Loading document...
Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Committee, held on 13th October 2025, at 10.00am, in the Ground Floor Meeting Room of Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas
Present: Mr R Callister, MHK, Chair of the Planning Committee Mr S Skelton, Member Mrs H Hughes, Member Mr M Warren, Member Miss A Betteridge, Member Mr P Whiteway, Member In Attendance: Mr S Butler, Head Of Development Management (except 5.3 – 5.5)
In response to a request from the Case Officer, the Chair agreed that item 5.2 be heard before
| Item 5.2 27-28 North Quay Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 4LE<br><br>PA25/90789/GB | Conversion of No.27 to form one retail unit and one apartment, and demolition and replacement of No.28 with one retail unit and one townhouse (in association with 25/00788/CON)<br><br>Applicant : Kelman Limited Case Officer : Chris Balmer Recommendation : Approve subject to Legal Agreement |
|---|
Firstly, the Case Officer highlighted that a file note had been added to the online file, to explain that the two structural surveys titled “2018 Structural Report” and “2021 Structural Report” where not submitted by the applicants, rather added by the Department as they were referred to in the officer’s report and for ease of reviewing (taken from previous refused applications).
The Case Officer indicated that two additional comments had been received since the agenda had been published. The first from “SAVE Mann Heritage” who support the works to No 27, with the exception of; the replacement of the existing natural slate roof with a synthetic slate roof; the existing slate should be retained and any new should be natural slate; the centre section of the building should not be in aluminium but in timber as the proposed windows are to be; the cat head hoist reinstated; the new windows to the ground floor should be timber sliding sash windows not casement. In relation to No 28, they object most strongly to the proposals to demolish this building and replace it with a modern building that does not reflect the architectural heritage of this building registered for reason of its age. The present building has a most distinctive high pitch roof that that ‘twists’ from one end to the other like no other in Douglas. No justification is given in this application for the demolition of this oldest/second oldest building in the North Quay Conservation Area and approval to its demolition should not therefore be given. They noted the comments of the Registered Buildings Officer where he opposes the proposal to demolish this building at first, but then comments on its loss be compensated by the renovation of No 27. Conservation does not work on a Quid Pro Quo basis. If permission is mistakenly given to demolish No 28 what guarantee is there that work on the restoration of No 27 would go ahead. There is a presumption against demolition of a Registered Building and no proof given to support its demolition and deregistration. It should not happen. Douglas has the chance to hang on to what it has before it is too late.
The second representation is from the owner/occupiers of 9 Fort William, Douglas, who strongly endorse the views of SAVE Mann Heritage; further they comment that; it is all too easy for developers and development to take the easy way out. Knocking buildings down is seldom the right answer - and certainly not when they are registered; Registration takes place for good reason; they draw the attention of the Planning Committee to conservation in other countries in Europe and elsewhere for example the Netherlands which offers a good example where tourists visit to admire the canal-side environment of Amsterdam is so great that the city is having to impose restrictions on tourism.
The Case Officer added that the building should be assessed in the context of its registration in 2018 rather than its current condition, as shown in the presentation photographs. He also referred to the “twisted roof” of the Newson’s building, which is a unique feature in this area, as mentioned in the late representation previously read out.
He then presented the report and summarised the key issues, supported by a visual presentation. Reference was made to the proposed demolition of the registered building, and that grounds for refusal could be justified solely on this ground; however, on balance, given the
potential benefits of the overall development he found the proposal to be acceptable. The case officer explained that the applicants had agreed to re-use as much of the existing slate roof as possible and any new slate would be natural slate. Further, in relation to the cat hoist this was not a feature found when the building was registered and therefore not considered a requirement now, although it required by the committee the applicants could provide a replica hoist. In relation to the aluminium frames for the central section, the case officer felt this was acceptable, given originally the central section was doorways and this proposal was introducing a new glazed feature. Finally, the case officer advised that the applicants had agreed that timber sliding sash windows be installed at ground floor level of Nr 27. Overall, the case officer considered the application was a balanced decision, but overall the benefits of the scheme outweighed the negative impacts and therefore the application was recommended for any approval, subject to a Section 13 Legal Agreement.
