The Council of Ministers has accepted the recommendation of Independent Inspector, John Turner, and refused the Department of Local Government & the Environment’s planning application for 257 homes at Crossag Farm, Ballasalla.

However, COMIN’s refusal has left the door open to a revised application by stating that the decision is without prejudice to any revised proposals – as they took “particular cognisance” of the conclusions that the land is zoned for residential development, the need for ‘first-time-buyers’ and public sector housing and that the adverse effects could be overcome.

In his assessment of the application and the proceedings, Mr Turner stated that it was unfortunate that the Island’s Strategic Development Plan was approved by Tynwald during the first day of the Inquiry – but felt that the adjournment, albeit longer than would be normal, didn’t, ultimately, disadvantage third parties.

Mr Turner perceived an anomaly between Strategic Policy 2, which refers to ‘sustainable urban extensions’ in ‘towns and villages’, and the definition in the glossary which refers to ‘a city or a town’. Therefore, as Ballasalla is designated as a ‘service village’, it would exclude Ballasalla from having ‘sustainable urban extensions’, and on strict interpretation of the Strategic Plan the proposal would not conform with SP2.

He also pointed out that this anomaly reoccurs within Housing Policy 4 – another policy the DLGE put forward at the Inquiry in support of their application.

These anomalies, and the obvious consequences of the Inspector’s conclusions, lends weight to the arguments, propounded by parties objecting to the approval of the Strategic Plan in July 2007, that the DLGE had rushed the final version of the plan; and it was hell bent on getting the document approved by Tynwald regardless of any flaws.

In addition to this anomaly he interpreted the definition to mean that the infrastructure and access to a range of facilities had to exist in advance of any further development and not be just a proposal as in this case.

Mr Turner goes on in his report to state that he found “the lack of an adopted ‘Area Plan’ for an area which includes such a large proposal is unacceptable.”

In relation to the impact of the proposed development on the existing residents of Ballasalla, he found it a “matter of concern” the large increase in homes proposed on the land and that the DLGE had not fully justified the proposal in planning terms.

He also found the proposed design and finish of the development to be out of character with the overall appearance of the area and would create a potential maintenance problem for future owners and tenants.

Mr Turner also concluded that to proceed with the development prior to improving primary school provision and other social facilities would be unacceptable.

With regard to infrastructure matters, Mr Turner concluded that the foul drainage provision was adequate but, in the case of surface water drainage, further work would be required to safeguard property owners downstream of the development. As for the impact on traffic in Ballasalla, he deemed that it would be adverse and that the development shouldn’t proceed until the ‘promised’ by-pass construction had commenced.

On phasing, Mr Turner thought it surprising that so many of the larger ‘open-market’ houses were included within Phase One when the emphasis from the DLGE was to satisfy FTB and public sector demand.

In conclusion, Mr Turner had no doubts that the proposed residential use was in accord with the development plan but that the provision of housing beyond that needed for the local area was contrary to the spirit of the adopted Strategic Plan, Spatial Policy 3.

He also believe that the Government should be showing a commitment, to the residents of Ballasalla, by delivering on its promises in relation to the infrastructure - most notably by commencing the by-pass before the occupation of any homes on the application site – and the review of the Ballasalla area, in planning terms, through the southern area plan process; and “that the approval of this application would, to a degree, prejudice the outcome of any wider planning proposals for Ballasalla.”

Even though he said there were features in favour of the proposal, in weighing all the evidence, he recommended that permission be refused.

In effect he said the refusal would allow time for the Government to get its act together in respect of certain planning issues and to arrange the finances to provide the necessary infrastructure improvements.

Jamie Jackson, Managing Director of JG Kelly Homes, the DLGE’s development partner in this application, was surprised by the decision and some of the Inspector’s findings. He said that it was too early to provide a fuller reaction to the decision, as it had only been delivered to interested parties on Saturday (yesterday), and so there had been no opportunity to discuss the report yet with the DLGE.

Clearly this will be a set-back to the Government, but hopefully it will deliver a timely and necessary reminder to the Government that they can not necessarily rely on Independent Inspectors always giving them what they want, and that they too have to do their job properly.

A significant amount of taxpayers’, ratepayers and private individuals’ money has been spent, and a good deal of it wasted, on a proposal which probably had less than a 50:50 chance of success.