The points on the Inspectors Decision
1) Pre maturity Arguments.
The Inspector accepted the objector’s arguments that many things had to be done first before such a development of this magnitude should take place.
There should first be a valid recognized Area Plan which must cater for the infrastructure and social needs of such a large development, as this is said to be only a part of a much bigger scheme, the inspector agreed with the objectors that it should only be considered in the context of such scheme.
The new Area Plan now promised should be pursued, but should include the totality of the expected development and a village plan for Ballasalla.
2) Density.
257 houses are proposed for a smaller area than for which originally only 169 houses were proposed. The planners themselves in Document 30 paragraph 36, SP11 have recommended only 170 houses for a much bigger area- whereas approval for this application would result in 317 houses being built (60 houses already built within the noted area).
3) Design.
The Inspector agreed that the designs were poor in that.
a) They had not made provision for buffer planting.
b) Some of the boundary dwellings could constitute skyline development.
c) Maintenance of the buildings would be exceptionally high, as the white render would need to be painted every 5 years. This would be a particular handicap for the first time buyers who by definition have less financial flexibility. The houses should not only be economic to build but also economic to maintain.
4) Open Space.
The Inspector did not accept that Malew Football Club grounds should be included as “Open Space” since it was neither secure for the future, nor open to the public.
5) Schooling.
The new School would not be available for some years to come, it was unacceptable that all the dwellings had to be completed before the school and other social provisions are improved.
6) General Living Conditions.
It is unacceptable that this proposal would inflict a number of adverse affects on the living conditions of the residents of Ballasalla and future residents of the site.
7) Surface Water.
The timing of the off-site works and its integration is not secure and better integration is needed to avoid problems.
8) Highway.
This was a critical issue. He accepted some of the Government argument, but believed that the increase of traffic after 2009 would create difficulties. While he recognized the Government’s imported Specialist’s arguments, he preferred to accept the local resident view that traffic congestion will increase whenever there is an impediment (such as traffic lights) and heavy extra population. The Long term solution was a by-pass which he noted was not yet a financial commitment. He believed that such a major development as that planned must not be started until the by-pass had already at least begun.