The Applicant indicated their willingness to retain the existing slate roof but stated that aluminium curtain walling was preferred to provide a more modern and contemporary appearance.
The representative from Highway Services reported that the applicant had engaged in preapplication discussions regarding the terrace and highway layout, and confirmed they were satisfied with the proposals.
Ms Patricia Newton had registered to speak as an objector and stated the following;
The speaker expressed strong objection to the proposal, stating that the demolition of No. 28 does not meet the relevant criteria and would result in the loss of authenticity of a historic registered building. Concerns were raised about the inconsistency in treatment between Nos. 27 and 28, questioning how the replacement of the roof at No. 27 could be considered authentic when a similar approach at No. 28 was previously deemed a loss to historic fabric.
It was argued that the proposed glazed aluminium central section is inappropriate for a building of this age and would detract from its historic character, resulting in a modernised appearance inconsistent with the heritage setting. The proposed top-opening windows were described as unsuitable for a registered building and potentially hazardous to pedestrians using the adjoining ramp or platform.
The Speaker also highlighted significant omissions from the application, including the lack of external access to the apartment at No. 27 within the red-line boundary and the absence of existing and potential basement plans for No. 28.
Further comments referred to the poor architectural quality of the eastern elevation of No. 28, previously described by the Inspector as weak and lacking visual connection to its historic context. The new proposal, which increases the scale and glazing on this elevation, was considered to exacerbate these issues and obscure the distinctive east gable of No. 27.
Additional concerns were raised regarding the use of flat roofs, Juliet balconies, and box-shaped aluminium windows, which were said to conflict with the established character of the North Quay Conservation Area.
Questions were also raised about the commercial viability of the proposed ground-floor unit at No. 28 and the risk that the building could be demolished without the new development proceeding, potentially leaving an empty site.
Mr Mark Savage had registered to speak in support of the application.
The applicant’s representative clarified why this proposal was not submitted as part of the recently approved 22–26 North Quay redevelopment. There were two main reasons.
Firstly, the treatment of the registered buildings—whether to retain or demolish them—was the most contentious aspect of the wider North Quay site. Given the partial demolition proposed in the 22–26 application, it was decided to progress that scheme separately to give it the best chance of approval. Had that been refused, this current application would not have been brought forward.
Secondly, the approach to the registered buildings presents a complex balance between cost and return. Kelman Ltd do not expect to make a profit from this part of the site and have relied on DfE grant assistance to help offset losses. Structural stability—particularly at No. 27has been a long-standing concern. Three independent structural engineering firms employed by the applicant concluded that significant structural intervention, including an internal steel frame, is essential to stabilise the building. Although other independent CARE engineers have suggested only minimal intervention is needed, the applicant believes this would carry unacceptable risks.
Regarding No. 28, extensive works would be required, and given the extent of previous alterations before registration, the value and justification of such expenditure are questionable. The applicant has worked closely with both the Registered Buildings Officer and the Planning Officer to ensure that the conversion of No. 27 will restore the building’s historic appearance as closely as possible, using historic records and photographs.
Significant time has also been spent exploring design options for the replacement of No. 28. While the loss of No. 28 is regrettable, it is considered an acceptable compromise when balanced against the sensitive restoration and retention of No. 27, enabling the wider development of the North Quay site.
In clarifying the key matters raised during consideration of the application, Members sought further information on several points.
Members raised concerns regarding the replacement roof, noting that it may not reflect the building’s architectural history. Questions were directed towards the Objector as to how this could be addressed if the roof is not structurally sound. Ms Newton responded and confirmed that they had not agreed with the replacement of the roof with synthetic tiles and that the original tiles should be retained and re-fitted.
Members then questioned whether a condition could be added to ensure that original roof slates are reused rather than synthetic alternatives. It was suggested that Condition 3 in relation to finishes and materials could be strengthened to reflect this requirement.
Reference was made to the historic cat-head hoist, which was not included in the current proposal as it was not present when the building was registered. Members debated whether reinstating it would be appropriate. The Senior Registered Buildings Officer advised that any reinstatement or restoration of historic detailing would enhance the building’s character, though the Applicant’s Representative noted that any reinstatement would have to be a nonfunctional replica. A Member again confirmed that the hoist was not present at the time of registration.
