Loading document...
Application No.: 04/02130/B Applicant: Raven Hill Resources Ltd Proposal: Residential estate layout comprising of plots, roads and sewers for 10 dwellings Site Address: Poachers Pocket Bridge Road Ballasalla IM9 3DA ### Considerations Case Officer: Miss S E Corlett Expected Decision Level: Committee Decision ### Written Representations J L Welsh & N M Welsh Mr R B James & Mrs N J James Occupier Mr M Henthorn G D Cregeen Mrs E Callister Mrs Grace Johnson Mr K Fryers S M Lister A S Hollands Occupier Occupier Occupier Occupier Don Jones Occupier Occupier Occupier Occupier Occupier Occupier Occupier D M Parsons J Wells S Studden Mrs B Shaw Ms S M Bowers Mr And Mrs Kelly Occupier Roy Stansfield B Lace Dr C Taggart J A Caine & T A Caine C M Wood S M James A, C & A Sullivan Mrs C J Haycock R Smith Badra Mr & Mrs Roy E Scott & R Scott B Simcocks Mrs C G McElhinney Occupier Mr & Mrs Wilson Mrs M Mitchell J P Chappell Mr & Mrs Christie V Magee Mrs M Kelly O Wynne-Jones G Mylchreest Mrs A Seed Mr & Mrs Allsebrook S P Coates & Dr J Duffen --- ### Consultations Consultee: Highways Division Notes: no adverse traffic conditions, subject to conditions Consultee: Isle Of Man Newspapers Notes: Consultee: Disability Access Officer Notes: see comments Consultee: Inland Fisheries Development Manager Notes: see comments Consultee: IOM Water Authority Notes: see comments Consultee: Drainage Division Notes: deferral see comments Consultee: Malew Parish Commissioners Notes: object - no app should be considered until the conditions relating to pa02.712 have been discharged prior to commencement of works --- ### Policy
The site represents part of the A5 highway as it passes the Poacher's Pocket (formerly Silverburn Lodge) site together with part of the overall site which was considered for the development of roads, sewers and 22 dwelling plots under PA 02/0712. The owner of the site is described as Ravenhill Resources who surely do not own the road. I suspect that the road has been included as works are proposed therefor although no physical works are proposed; however this portion of highway was also included in the previous application.
The applicant has already applied for detailed permission for the development of three of the approved plots - 1, 2 and 19 (PAs 04/1660, 1661 and 1675) which he is aware will be the subject of the same suspensive conditions as originally applied under PA 02/0712).
The previous application was approved on appeal subject to a number of suspensive conditions including:
5) diversion of the existing public sewers must be agreed with DoT 6) the main river designation of Silverburn River pursuant to the Land Drainage Acts has been extended to incorporate the flood alleviation and mitigation measures shown on URS Drawings 47445-006-787 Figures 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11... 7) prior to the commencement of any building works, following the clearance of the site, the bund, flood protection wall and flood alleviation and mitigation measures specified in conditions 2 and 6 must be constructed on site... 8) no other works may be commenced on site until the estate road junction with the A7 adopted highway including visibility splays where required has been set out and established... 9) no dwelling on the site may be occupied until the estate road has been constructed to at least base course level and adequately lit... 10) Before each dwelling is occupied the proposed vehicle parking facilities shall be provided... 11) no works may commence upon the penultimate dwelling until the estate road has been completed... 14) Prior to the commencement of works on site, including site clearance, those existing trees on site whose removal is not authorised by this approval must be adequately protected against damage during the course of construction... 16) No development may commence until there has been approved by the PC a scheme of landscaping... 18) Prior to the commencement of development, the applicant/developer shall convene a site meeting with the contractor and relevant officers of the DLGE and other Government Departments to agree how the works are to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and conditions. 19) Prior to the commencement of any building works, further details including where appropriate the precise location, construction, elevational and cross sectional details of the proposed floor (flood_) protection bund and wall and surface water attenuation tank must be submitted for approval by the PC.
Of these, the applicant is liaising with the DoT regarding the designation of the Silverburn River and has submitted a landscaping scheme. However, the latter is not complete and further information has been sought. Suffice it to say that most if not all of the conditions which require to be satisfied prior to the commencement of works have not been so satisfied.
Proposed here is the construction of the new junction, together with the estate road and sewers associated with ten of the approved plots. The details of these elements of the approved development are identical to those of the approved scheme. However, the applicant wishes this part of the scheme to be approved subject not to the same conditions as were imposed previously but as this part of the site is not only outwith the 1 in 50 year flood risk area but also on land which is already disturbed, the approval should not be subject to conditions 6, 7 and 19 (ie those which relate to the designation of the river and the flood mitigation measures. The applicant wishes the
development to be considered "on its own merits" and not as a reserved matter of the previous application.
Clearly the details of the proposal are not at issue: what is whether the proposal should be permitted without the requirements for the flood mitigation or protection - ie, as if the previous application had not been approved or considered.
PA 00/1836 was an application for development of the site, refused on the basis that a proper flood risk assessment had not been carried out. The Inspector notes at his paragraph 120 (PA 02/0712) that "It would be unreasonable for example to expect a developer to try to remedy an existing deficiency in flood protection. However, I have assessed the scheme to see if it would make matters worse for existing residents as that would be a proper reason for opposing any scheme". there are in fact no details given of any flood risk other than stating that the proposal does not involve land which is within the 1 in 50 year flood risk area and that the land is already built upon. This does not specifically address whether the application would exacerbate any flooding risk to existing residents through, for example increased run off, impacts of surface water disposal or earthworks. DoT Drainage should comment specifically on this. the previous scheme involved the installation of an oversized storage tank on the river side of the new flood bund. This is not shown on the drawing and is not included within the defined site neither is the area for the sewer to be diverted.
The Inspector refers twice to the unreasonableness of requiring the applicant to remedy existing deficiencies in the flood protection (paragraphs 120 and 137). I have requested additional comments from DoT.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 08.09.2005
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
The proposed application does not include any information which demonstrates that any assessment has been undertaken with respect to the potential impact on and from flooding of this proposed development: reliance upon a previous assessment for a different development is not sufficient to satisfy the Committee that this development may be undertaken without risk from or of flooding of the resultant development.
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
8 September 2005 04/02130/B Page 5 of 5
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
