areas. - 7.16 It is acknowledged that the proposed development seeks to double the previously permitted number of dwellings on the site and such will represent a significant intensification in vehicle movements to and from the site. Notwithstanding, the site is accessed of a primary A road which has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional movements without causing direct harm to highway safety. The access design meets the necessary safety standards and previously identified concerns regarding the bus stop and its impact upon vehicles entering/existing the site have now been addressed. - 7.17 Although there have been objections on the grounds of highway safety, it is pertinent to note that Highway Services do not object to the proposed development and it is therefore concluded that the impact of the development upon highway safety is acceptable and the development therefore complies with General Policy 2 and Transport Policies 4 and 7 of the Strategic Plan. FLOOD RISK - 7.18 The application site is largely located on land not at risk of flooding, though a very small section is within an area of medium risk. Environment Policy 13 states that "development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted." There have been objections on the basis of flood risk and concerns over the impact of the development upon the existing drainage networks and private properties. - 7.19 The application has assessed the drainage options and due to ground conditions, infiltration is not feasible. As such, it is proposed to capture and attenuate surface water from the site in below ground tanks, which will then discharge water into the adjoining ditch before it enters an upgraded culvert beneath the A3, in order for it to have sufficient capacity to deal with the increased flows. - 7.20 The principle of attenuating surface water on the site was previously approved under the 2017 application and the development now seeks to following the same drainage principles. Concern has been raised by objectors with the laying of the new culvert, but as noted by Flood Management, the deliverability of this needs to be demonstrated and thus a condition should be applied requiring the submission of the final drainage design scheme, prior to any works commencing. - 7.21 Regarding foul drainage, it is proposed to connect the development into mains foul via a new connection. There has been no objection from consultees and capacity is not known to be an issue, despite this being raised by one objector.
7.22 As noted above, the site is partly located in the flood zone. Finished floor levels will be raised for the dwellings, being over 1.0m above existing ground levels. These levels are very similar to the last permission granted on the site and the residential development of the land at risk of flooding was considered to be acceptable on the basis that accommodation would be above the flood level. - 7.23 No previous application on the site has been refused on drainage grounds and the previous Inspector noted that surface water drainage could be resolved by a condition. This situation remains the same now and whilst there will be a need for a larger attenuation tank to serve the higher number of dwellings, discharge rates into the ditch will remain the same as previously approved. As such, subject to conditions, the development will not give rise to any unacceptable impacts upon flood risk or drainage infrastructure and the proposal therefore complies with General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 10. RESIDENTIAL AMENITY - 7.24 Objection has been received from local residents concerned, in part, with the impact of the development upon amenity, however, the development proposes the erection of buildings that are single storey in scale, though some roof space accommodation is proposed in limited number of the dwellings. - 7.25 The relationship between individual dwellings on the site and neighbouring properties has been considered and in general, separation distances are such that there will be no material loss of light to gardens or habitable rooms and similarly, due to the single storey nature of the dwellings, no windows are proposed that would cause any overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring to existing properties. - 7.26 The site is relatively well screened from neighbouring houses and the overall relationship between the proposed development and existing properties is considered to be acceptable. The amenity of future occupants will be protected by the undergrounding of the overhead electricity line as requested by MUA, and a condition is recommended in this regard. The development will not give rise to any unacceptable loss of light, privacy outlook or other forms of potential nuisance. The development therefore complies with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan. ECOLOGY - 7.27 The application is not supported by an up-to-date ecological appraisal of the site, but it is noted that the Ecosystem Policy Officer is content for an updated PEA to be secured by way of a condition. This seems to be a reasonable approach given that the extant planning consent identified there to be no discernible impact of developing the site upon protected species, though inspections of trees for bats prior to felling would be necessary. - 7.28 The proposed site layout includes areas of landscaped POS with wildflower planting and a fair degree of hedgerow and other planting. Bat and bird box provision can be secured by condition and any impact upon trees. - 7.29 The site has been shown to have limited ecological value and through approval of suitable mitigation measures as recommended by the Ecosystem Policy Team, the impacts upon ecology will be acceptable. TREES - 7.30 The application is supported by an Arboricultural Impact Assessment which has assessed the quality of trees within the application site and the likely impacts of the proposed development upon trees. In total, the removal of one category-B tree, one category-C tree, two category-C groups, and the partial removal of one category-B group and one category-C group is required to facilitate the proposal. The report recommends that irrespective of the proposed development, category U trees should be removed anyway due to their poor health. - 7.31 Trees within the Southern part of the survey area are registered under the Tree Preservation Act 1993. The majority of the trees on the site are category C and U, with only 3 trees being category B. The trees are understood to be registered primarily due to their group amenity value. - 7.32 It is recognised that the Arboricultural Officer has objected to the proposed development due to the impact of the development upon trees, particularly those that are Registered. They have stated that the "TPP does not contain access details, areas for delivery, storage, fuelling etc. Fence lines are within 2m of structures, and no shadow assessment provided. An AMS is also required to
8.1 The development will deliver 14 small dwellinghouses together with affordable housing for the local community. The proposed development is considered to amount to a sustainable development on the whole and will make an efficient use of a vacant site which is designated for development. - 8.2 The submitted design is considered to constitute a high quality proposal that will not give rise to any unacceptable impacts upon the character or appearance of the area. - 8.3 The proposals are further deemed to be acceptable with respect to highway safety, flood risk and ecological matters. Whilst the harm arising to trees weighs against the development proposals, the benefits of the scheme, which include a policy compliant mix of open and affordable housing, public open space and a local area of play, are considered to weigh heavily in favour of granting planning permission, particularly when regard is had to the extant planning consent and the impact upon trees that has already been permitted. - 8.4 Having regard to the above matters, the proposals are considered to comply with Strategic Policy 5, Spatial Policy 4, General Policy 2, Environment Policies 10 and 42 and Transport Policies 4 and 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). The application is therefore recommended for approval.
9.1 It is recommended that Planning Committee approve the application subject to a S.13 Legal Agreement containing the following (and that if the S.13 agreement is not completed within 6 months of the date of this Committee, that it be brought back before the Committee for reconsideration):
Public Open Space Local Area of Play Affordable Housing - 25% (3 units and commuted sum)
10.1 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).
10.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:
submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.
10.3 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. - 10.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):
10.5 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 confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : …Refused.. Committee Meeting Date:…16.02.2026 Signed : Russell Williams Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required
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.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 16.02.2026 Application No. : 25/90196/B Applicant : Mr Frank Sweeney Proposal : Construction of 14 bungalows including vehicular access and associated infrastructure Site Address : Land Adjacent To Ginger Hall Hotel Ballamanagh Road Sulby Isle Of Man Planning Officer Russell Williams Reporting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer’s Report The committee overturned the officer recommendation and voted to refuse the application for the following reason:
The density of the development and its relationship with the bungalows to the West results in a development which does not reflect the local character and causes visual harm. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that adequate drainage could be provided. It is considered that the proposed access onto the A3, which would require vehicles turning right to cross the flow of traffic close to a bend, would be unsafe. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to Strategic Plan (2016) General Policy 2 (b, c, h, i and j).
Reason for Refusal
R 1. The committee overturned the officer recommendation and voted to refuse the application for the following reason:
The density of the development and its relationship with the bungalows to the West results in a development which does not reflect the local character and causes visual harm. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that adequate drainage could be provided. It is considered that the proposed access onto the A3, which would require vehicles turning right to cross the flow of traffic close to a bend, would be unsafe. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to Strategic Plan (2016) General Policy 2 (b, c, h, i and j).
25/90196/B Page 16 of 16
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