The Chair commented that significant effort had gone into the restoration of No. 27 and sought views on the design and character of the proposed replacement building at No. 28.
The Senior Registered Buildings Officer stated that the proposed loss of No. 28 clearly represented harm. In their view the proposals for No. 27 represented an enhancement. In respect of the proposed replacement building on the site of No. 28, the contemporary approach adopted created a clear contrast with the two historic buildings in the overall scheme (Merchant’s House and No. 27). The proposed replacement would clearly be an increase in
massing, and in their view the Juliet balconies were an element that was inconsistent with the design approach across the other elements of the scheme. It would therefore be for the Committee to decide whether the benefits of the scheme overall outweigh the harm.
A Member requested further clarification on how the Senior Registered Buildings Officer had reached a balanced position in supporting the proposal.
The Senior Registered Buildings Officer briefly referred to the most recent applications on the site, which had included total demolition of the registered building (both No.27 and No.28). The Planning Committee had refused those applications, and those decisions had been confirmed at appeal. He outlined that in his view given the polar opposite views on both sides of the argument, it was implausible that any scheme for the site would please both those wishing to develop the site and those wishing to preserve the entirety of the registered building. The officer stated that it is often the case that the significance of vernacular buildings is less apparent that those of other genres such as arts and crafts architecture. As the sole surviving side-on quayside warehouse on the island, and one of the oldest buildings in Douglas, in his view the building at No.27 had a greater degree of significance than the building at No.28. The officer acknowledged that this was a finely balanced case given the harm and enhancement that was proposed.
The Chair queried what work had been undertaken to demonstrate that demolition of No. 28 was the only viable development option.
The Applicant’s responded that the restored two-storey element of No. 28 would not be financially viable or functional, and reinstating it purely as a replica would serve little purpose. The applicant had worked extensively with the Planning and Registered Buildings Officers to achieve a balanced design, and while the loss of No. 28 was regrettable, it was considered necessary to enable viable development of the site.
Another Member raised concerns regarding potential loss of light to rooms in the ‘Saddle Inn’ resulting from the additional floor.
The Case Officer confirmed that these matters were addressed in detail within the officer’s report (page 60), concluding that although there would be some impact, it was not considered sufficient to warrant refusal.
A Member discussed the relative size of No. 28, noting that small buildings elsewhere (such as the Peel Kiosk and Castletown Police Station) can still have viable uses.
It was suggested that demolition of No. 28 should not proceed until renovation of No. 27 is completed. The Case Officer confirmed that Condition 2 sets out requirements for construction timescales and methodology, but could be strengthened to ensure no demolition of Nr 28 commences until an appropriate time.
The Applicant’s Agent agreed, noting that No. 28 currently buttresses No. 27, and the applicant would not wish to develop one without the other. He expressed support for strengthening the condition accordingly.
A Member commented that the proposed buildings complemented each other well and would bring the area into the 21st century, but raised a question regarding the operating hours of the proposed business that is to be implemented and whether it had been conditioned.
The Case Officer advised that, given the surrounding area consists largely of pubs and bars, additional opening hour restrictions were not considered necessary. Sound insulation measures have been included in the proposed construction to protect the occupants of the upper floors.
Another Member requested clarification on which elements had been amended to ensure the building reflects its original form.
The Case Officer confirmed that the curtain walling design had been reconsidered. While the applicant did not wish to replicate timber windows that were not historically present, they had agreed that the ground floor windows—originally proposed as casements—could instead be timber sliding sash, in line with the building’s historic character.
A member asked whether the existing dwelling in Nr 25 had been calculated within the Affordable housing calculation. The case officer advised that he was unaware of this dwelling and whether it is residential or not. The officer advised that what has been put forward has been agreed by the applicants.
DECISION
With the exception of Miss Betteridge, the Committee Members accepted the recommendation of the Case Officer and the application was approved subject to the applicant entering into a legal agreement for provision of commuted sum payments in lieu of affordable housing contribution and public open space provision along with the following conditions, including Conditions 2, 3 and 4 being amended.
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
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.
C2. Prior to the commencement of works on site, details of the structural works and repairs to the existing fabric to Number 27, including a construction methodology and timescale (and the retention of Number 28 until such time as structural works are completed on Number 27), shall be submitted to and approved by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details and be retained thereafter.
Reason: To ensure the special architectural and special historic interest of Number 27 North Quay is protected and preserved.
Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development, the visual amenities of the area and preserving the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
Reason: In order to safeguard future residents, given the location of the site within an area at high risk of flooding, in accordance with Environment Policies 10 and 13 of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
Reason: To promote sustainable travel in the interests of reducing pollution and congestion in accordance with Strategic Policy 10 of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the aims of the Active Travel Strategy and the Climate Change Act.
Reason: In order to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area pursuant to the provisions of Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policy 35 of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 and in order to ensure satisfactory living conditions for residential occupiers.
Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the swifts, pursuant to Environment Policies 4 and 5 of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for a protected species, pursuant to the provisions of Environment Policies 4 and 5 of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
Reason for approval: As outlined in this report the main issue to the potential impact upon the character and quality of the Conservation Area/street scene and Registered Building. In relation to these matters it is considered the proposals would preserve and be an enhancement overall to the Conservation Area/street scene and would not detrimentally affect the Registered Buildings (Newson's warehouse) character as a building of special architectural and historic interest. The loss of part of the Registered Building (Nr 28) weighs against the application; however, the overall benefits of the proposal outweigh the loss of Nr 28. The proposals would therefore comply with Section 16 (3) and Section 18 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999), Strategic Policy 4, General Policy 2, Environment Policy 32, 35, 42 & 43 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016; Planning Policy Statement 1/01; and Urban Environment Proposal 3 & 4 of the Area Plan for the East.
The proposal in terms of parking/highway safety raises not concerns. The site is within a sustainable location and provisions adequate number of secure bicycle spaces within the building for use by the residents of the apartments therefore complying with Strategic Policy 10, General Policy 2 & Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016; Net Zero Emissions by 2050 and IoM Government's Active Travel Strategy (2018 - 2021).
The proposal has been designed to reduce energy consumption, reduce fossil fuels consumption and reduce emissions which are also matters which Net Zero and the Climate Change Act seeks.
The proposal would have no significant impacts upon neighbouring amenities to warrant a refusal therefore comply with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Residential Design Guide 2021.
All other matters outlined in this report are considered acceptable.
In conclusion the proposal complies with the relevant planning polices and other material planning matters. Accordingly, for these reasons it is recommended the application is approved.
ISSUING OF DECISION
The Planning decision notice will not be issued until the Section 13 Legal Agreement has been produced and signed by all relevant parties. In the event that one or more of the Section 13 Agreement is not signed by all parties within a period not exceeding 6 months from the date of the Planning Committee’s decision, the application may be referred back to the Planning Committee to reconsider.
Following the formal execution of an agreement under Section 13 of the Act, the decision notice will be issued by the Department.
It was decided that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DOI Highw-ay Services - No Objection conditions attached DOI Flood Risk Management - No Objection Local Authority - No Objection DOI Public Estates & Housing Division - No Objection
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should NOT be given the Right to Appeal as they have submitted an objection that does NOT meets the specified criteria:
The owner/occupier of 2 Glen View, South Cape, Laxey The owner/occupier of 9 Fort William, Douglas SAVE Mann’s Heritage
Objection does not identify land that is owned or occupied by the objector that would be impacted on (A10(2)(a)) - Objection identifies land that is owned or occupied by the objector that would be impacted on, but such land is not within 20 metres of the site (and no Environmental Impact Assessment is required) (A10(2)(b)) - Objection does not set out in relation to material planning considerations, an impact of the proposal on the lawful use of their land (A10(2)(c)).
| Item 5.1 27-28 North Quay Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 4LE PA25/00788/CON | Registered Building Consent for the conversion of No.27 to form one retail unit and one apartment, and demolition and replacement of No.28 with one retail unit and one townhouse - RB289 (in association with 25/90789/GB)<br><br>Applicant : Kelman Ltd Case Officer : Chris Balmer Recommendation : Permitted |
|---|
The Case Officer advised that the additional comments from two late representations summarised previously from SAVE Mann Heritage and 9 Fort William both apply to this application as well.
The Case Officer added that there was nothing further to add as the majority of matters considered previously regarding the demolition of Nr 28 and proposed works are linked to previous application discussions.
The Highway Services representative confirmed there was nothing further to add to their report.
Ms Patricia Newton had registered to speak as an Objector and outlined the following;
The speaker highlighted that each application must be considered on its merits in accordance with policy and drew attention to Strategic Plan Environment Policies 30 and 31 and PPS1/01 on the Historic Environment, which presume against the demolition or removal of a registered building from the Register.
It was stated that the application lacks key supporting information such as the building’s condition, repair or replacement costs, efforts made to retain the structure, and an assessment of alternative proposals. The assessment was said to rely heavily on previous, un-submitted reports rather than the current application.
Reference was made to findings from a previous appeal, where the Inspector and Minister concluded that there was no evidence to justify demolition of Nos. 27 and 28, and that the buildings were not in danger of imminent collapse, despite some areas requiring attention.
The Speaker noted that No. 28 and No. 27 are jointly registered and form an important and distinctive part of the North Quay Conservation Area, contributing significantly to its scale, form and character. No. 28, with its unique skewed form and circular gable recess, was described as the only surviving example of its kind on North Quay.
Alterations made at the time of registration were considered not to have diminished its historic or architectural importance. The buildings were described as an outstanding surviving group whose registration was carefully and deliberately undertaken to protect their heritage value.
The speaker also referred to a Tynwald report on under-occupied sites, noting that policies should be sympathetic to older buildings and that claims of a structure being “not fit for purpose” should be tested by exploring possible modifications rather than demolition. It was concluded that any demolition must demonstrate that the existing structure is unsustainable.
Mr Mark Savage had registered to speak in support of the application, and stated he was present to answer any questions.
A Member commented that there would be no net gain in destroying the heritage on site and that they would not be supporting the application.
Again, it was proposed to amend Conditions 2, 3 and 4 in light of previous discussions. DECISION With the exception of Miss Betteridge, the Committee Members accepted the recommendation of the Case Officer and the application was approved subject to the following conditions.
C2. Prior to the commencement of works on site, details of the structural works and repairs to the existing fabric to Number 27, including a construction methodology and timescale (and the retention of Number 28 until such time as structural works are completed on Number 27), shall be submitted to and approved by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details and be retained thereafter.
Reason: To ensure the special architectural and special historic interest of Number 27 North Quay is protected and preserved.
Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development, the visual amenities of the area and preserving the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
C 4. Prior to the commencement of construction works above slab level, or refurbishment works to the existing building (Nr 27) details of the windows and doors in Number 27 North
Quay at a scale of 1:20 are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Thereafter, the windows and doors are to be installed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To preserve the character and fabric of the registered building. Reason for approval: As outlined in this report the main issue to the potential impact upon the character and quality of the Conservation Area/street scene and Registered Building. In relation to these matters it is considered the proposals would preserve and be an enhancement overall to the Conservation Area/street scene and would not detrimentally affect the Registered Buildings (Newson's warehouse) character as a building of special architectural and historic interest. The loss of part of the Registered Building (Nr 28) weighs against the application; however, the overall benefits of the proposal outweigh the loss of Nr 28. The proposals would therefore comply with Section 16 (3) and Section 18 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999), Strategic Policy 4, General Policy 2, Environment Policy 32, 35, 42 & 43 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016; Planning Policy Statement 1/01; and Urban Environment Proposal 3 & 4 of the Area Plan for the East. All other matters outlined in this report are considered acceptable.
In conclusion the proposal complies with the relevant planning polices and other material planning matters. Accordingly, for these reasons it is recommended the application is approved.
In this instance, it was decided that the following persons do NOT have sufficient interest and should NOT be awarded the status of an Interested Person (do not explain how the proposal would impact on land that they own/occupy).
The owners/occupiers of Apartment 1, Hillary Wharf Apartments, South Quay, Douglas The owner/occupier of 2 Glen View, South Cape, Laxey The owner/occupier of 9 Fort William, Douglas SAVE Mann’s Heritage DOI (Flood Management)
Mr Sam Skelton declared an interest in the following 3 items. Mr Skelton recused himself from the discussion and decision on this item due to a declared conflict of interest, acknowledging that prior public comments could give rise to a perception of bias. In accordance with 19(3)(b) of the Constitution Order left the meeting during their consideration.
| Item 5.3 Links Close Peel Isle Of Man<br><br>PA25/90396/B | Installation of 3 telegraph poles to provide fibre connectivity to properties 1-4 Links Close and 17 North View<br><br>Applicant : Manx Telecom Case Officer : Hamish Laird Recommendation : Permitted |
|---|
In the absence of the Case Officer, Mr Jason Singleton summarised the key issues as set out in the report and with reference to the visual presentation.
The Highway Services representative confirmed there was nothing further to add to their report.
Two Objectors from neighbouring properties had registered to speak and outlined the following; The speaker’s written representation was noted. They have been a resident of Links Close since 1976 and stated that the estate, with its six bungalows, landscaped gardens, and mature trees, is widely regarded as one of the most attractive developments in the town.
It was highlighted that bungalows numbered 3–6 are at street level with roof heights of approximately 4.5 metres, and that a covenant held by the owners of Mylvoirrey House restricts any buildings in the Close to a single storey.
The proposed telecommunication poles, at 7–7.5 metres in height, were considered to be visually dominant and out of keeping with the established street scene. In particular, Pole No. 3 would be directly visible from their main living area and regarded as obtrusive.
The speaker expressed concern that the installation would detract from the character of the Close, that the poles would remain in place indefinitely, and that their approval could set a precedent for similar developments across the Island. They urged the Committee to refuse the application, noting that alternative technologies and underground infrastructure options exist, even at additional cost, which would avoid visual harm to the area.
In clarification of the key issues the Members made queries to confirm if the properties are all bungalows in that area, and if there had been any groundworks or road works which included underground services had been undertaken in recent years.
It was confirmed that all properties were single storey and that there was works to the pavements completed about 10 years ago, with no new services but new lampposts.
A Member commented that 3 poles to connect 5 houses was to too intrusive for such a small amount of connectivity. DECISION The Committee unanimously overturned the recommendation of the Case Officer and the application was REFUSED. Mr Callister proposed the reason for refusal which was seconded by Mr Whiteway.
Reason for REFUSAL: The proposed installation of wooden telegraph poles and their associated cabling amongst the streetscene due to the height, size and scale of the proposals would have a negative visual impact that adversely affects the character of the streetscene and would be contrary to General Policy 2 (b & c) of the Strategic Plan.
It was decided that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal:
It was decided that the following persons should be given the right of appeal because they live, or represent those who live either within 20.0m of the site boundary; or, would be connected to the site via the proposed cabling:
As per 5.3, Mr Skelton recused himself from the discussion and decision on this item due to a declared conflict of interest, acknowledging that prior public comments could give rise to a perception of bias. In accordance with 19(3)(b) of the Constitution Order left the meeting during their consideration.
| Item 5.4 Cronk Reayrt Peel IM5 1DB<br><br>PA25/90398/B | Installation of 1 telegraph pole to provide fibre optic connectivity to 2 & 10-18 & Fresh Breezes, Cronk Reayrt.<br><br>Applicant : Manx Telecom Case Officer : Hamish Laird Recommendation : Permitted |
|---|
In the absence of the Case Officer Mr Jason Singleton summarised the key issues as set out in the report and with reference to the visual presentation.
The Highway Services representative confirmed there was nothing further to add to their report.
In clarification of the key issues, Members enquired about the proposed installation. It was noted that the application involved only one pole, which would serve a larger number of properties, including two-storey dwellings. Although the proposal was not considered ideal, some Members acknowledged that it was likely acceptable in this instance.
Members commented that the visual impact would not be as significant as in other cases. Clarification was sought as to whether this was the best location to enable access to all affected properties, noting that alternative arrangements would have required two poles.
The Interim Director advised that the volume of public representations received was not, in itself, a material planning consideration.
DECISION With the exception of Mrs Hughes and Mr Warren, the committee did not accept the recommendation of the Case Officer was overturned and the application was refused.
Mr Callister proposed the reason for refusal which was seconded by Mr Whiteway.
Reason for REFUSAL: The proposed installation of wooden telegraph poles and their associated cabling amongst the streetscene due to the height, size and scale of the proposals would have a negative visual impact that adversely affects the character of the streetscene and would be contrary to General Policy 2 (b & c) of the Strategic Plan.
It was decided that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal on the basis that they have submitted a relevant objection:
It is recommended that the following persons should be given the right of appeal because they live either within 20.0m of the site boundary; or, would be connected to the site via the proposed cabling:
As per 5.3, Mr Skelton recused himself from the discussion and decision on this item due to a declared conflict of interest, acknowledging that prior public comments could give rise to a perception of bias. In accordance with 19(3)(b) of the Constitution Order left the meeting during their consideration.
| Item 5.5 Bellevue Park Peel IM5 1UF<br><br>PA25/90399/B | Installation of 8 telegraph poles to provide fibre optic connectivity to 1-41 Bellevue Park and 1-17 Carmane Close<br><br>Applicant : Manx Telecom Case Officer : Hamish Laird Recommendation : Permitted |
|---|
In the absence of the Case Officer, Mr Jason Singleton summarised the key issues as set out in the report and with reference to the visual presentation.
The Highway Services representative confirmed there was nothing further to add to their report.
In clarification of the key issues, Members enquired as to the details regarding Pole 7. It was noted that the photographs provided did not reflect the presence of an area of open space at the location. Members expressed the view that the pole did not fit appropriately within this area and that all applications had been considered on an individual basis. It was acknowledged that the due to the horseshoe shape of the road does minimise visual impact as at the most only 2/3 would be visible as you drive around.
It was further noted that the houses in the central section of the area were predominantly bungalows or chalet bungalows.
The Chair commented that each application was being assessed independently and that considerable time had been spent in doing so. It was considered that the visual impact in this instance was too great.
Another Member queried whether alternative underground cabling could be provided, noting that the response to this question had remained consistent across applications.
DECISION The Committee unanimously overturned the recommendation of the Case Officer and the application was refused.
Mr Callister proposed the reason for refusal which was seconded by Mr Whiteway.
Reason for REFUSAL: The proposed installation of wooden telegraph poles and their associated cabling amongst the streetscene due to the height, size and scale of the proposals
would have a negative visual impact that adversely affects the character of the streetscene and would be contrary to General Policy 2 (b & c) of the Strategic Plan.
It was decided that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal on the basis that they have submitted a relevant objection:
It was decided that the following persons should be given the right of appeal because they live either within 20.0m of the site boundary; or, would be connected to the site via the proposed cabling:
| Item 5.6 Field 524964 Lhergy Cripperty Union Mills Isle Of Man IM4 4NJ<br><br>PA25/90747/B | Installation of a 25 metre square lattice with multiple mobile panel antennas/dishes/radio kit with associated ground cabin and boundary fence<br><br>Applicant : Sure (Isle Of Man) Ltd Case Officer : Jason Singleton Recommendation : Permitted |
|---|
The Case Officer reported on the matter and summarised the key issues as set out in the report and with reference to the visual presentation.
The Highway Services representative confirmed there was nothing further to add to their report and that there are no objections.
Mr Alex Taylor had registered to speak on behalf of the Applicant, and stated that he was present to answer any questions that the Committee may have.
In clarification of the key issues, Members enquired as to the need for the proposed installation.
It was explained that the existing tower is currently operating at full capacity and cannot support the additional services required. This limitation could potentially result in an outage, which would prevent 999 and other emergency calls from being transmitted.
The Committee was advised that the proposed antenna and mast would be available for shared use by other network providers. However, it was noted that there is currently no formal agreement in place on the Island for operators to share infrastructure, with Sure and Manx Telecom each maintaining their own antenna systems.
Some Members expressed a preference for the new pole to be positioned alongside the existing structure to minimise visual and cumulative impact. The applicant confirmed that the land ownership was an issue that prevented the installation next to the existing, where as on the opposite side of the road (the site) had been successful in negotiating a lease of the land. New equipment cannot be mounted onto the existing mast as this would increase the wind loading and have a negative effect upon the structural integrity of the mast and its network operators. The proposed mast and cabinet building has built in capacity should other network operators or communications providers wish to mount their equipment to this mast. In time there is a chance the existing mast could be decommissioned and removed if it becomes redundant from use.
While recognising the necessity of the proposal, concern was raised that Members are not always aware when such installations being commissioned.
It was reiterated that the existing structure is already over capacity and unable to accommodate further load, and that 999 calls can be routed through both network providers.
DECISION With the exception of Mr Warren, the Committee unanimously accepted the recommendation of the Case Officer and the application was approved subject to the following 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.
Reason: To ensure that any redundant infrastructure is removed and to comply with Strategic Plan Infrastructure Policy 3.
Reason: to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans in the interests of the visual amenity of the area.
REASON: To mitigate any visual impact in this rural setting and to correspond with the equipment cabinet and fencing.
Reason for approval: The benefits of providing the required equipment to increase network coverage are considered to outweigh the limited visual harm in this location resulting from the development, particularly in the context of the Government's ambition to improve public infrastructure and promote remote/home working as part of the Government's plan to achieve net zero status for the Island by 2050 and would conform with Strategic Policy 1c,4b General Policy 2(b,c,g,m), Environment Policy 1 & 2 and Infrastructure Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016
It was decided that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: Highways Services - No objection Braddan Parish Commissioners - No Objection ___________________________________________________________________________
| Item 5.7 Vacant Plot North Of Mussoorie Main Road Santon Isle Of Man IM4 1JB<br><br>PA25/90633/B | Erection of a dwelling<br><br>Applicant : Mr Alan Skillicorn Case Officer : Russell Williams Recommendation : Permitted |
|---|
The Case Officer reported on the matter and summarised the key issues as set out in the report and with reference to the visual presentation.
The Highway Services representative confirmed there was nothing further to add to their report.
In clarification of the key issues, Members enquired whether the landscaping plan would include fencing or boundary lineation to make the site ownership clear. It was noted that the properties are already delineated, so ownership boundaries are identifiable.
Members also asked whether the proposed access would be shared. It was advised that this was not yet confirmed but that a right of access would likely be secured.
Concern was expressed regarding the differing views between Highways and the Tree Officer, with Members noting that Highways had raised no objection on visibility splays, whereas the Tree Officer had. The Officer confirmed that no alteration to the visibility splays were required over and above those originally included and conditioned when the access was first approved.
Members noted that the proposal involved the extension of the road into agricultural land, with a small section falling outside the settlement boundary as defined in the Area Plan for the East.
Further discussion took place regarding Condition C3, with some Members expressing concern that the wording was weak. The Head of Development Management confirmed that the condition could be enforced if necessary. He also noted that under Permitted Development fencing or walls could potentially be erected and committee may wish to consider whether or not they revoke this element of the Permitted Development Order for the site. The committee discussed it and no amendment to the conditions was proposed.
DECISION The Committee unanimously accepted the recommendation of the Case Officer and the application was approved subject to the following 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.
Reason: To ensure the use of materials appropriate to the development in order to safeguard the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with policy GP2 in the Adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016).
Reason: In order to safeguard the landscape character and appearance of the area and in the interest of biodiversity.
Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately drained and does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.
Reason: To prevent overdevelopment of the site and to control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
Reason: To prevent overdevelopment of the site and to control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
Reason for approval: This decision relates to the following plans and drawings, date stamped 4 July 2025:
It was decided that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DOI Highway Services No objection DOI Highway Drainage No objection
Confirmed a true record
Mr R Callister, MHK Secretary to the Chair of the Planning Committee Planning Committee
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown