Officer Report

Application No.: 24/00859/B Applicant: Mrs H M Radcliffe Proposal: Erection of single-storey dwelling Site Address: Plot Of Land North Of Scrondall Glen Road Ballaugh Isle Of Man Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken: 17.02.2025 Site Visit: 17.02.2025 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 13.05.2025 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal - R 1. The proposed development is situated outside the settlement boundary of Ballaugh and within the countryside, where residential development is restricted by Strategic Policy 2, Housing Policy 4, and General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). The proposal fails to meet the criteria for exceptional circumstances that justify housing in this location, and no 'other material considerations' have been identified to outweigh these policies, which have been informed by public consultation and adoption by Tynwald. - R 2. The removal of mature trees and the introduction of a domestic character to the site would significantly alter its rural and scenic quality. The adverse visual impacts fail to integrate the proposal sensitively into the countryside, conflicting with Environment Policy 2 and General - Policy 2(b and c) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016), which prioritize the protection of Areas of High Landscape and Scenic Significance. R 3. The proposal involves the removal of substantial mature tree coverage, including trees of significant ecological and aesthetic value, contrary to General Policy 2(f) and Environment - Policy 3 (EP3) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). The absence of a comprehensive Arboricultural Impact Assessment limits understanding of the potential impacts on high-value trees. Furthermore, the proposed mitigation measures fail to adequately address the loss of key landscape features, undermining compliance with these policies. - R 4. The lack of a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal prevents proper evaluation of potential impacts on the site's biodiversity, which includes semi-natural habitats connected to wooded river corridors that likely support protected species. The presence of invasive Japanese knotweed further complicates ecological risks. Proposed measures, such as native planting and installing bat boxes, lack a rigorous evidence-based strategy, contrary to Environment Policy 4 (EP4) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). - R 5. The dwelling's location within 3.6 meters of high-voltage power lines breaches Energy - Policy 2 and General Policy 2(m) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). This failure to adhere to the required safety clearances poses unacceptable risks to public safety and infrastructure integrity, further rendering the proposal inappropriate for the site.

It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:

• o DOI Flood Risk Management
• o MUA Electricity

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

Mill Bank Cottage, Glen Road, Ballaugh, as they are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy

_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

• 00 UPDATE FROM PLANNING COMMITTEE ON 14TH APRIL 2025
• 01 REVISED REPORT (UPDATED 12th MAY, 2025)

01.1 OFFICER SUMMARY ON CHANGES TO SCHEME SINCE INITIALLY PRESENTED ON 14TH APRIL 2025. - 01.2 THE PROPOSAL (CHANGES)

• 01.2.1 There have been no changes to the proposal itself. However, key updates include the inclusion of previously omitted consultee comments from MUA Electricity and DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team, as well as the review/inclusion of new comments from the DEFA Arboriculture Team regarding the proposal's impact on trees. Additionally, the changes provide updates to the descriptions of the proposal, including floor area calculations and distance measurements from the power line that crosses the site, where errors where noted.
• 01.2.2 Amendments to description.

• a. Changes to Paragraph 2.1: The floor area would measure 6.9m x 11.3m and not 8.9m x 11.3m, with the porch measuring

• 2.05m x 1.35m, meaning the total floor area would be 80.74sqm and not 103.33sqm.

• b. Changes to Paragraph 2.5: The new dwelling will sit 6.6m and not 3.6m from the high voltage electricity lines, while the rear patio area would only be 4.09m and not 1.6m away.

- 01.3 ADDITIONAL THIRD-PARTY COMMENTS

• 01.3.1 Since the meeting of the Planning Committee on 14 April 2025, no new private representations have been received from members of the public.

01.4 ADDITIONAL CONSULTATION COMMENTS

• 01.4.1 The following consultee comments were omitted from the report included in the Planning Committee Agenda for 14 April 2025. Full details of these comments can be found on the Planning Department's website. To provide context, the initial comment will be presented alongside the new comments.

• 01.4.2 MUA Electricity:

• 1. Comments Received 27 August 2024 (Initial Comments reviewed by Committee):

• a. They object to the planning application, as the proposals would place their existing 11kV terminal pole, high voltage fuses, and stay wires in the middle of a new domestic garden.
• b. They state that, from a health and safety perspective, it is unacceptable to have live high voltage 11kV overhead wires in a garden.
• c. They advise that the applicant needs to contact Manx Utilities to discuss options for relocating the terminal pole, which may involve repositioning the overhead line and could require a further planning application.

• 2. Comments received 19 December 2024 (Omitted Comment): o They removed their objection to the application. No basis is given for the removal.

• 01.4.3 The following consultees have also made further comments since the publication of the previous Planning Committee agenda for 14 April 2025:
• 01.4.4 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team:

• 1. Comments Received 29 August 2024 (Initial Comments reviewed by Committee):

• a. They object to the application for a new dwelling in the countryside on semi-natural habitat, noting that the site is not zoned for residential use and does not comply with General

Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1.

• b. They state that Environment Policy 1 protects the countryside and its ecology, prohibiting development that adversely affects these areas unless there is an overriding national need with no reasonable alternative.
• c. They note that the site contains semi-natural grassland, scrub, mature trees, and is adjacent to a wooded river corridor, providing habitat for various wildlife.
• d. They note the presence of Japanese knotweed, a non-native invasive plant species, which could be spread by construction works and requires eradication.
• e. They state that the application lacks an ecological assessment and request a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) by a qualified consultancy before further consideration.
• f. They state that if the PEA identifies negative impacts on ecological features, additional surveys and a mitigation plan must be submitted for approval prior to the application's determination.
• g. They emphasize that submission of reports prior to determination aligns with UK best practice guidelines, ensuring all material considerations are addressed before granting planning permission.

• 2. Comments received 2 December 2024 (Omitted Comment):

• a. The team acknowledges that recent works may have reduced the wildlife value of the site; however, the site remains outside zoned areas for development, making the application contrary to Environment Policy 1.
• b. The team continues to object to the principle of development in this location, especially given its proximity to a wooded river corridor designated as an Area of Ecological Interest in the draft Area Plan for the North & West. Future pressures may lead to tree removal in this area.
• c. The team reiterates previous concerns regarding the presence of Japanese knotweed, an invasive species documented within the site, which requires appropriate management.

• d. They reaffirm the need for an ecological assessment or technical note on ecology, prepared by a qualified professional, which must be submitted before the application's determination.
• e. They note that Section 7.8.6 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan states that development affecting proposed or recognised sites of conservation value will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that:

• o The development does not compromise the conservation objectives, harm conservation value, or affect the integrity of the site.
• o There is an overriding public interest, where safety or exceptional social or economic considerations outweigh ecological importance.
• o The need for the development cannot be met in other less ecologically damaging locations or by reasonable alternative means.

• 3. Comments received 20 December 2024 (Final Comments - Omitted):

• a. The Ecosystem Policy Team has conducted a site visit and reviewed the updated planting proposals, determining that while the proposed measures mitigate some ecological impacts, additional mitigation is required, which can be secured via conditions.
• b. They advise that the hedge planting plan should be revised to include additional native species for improved height and structure, recommending blackthorn, hawthorn, burnet rose, dog rose, hazel, and crab apple.
• c. They note that no reference has been made to external lighting, but caution that inappropriate lighting could hinder fish passage in the adjacent river or disrupt bat commuting routes. They recommend that, if lighting is required, it should comply with Bat Conservation Trust and Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidance Note 8/23 on Bats and Artificial Lighting

(2023).

• d. The large silver birch tree proposed for removal is heavily ivy-clad, meaning it has potential for nesting birds and roosting bats. They request that integrated bat and bird bricks be installed in the proposed dwelling to compensate for lost habitat.
• e. They confirm that Japanese knotweed was not found on site, including on riverbanks. However, given that Japanese knotweed dies back in winter, they recommend thorough seasonal site checks between April and September to ensure its absence. Should it be discovered, a program of eradication should follow, in line with Isle of Man Government guidance on invasive species control. Potential Conditions if Approved:

• 1. No works to commence until an updated soft landscaping plan is provided and approved in writing by Planning.
• 2. No works to commence until a bat and bird brick plan is provided and approved in writing by Planning.
• 3. No external lighting to be installed unless a low-impact lighting plan is submitted and approved in writing, ensuring compliance with Bat Conservation Trust guidance. Reason: To avoid ecological harm and ensure no net loss for biodiversity on site.

• 01.4.5 DEFA Arboriculture:

• 3. Comments Received 29 August 2024 (Initial Comments reviewed by Committee):

• a. They state that the application does not provide sufficient information to properly judge the arboricultural impact of the proposed development, as it lacks an Arboricultural Impact Assessment or Tree Protection Plan.
• b. They note that, although no tree survey has been conducted, the large silver birch to be removed could be at least a category B tree. In line with Section 25(a), the removal of any tree(s) worthy of a category A or B classification, as defined by BS5837:2012, warrants an objection. The classification of T21 and T22 to be removed is also unclear due to the absence of a survey or Arboricultural Impact Assessment.
• c. They highlight that the impact of the building on the retained trees to the west and north of the site is unclear and may lead to future pressure to remove or prune these trees.
• d. They note that the group of Cupressus sp. T1-T20 are of relatively low amenity value and, although they provide green screening to the substation, could be considered unsuited to

the landscape. Therefore, the removal of this group would not be considered a material constraint.

• 4. Comments Received May 2025 (New Comment):

• a. They object to the application due to the removal of a large, mature birch tree, which is deemed to be at least a category B tree as per BS5837:2012. The birch is of significant age, well-suited to the setting, and its removal is considered unacceptable.
• b. The application lacks sufficient arboricultural information, which should be provided by a qualified Arboriculturalist, to accurately assess the impact of the proposed development.
• c. The effect on trees to the west of the site remains unclear, and concerns exist that future pressure to prune or fell large broadleaves in the adjacent field (not owned by the applicant) may arise due to perceived overbearing impact. Likewise, the development may lead to future demands to alter the trees to the north. No engineering solutions have been detailed.
• d. They state that the group of Cupressus sp. (T1-T20) holds relatively low amenity value and is in poor condition. Their removal is not considered a material constraint, and mitigation planting has been proposed in this area. They recommend that this planting be made a condition of approval if the development proceeds.
• e. Trees T21 and T22, marked for removal, have already been cleared by MUA contractors.

- 01.5 UPDATE ON THE ISSUES SINCE 14TH APRIL 2025 (REVISED ASSESSMENTS)

• 01.5.1 Impact Upon the Character and Appearance of the Site and Area (GP 2, STP 4 & 5, & EP2)

• 01.5.1.1 The proposed single-storey dwelling is positioned off the main highway and accessed via agricultural tracks, reducing its immediate visibility within the street scene. However, the introduction of built form alters the site's openness and rural character, shifting its perception from an undeveloped setting to one with a defined residential presence. This transformation impacts the site's integration into the countryside and must be assessed against Environment

• Policy 2 (EP2), which prioritizes the preservation of areas with high landscape and scenic significance.

• 01.5.1.2 While the design reflects characteristics of nearby properties, the scale and domestic nature of the development introduce an element of intensification that affects the site's visual cohesion within its rural surroundings. The reduced natural screening and increased prominence of built structures contribute to a change in landscape perception, requiring consideration under EP2. Development is permitted only when it does not harm scenic quality or can demonstrate an overriding need, which has not been clearly established within the application.
• 01.5.1.3 The introduction of residential form and associated landscaping adjustments creates a shift in character that does not fully align with General Policy 2, Strategic Policy 4, and EP2, all of which emphasize sensitivity to countryside aesthetics. Although mitigation planting is proposed, its long-term effectiveness in preserving the site's rural visual balance is yet to be established. The absence of comprehensive justification for the location or an overriding need further weakens the proposal's alignment with key policy objectives.
• 01.5.1.4 Ultimately, while the proposal attempts to incorporate elements sympathetic to its surroundings, the visual impact, through the introduction of a new residential form, associated landscaping modifications, and alterations to the site's openness, does not sufficiently align with strategic policies aimed at protecting rural character and scenic integrity. Given these considerations, the proposal is deemed contrary to STP 4, GP 2 (b & c), and EP2.

• 01.5.2 Proximity to Power Lines (Energy Policy 2 & GP 2)

• 01.5.2.1 Energy Policy 2 establishes that land within 9 meters either side of an overhead High Tension power cable will be safeguarded from development. The proposed dwelling is

• positioned 6.6 meters from the high-voltage electricity lines, while the rear patio area sits 4.09 meters away, falling within the safeguarded zone and not complying with the minimum clearance distance set out in policy.
• 01.5.2.2 Manx Utilities Authority (MUA) initially objected to the proposal, raising concerns over the presence of 11kV terminal poles, overhead fuses, and stay wires within a new domestic garden setting. The objection recognized potential risks associated with electrical infrastructure being positioned in close proximity to residential occupation. However, MUA has since removed its objection, which suggests that they no longer consider the development to pose an unacceptable risk under its safety standards.
• 01.5.2.3 While MUA's revised position suggests it is satisfied with the proximity of the proposed development; while Energy Policy 2 is a fixed safeguarding provision designed to ensure compliance regardless of individual case assessments. The proposal, while now unopposed by MUA, does not meet the required safeguarding distance, and therefore remains in conflict with policy requirements. However given the above, any determination on this application should reflect the continued policy conflict, but at this time it is not proposed to continue with the reason for refusal in this regard.

• 01.5.3 Impact on Trees (EP3 & GP2)

• 01.5.3.1 The site is located within an area not zoned for development under the 1982 Development Plan and is designated as Private Woodland and Parkland, requiring careful evaluation under Environment Policy 3 (EP3) and General Policy 2 (GP2). EP3 prohibits development resulting in the unacceptable loss or damage to woodland areas with public amenity or conservation value, while GP2 requires developments to respect the site and incorporate existing landscape features, particularly trees, to maintain character. Given these policy requirements, tree removal within the site must be fully justified, ensuring both arboricultural integrity and compliance with woodland protection principles.
• 01.5.3.2 The site contains semi-natural vegetation, scrubland, and mature trees, with Forestry officers confirming that Cupressus sp. (T1-T20) are of low amenity value and in poor condition, meaning their removal is not a material constraint. However, the large silver birch (T2), classified at least as a category B tree under BS5837:2012, remains a significant concern, as its removal is objected to by Forestry due to its conservation and landscape importance. The importance of protecting T2 is further reinforced by the fact that the site is not zoned for development, whereas a case could potentially be made for its removal if the land were zoned, supported by a mitigation plan, here the loss of T2 cannot be justified against existing policy protections. GP2 requires retention and integration of existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees, making the proposed removal of T2 contradictory to both EP3 and GP2(f).
• 01.5.3.3 Despite mitigation proposals, the Forestry Directorate maintains its objection, citing the absence of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) and Tree Protection Plan, preventing a full evaluation of construction impacts on retained trees and the long-term integrity of woodland cover. EP3 explicitly prohibits unjustified tree loss, and GP2 further underscores the importance of retaining and integrating established trees to minimize disruption to the site's natural character. Without a formal arboricultural assessment, concerns over root protection, construction pressures, and long-term landscape impact remain unresolved.
• 01.5.3.4 While the applicant has proposed piled footings to mitigate root zone impact, Forestry states that no formal verification of effectiveness has been provided, leaving uncertainty regarding tree stability and post-development viability. Without engineered solutions outlined within a qualified arboricultural report, the proposal cannot be confirmed as minimizing tree impacts to an acceptable degree, thus failing to meet the landscape integration requirements set forth in GP2(f).

• 01.5.3.5 Beyond the site boundary, broadleaf trees in the adjacent field have been noted. These trees sit outside the application site and are separated from the development area by a watercourse. While they contribute to landscape character, concerns have been raised regarding potential future pressure to prune or remove them should the proposed dwelling be perceived as overbearing. These adjacent trees are not directly impacted by this application, and their maintenance decisions rest solely with their landowner. GP2 requires consideration of broader landscape features, but as these trees are outside the application site and not directly impacted by the development, they are not a constraint within this assessment. If any future requests for pruning or removal arise, they would be assessed separately under applicable arboricultural regulations.
• 01.5.3.6 The proposal conflicts with EP3 and GP2, as Forestry objects to the removal of T2, citing its conservation importance and the lack of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA). The need to protect T2 is reinforced by the site's non-zoned status, where removal cannot be justified by development rights. GP2 requires landscape feature retention, making T2's removal contrary to policy aims.

• 01.5.4 Impacts on Biodiversity (EP4, STP 4 & GP2)

• 01.5.4.1 The proposal site consists of semi-natural habitats, including scrubland, hedgerows, and mature trees, situated adjacent to a wooded river corridor. Given these ecological attributes, the development must be assessed under Environment Policy 4 (EP4), which mandates the safeguarding and enhancement of ecological systems, alongside General Policy 2 (GP2), which seeks to prevent adverse effects on protected wildlife and locally important habitats.
• 01.5.4.2 Following a site visit on 19 December 2024, the DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team support the proposal, acknowledging that certain mitigation measures help address ecological concerns. However, they stress that additional mitigation should be implemented through planning conditions to ensure no net biodiversity loss within the site. The revised hedge planting plan incorporates blackthorn, hawthorn, burnet rose, dog rose, hazel, and crab apple, improving habitat quality and structural integrity for local wildlife. Furthermore, to compensate for the loss of nesting and roosting spaces due to the removal of T2, bat and bird bricks will be incorporated into the dwelling, ensuring continued habitat provision.
• 01.5.4.3 Ecological concerns regarding external lighting and Japanese Knotweed have been assessed, and it is confirmed that appropriate mitigation via conditions will sufficiently address them. Lighting impacts on bat commuting routes and fish passage can be controlled through compliance with Bat Conservation Trust guidelines, ensuring minimal disruption. Likewise, while Japanese Knotweed was not detected during seasonal surveys, precautionary monitoring will ensure early identification and eradication measures if necessary. With these safeguards in place, ecology considerations on these matters are satisfactorily addressed.
• 01.5.4.4 The ecological impacts identified within the assessment, including habitat loss, lighting interference, and invasive species management, can be effectively mitigated through appropriate conditions to ensure compliance with EP4, STP4, and GP2. Measures such as enhanced native hedgerow planting, integrated bat and bird bricks, regulated external lighting, and precautionary knotweed monitoring provide a structured approach to preserving biodiversity while allowing development to proceed. With these safeguards in place, the proposal can be delivered without causing undue ecological harm, ensuring alignment with policy requirements for habitat protection and sustainable land management.

- 01.6 INTERESTED PARTY STATUS

• 01.6.1 There is no change to the IPS recommendations detailed in the Officer Report which was presented to the Planning Committee on 14 April 2025. The IPS recommendation remains

• as follows:

It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:

• o DOI Flood Risk Management
• o MUA Electricity

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

Mill Bank Cottage, Glen Road, Ballaugh, as they are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy

- 01.7 RECOMMENDATION

• 01.7.1 Further to the above some of the reasons for refusal are now to the removed due to the outstanding issues which are now resolved as a result of the inclusion of omitted and new consultation comments. The recommendation is for refusal on the following basis: Reason 1 - remains as per previous. Amendments to Reasons for Refusal:

• R2: Visual and Landscape Impact Whilst many of the trees are of low amenity value, their removal still contributes to a fundamental shift in the site's rural and scenic character, affecting its visual integration within the countryside. Although individually these trees may not hold significant aesthetic or conservation importance, their collective presence maintains the character and landscape continuity of the area. The introduction of a domestic built form, combined with the loss of natural features, diminishes the site's ability to align with countryside preservation policies. As a result, the proposal fails to respect the rural setting, conflicting with Environment Policy 2 (EP2) and General Policy 2(b & c) (GP2) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016), which prioritize the protection of Areas of High Landscape and Scenic Significance.
• R3: The proposal involves the removal of T2, a category B silver birch identified as holding landscape significance, which directly conflicts with General Policy 2(f) and Environment Policy

• 3 (EP3) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). As the tree is highly visible from various locations it is considered to provide high amenity value to the area. The loss of the birch tree has not been justified in arboricultural terms and its removal would have a detrimental impact on amenity and its loss to provide a dwelling on an unallocated site in the countryside is not considered to outweigh the loss of the amenity that would result from the removal of the tree. In addition it is considered that the proposed mitigation measures do not sufficiently compensate for the loss of this key landscape feature, failing to align with policy requirements for woodland preservation and site integration. Given the non-zoned status of the site, T2's removal cannot be justified against existing policy protections, reinforcing the conflict with EP3 and GP2(f).

0.13 The remainder of this report is unchanged. Any further representations received, or any other information will be confirmed via verbal update to the committee. - 1.0 THE SITE

1.1 The site is a triangular piece of land situated on the western side of Ballaugh Glen Road, which sits among a group of dwelling situated about 800m south of the southern settlement boundary of Ballaugh. Covering an area of approximately 430sqm, it is located to the west of the highway and slightly set back from the immediate road frontage. The site is approximately 1.1km south of the A3 Main Road.

1.2 Currently, the site is a patch of scrub land with the Carmodil Sub Station owned and maintained by the MEA situated in the southwest corner of the plot. The MEA has rights to access the substation at all times via a separate pedestrian access from the lane leading to the neighbouring farm of Glion Shugal and Braggan Gorym, a residential property, and situated south of the site boundary. The rest of the land is mainly grassed with a mix of trees, providing a natural setting. The Ravensdale River runs adjacent to the site on the western side, while a water course runs along the north western boundary of the track the separates the site from Carmodil to the northeast. - 1.3 To the north of the site lies the dwelling Carmodil Beg, Ballaugh Glen, while Srondall is situated directly to the south. To the west, across Ballaugh Glen Road, are the dwellings Carmodil and Glascoed. This immediate cluster of dwellings which sits outside Ballaugh comprises more than 20 dwellings. - 1.4 A large section of the site area is covered in mature trees which run along the southern and western boundaries, with the MEA station enclosed on four sides with mature trees which takes up over 30 percent of the site area, together with the MEA station.

- 2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Planning approval is sought for the erection of single-storey dwelling on site. The new dwelling which would have a pitch roof over will be laid out to provide for an enclosed front porch, an open plan kitchen/dining/living room area, two bedrooms, a shower room, and hall with cloak area. The floor area would measure 8.9m x 11.3m, with the porch measuring

• 2.05m x 1.35m, meaning the total floor area would be 103.33sqm.

2.2 The front elevation is designed such that two windows sit on the left side of the front porch, while a single window sits to the right. The rear elevation would feature two windows and a large patio door area measuring 3.9m wide. Both side elevation would not have any fenestrations. - 2.3 Externally, the building would be finished in smooth painted render, although the porch is finished externally in timber cladding. The roof is to be finished in slate roof tiles and will have roof verge capping on both gables. Window units are to be dark UPVC framed glazed windows. - 2.4 The site layout would provide for the dwelling situated northeast of the site and close to the track that runs along the eastern boundary, with two parking areas situated south and just east of the MEA station. The site would be fenced in low timber fencing, with a 2.4m wide double gate providing access into the site. A wildflower area would be created where the electricity poles site with the fence which runs along the boundary closing out this area. A bike store will sit by the fence boundary. There would be a rear patio area measuring about 12.2sqm positioned at the rear and accessed via the patio door to the rear. - 2.5 The new dwelling will sit 3.6m from the high voltage electricity lines, while the rear patio area would only be 1.6m away. The northern edge of the building will sit 3.2m away from the edge of the water course. The floor level of the new dwelling will sit about 1.8m above the regular river level, although DOI FRM notes that the river floods.

- 3.0 PLANNING POLICY

3.1 Site Specific:

• 3.1.1 The site sits within an area not zoned for development or within the settlement boundary of Ballaugh on the 1982 Development Plan, although it is within a woodland area and Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. The site is not within a Conservation Area, or a registered tree area, although the site is only separated by a farm track from the registered tree area to the south (RA1440 - Scrondall). The site is largely not

prone to flood risks, although part of the site area proposed for the new dwelling and the area occupied by the MEA station is prone to low and medium likelihood of flood risk respectively.

3.2 National: STRATEGIC PLAN

• 3.2.1 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application:

• 1. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations
• 2. General Policy 3 - Exceptions to development in the countryside.
• 3. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources
• 4. Strategic Policy 2 - Development focussed in existing towns and villages
• 5. Strategic Policy 3 - Development to safeguard character of existing towns and villages.
• 6. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact
• 7. Strategic Policy 10 - Sustainable transport
• 8. Strategic Policy 11 - Housing needs
• 9. Spatial Policy 5 - Building in defined settlements or GP3.
• 10. Energy Policy 2 - Land within 9m either side of an overhead High Tension power cable will be safeguarded from development.
• 11. Environment Policy 1 - Protection of the countryside and inherent ecology.
• 12. Environment Policy 2 - Protection of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
• 13. Environment Policy 3 - Development to safeguard woodland of high amenity value
• 14. Environment Policy 4 - Protection of species and habitats.
• 15. Environment Policy 7 - Development must avoid harm to watercourses, wetlands, ponds, or dubs, ensure mitigation measures, identify nearby watercourses, provide risk assessments, detail pollution prevention, phase engineering works to protect water quality, and prohibit development within 8 meters to safeguard habitats.
• 16. Environment Policy 10 and 13 - Development and flood risk.
• 17. Housing Policy 4 directs new housing to settlements other than in exceptional circumstances and cross references the policies which set those circumstances:

• a. essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10;
• b. conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and
• c. the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14.

• 18. Transport Policy 4 - Highway Safety
• 19. Transport Policy 7 - Parking Provisions
• 20. Other policies within the Strategic Plan which are considered relevant in the assessment of the proposal are; Infrastructure Policy 5 (water conservation and management), Community Policy 7 (designing out criminal and anti-social behaviour), Community Policy 10 (proper access for firefighting appliances) and Community Policy 11 (prevention for the outbreak and spread of fire).

- 4.0 OTHER MATTERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT 3/91 provides guidance on the design of residential development in the countryside. The following policies within the guide are considered relevant:

• 1. POLICY 2: New buildings are to be integrated with the landscape and where in groups, with each other. Single buildings in prominent locations can only be considered if they are satisfactory in all respects and include landscape proposals.
• 2. POLICY 3: The shape of small and medium sized new dwellings should follow the size and pattern of traditional farmhouses. They should be rectangular in plan and simple in form. Extensions to existing buildings should maintain the character of the original form.
• 3. POLICY 4: External finishes are expected to be selected from a limited range of traditional materials.
• 4. POLICY 5: Doors and windows together with their size and relationship with each other and the wall face should follow traditional rural forms.

• 5. POLICY 6: Chimneys are considered important features and their provision following past patterns is recommended.
• 6. POLICY 7: Existing features are an essential part of the rural scene. New work should follow and respect successful past patterns.

4.2 Residential Design Guide (2021)

• 4.2.1 This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction.

4.3 The Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy (2015 - 2025)

• 4.3.1 The Department's Biodiversity Strategy is capable of being a material consideration. It seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary.

4.4 Manual for Manx Roads: Movement and Place Practitioner's Guide

• 4.4.1 The Manual for Manx Roads sets out the minimum requirements for vehicular visibility splays from driveways. The guide for achieving the required visibility splays are clearly illustrated in Section B.3 of the Manual. Paragraphs 5.2.37 and 5.2.38 of the manual relates specifically to visibility along the street edge from driveways, while paragraphs 5.2.39 and
• 5.2.40 refer to obstacles to Visibility.

• 4.4.2 Additionally, Paragraph C.7.30 (Table C.2) provides guidance on driveway parking space, while Paragraphs C.7.34 and C.7.35 (Table C.3) provides guidance on garages.
• 5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 The site has not been the subject of any previous planning application. However, the following previous planning applications in the immediate locality are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of the current application:

• 1. PA 07/00958/A for Approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling with garage to replace existing workshop/store, Carmodil West, Glen Road - Approved. The planning officer in recommending approval noted that the site was a previously developed land as it housed a single storey detached shed (15 metres in length and 6 metres in depth), which was used as a workshop to repair agricultural equipment, as well as a store., therefore the principle of erecting a new dwelling on site was considered acceptable.
• 2. PA 10/00090/REM for Reserved matters application for the erection of a detached dwelling as replacement to an existing workshop, Carmodil West, Glen Road. This was approved by the Planning Committee on 12.08.2010.
• 3. PA 08/00208/A for Approval in principle to erect an agricultural worker's dwelling, Land Adjacent to Mylvoirrey, Glen Road. This was approved by the Planning Committee on 16.05.2008. The required agricultural justification for an agricultural dwelling was proven, and the location and siting were considered appropriate.
• 4. PA 09/00711/B for Erection of detached garage with office, toilet & kitchenette above, Faaie Wyllin, Glen Road, Ballaugh - Refused. The proposed building which was to involve almost a full two storeys and create self-contained living accommodation was considered to be tantamount to a new dwelling in the countryside in terms of its use and its appearance. The application was refused for the following reason: "The application site is not zoned for development and is within an area of High Landscape Value or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to both adopted general planning policy within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and The Isle of Man Development Plan, which seek to restrict such development within the countryside. Approval

• of the planning application which is tantamount to the creation of a new residential dwelling would set an undesirable precedent for further such inappropriate development in the countryside."
• 5. PA 11/01268/B for Erection of a detached double garage with workshop, Faaie Wyllin, Glen Road, Ballaugh - Refused. The following parts of the Officer Report are considered relevant: "22. As mentioned in the previous application PA 09/00711/B there was some concern regarding the scale of the development proposed. The previous proposal would have been taller than the eaves and the ridgeline of the main dwelling by approximately 1 - 1.5m.

• 23. The proposed garage/workshop is slightly taller than the previous proposal; this again would be taller than the existing dwelling. Such a development should be subordinate to the existing dwelling. Given the siting, size, massing and height the proposed garage/workshop is considered to be a large building which would be a dominant feature within the curtilage of the site.
• 24. The siting of the proposed garage would be quite a distance from the main dwelling and when travelling along the highway could appear as a separate residential unit."

The application was refused for the following reason: "The application site is not zoned for development and is within an Area of High Landscape Value or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. Therefore the proposal is contrary to Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. Given the siting, size and design of the proposal it would be tantamount to the creation of a new residential dwelling in an area not zoned for development. It would result in an inappropriate development in the countryside contrary to the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and the Isle of Man Development Plan."

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.

6.1 DOI Highways (15 August 2024): "The proposal raises no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues. Accordingly, Highway Services Development Control raises no objection to the proposal subject to all access arrangements to accord to Drawing No. 20158-PL04 and 21058-PL06, and for the boundary treatment along the southern side of the plot to be a maximum height to 1.05m (in order to provide visibility of oncoming vehicles along the lane to Glion-Shugal)."

6.2 DOI FRM (12 August 2024): They note that the proposed site is surrounded by streams that can exceed their banks, causing surface water flooding in the vicinity. Therefore, they suggest a condition that "there should be adequate freeboard from any potential surface water flooding."

6.3 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team (29 August 2024):

• 1. They object to the application for a new dwelling in the countryside on semi-natural habitat, noting that the site is not zoned for residential use and does not comply with General

Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1.

• 2. They state that Environment Policy 1 protects the countryside and its ecology, prohibiting development that adversely affects these areas unless there is an overriding national need with no reasonable alternative.
• 3. They note that the site contains semi-natural grassland, scrub, mature trees, and is adjacent to a wooded river corridor, providing habitat for various wildlife.
• 4. They note the presence of Japanese knotweed, a non-native invasive plant species, which could be spread by construction works and requires eradication.

• 5. They state that the application lacks an ecological assessment and request a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) by a qualified consultancy before further consideration.
• 6. They state that if the PEA identifies negative impacts on ecological features, additional surveys and a mitigation plan must be submitted for approval prior to the application's determination.
• 7. They emphasize that submission of reports prior to determination aligns with UK best practice guidelines, ensuring all material considerations are addressed before granting planning permission.

6.4 DEFA Arboriculture (29 August 2024):

• 1. They state that the application does not provide sufficient information to properly judge the arboricultural impact of the proposed development, as it lacks an Arboricultural Impact Assessment or Tree Protection Plan.
• 2. They note that, although no tree survey has been conducted, the large silver birch to be removed could be at least a category B tree. In line with Section 25(a), the removal of any tree(s) worthy of a category A or B classification, as defined by BS5837:2012, warrants an objection. The classification of T21 and T22 to be removed is also unclear due to the absence of a survey or Arboricultural Impact Assessment.
• 3. They highlight that the impact of the building on the retained trees to the west and north of the site is unclear and may lead to future pressure to remove or prune these trees.
• 4. They note that the group of Cupressus sp. T1-T20 are of relatively low amenity value and, although they provide green screening to the substation, could be considered unsuited to the landscape. Therefore, the removal of this group would not be considered a material constraint.

6.5 DEFA Fisheries (6 September 2024):

• 1. They confirm that DEFA Fisheries has no objections to the development from a fisheries perspective, provided there is no adverse effect on the adjacent watercourse.
• 2. They state that, due to the proximity of the proposed works to the watercourse, precautions are needed to prevent harmful materials such as concrete or washings from entering the river.
• 3. They highlight that the area of the river in question is a valuable fish spawning ground and request that no direct exterior lighting be directed onto the river.

6.6 Manx Utilities Electricity (27 August 2024):

• 1. They object to the planning application, as the proposals would place their existing 11kV terminal pole, high voltage fuses, and stay wires in the middle of a new domestic garden.
• 2. They state that, from a health and safety perspective, it is unacceptable to have live high voltage 11kV overhead wires in a garden.
• 3. They advise that the applicant needs to contact Manx Utilities to discuss options for relocating the terminal pole, which may involve repositioning the overhead line and could require a further planning application.

6.7 The owners/occupiers of Mill Bank Cottage, Glen Road, Ballaugh (16 August 2024):

• 1. They live within 200 meters of the proposed site and have observed issues with access

at the junction, which they believe would create problems with congestion and cars.

• 2. They express concern about the removal of a large tree that hosts multiple birds and provides protection.
• 3. They note the presence of a significant Japanese knotweed infestation on the riverbank close to the property, which has not been addressed by the landowner and is likely to keep spreading.
• 4. They believe the property development is for profit and not justified on such a small patch of land, potentially causing damage to the riverbank and the crossing.
• 5. They strongly oppose any dwelling on the site, citing the landowner's lack of care over the past five years, which they feel indicates the development will not consider other residents.

6.8 Response to Comments from Consultees by Applicants agent:

• 1. Revised Drawings:

• o Dwelling reoriented by approximately 1200mm east to allow a bigger gap to the
• overhead cables.
• o Location of ground-mounted solar panels updated.
• o Tree plan and mitigation measures updated following discussions with the forestry department.
• o Fence and hedging added around the electricity pole area, which will be wild flowered and remain natural.

• 2. Manx Utilities:

• o Concerns about access to the existing 11kV terminal pole and overhead wires being located in a garden have been addressed.
• o The area surrounding the terminal pole will be fenced off, with an access panel for maintenance.
• o The dwelling has been reoriented to allow a minimal distance of 7 meters from the dwelling to the overhead cables.
• o Manx Utilities are satisfied with these updates but will reply formally once added to the application.

• 3. Forestry:

• o Initial concerns raised by the Forestry Department have been addressed through a site visit and discussions.
• o Additional mitigation tree planting has been proposed, including Betula Pendula, Prunus Spinosa, Alnus Glutinosa, and Sorbus Aucuparia trees.
• o Footings, especially on the Eastern/Northern border, will be designed by an engineer to avoid impact on remaining trees.
• o T2 (Large Birch) will be assessed for classification and condition.
• o The impact on existing Eastern/Northern trees will be minimal due to the proposed footing design and distance.
• o T21 and T22 have been removed under maintenance works by MUA.
• o T24 (Betula pendula) is proposed for removal due to poor condition, confirmed by Forestry.

• 4. Ecological:

• o Concerns from the Ecological Department include a request for an ecological appraisal (PEA).
• o The site contains semi-natural grassland and mature trees, which have not been trimmed for months.
• o Surrounding trees, including a wooded corridor and main roosting trees, will remain.
• o The proposal includes significant tree planting, native hedging, and wildflower areas to improve biodiversity.
• o Significant site clearance was undertaken by MUA, removing semi-natural grassland and scrub.
• o Wood chippings were left on the site.
• o The revised proposal includes bat boxes to assist with any bats in the area.
• o The Ecological Department has maintained their position despite recent tree felling and pruning. Specific Planning Concerns:

• 1. Strategic Plan Paragraphs 8.8.1 - 8.8.3:

• o The Ballaugh Road has dwellings positioned along both sides from the Main Highway to the Ballaugh Plantation.
• o The road is close to the main highway with regular public transport, a local shop, school, and public house.
• o The site is over a mile from the Wildlife Park and Ballaugh Plantation, which houses Sitka Spruce and Japanese Larch.
• o The proposed site, slightly set back from the roadside, would contribute to the character of the settlement and not be an ad hoc decision.

• 2. Appeal Decision near Port Soderick:

• o The proposal site is within a sustainable and accessible location.
• o The site would be an infill between two existing single-storey dwellings.
• o Every application should be judged on its own merits, and the Strategic Plan should align with Government and Public requirements.

• 3. Design and Visual Amenity: o Adding a dwelling would change the site's look but not detrimentally impact the landscape or surroundings. o The proposal includes thorough landscaping to ensure the site does not urbanize and creates a superior natural habitat. o The rear tree line and fields behind will remain and not be impacted.
• 4. Conclusion: The Agent and Applicant believe the application should be looked upon favourably, as the concerns raised by MUA, Forestry, and Ecological are addressed and do not detrimentally impact the proposal. The development aims to reduce demand on the strained housing market and aligns with Government plans and aims, despite outdated policies.

- 7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this application are:

• 1. The principle: Need for New Housing/Site Designation and Policies Providing for New Houses on un-allocated land (StP1, StP2, StP10, SP4, SP5, GP3);
• 2. Impact on the character and appearance of the Countryside (EP1, Para 4.3.11);
• 3. Impact on Residential Amenity of other properties (GP2 & RDG 2021);
• 4. Highway Issues (TP4, TP 5, TP 6 & TP 7);
• 5. Proximity to power line (ENP 2);
• 6. Tree and Biodiversity Impacts (GP2, EP 4, STP 4); and
• 7. Flood Matters (GP2l, & EP 10 & 13)

- 7.2 THE PRINCIPLE (STP1, STP2, STP10, SP4, SP5)

• 7.2.1 The proposal should be evaluated against Environment Policy 1, which aims to protect the countryside for its own sake. The site is located outside any settlement boundary and within the countryside, where Environment Policy 1 protects the rural landscape. Strategic Policy 2 and General Policy 3 resist new development except in specified exceptional circumstances. While the Strategic Plan allows for exceptions for developments in the countryside (under GP 3), this proposal does not fall within any of those categories.

• 7.2.2 The Strategic Plan further presumes against new housing on land not zoned for development and within the countryside, stating that "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages identified in adopted Area Plans" (HP 4). The site is outside the defined settlement boundary of Ballaugh, where priority for new housing is within the established settlement or in sustainable extensions supported by appropriate infrastructure such as schools, healthcare provisions, open space, and recreational facilities. Whilst it is noted that the proposed dwelling would have access to utility services given it sits among a cluster of slightly over 20 dwellings where an argument could be made for its sustainability as it would benefit from the utility and services available to these dwellings, the site does not meet these criteria due to its location relative to the settlement boundary of Ballaugh, being positioned about 800m at the closest from the southern boundary of Ballaugh.

• 7.2.3 Further to the above, the sustainability of the site's location is further weakened by the proximity of the site to the MEA station and power lines, which is well below the accepted threshold set out in Energy Policy 2 of the Strategic plan, and this weakens the argument for this location in terms of sustainability. This issue will, however, be further assessed within this report.

• 7.2.4 Consequently, the principle of the proposed development is contrary to the Island's spatial strategy, whereby new development, including residential development, is required to be directed to the Island's existing towns and villages in accordance with Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, and Housing Policy 4. The site lies outside the boundary of Ballaugh, or any other settlement boundary where Housing Policy 4 precludes housing development unless the scheme meets the exceptional circumstances identified in parts (a) to (c) of this policy. Overall, the proposed development would fail to comply with General Policy 3, Strategic Policy

• 2, and Housing Policies 1 and 4 of the Strategic Plan. Thus, the principle of the proposed development is not acceptable.

- 7.3 IMPACT UPON THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE AREA (GP 2, STP 4 & 5, & EP2)

• 7.3.1 The proposed single-storey dwelling is positioned off the main highway, accessed via agricultural tracks, minimizing its visibility within the street scene. However, the removal of mature trees along the site boundary will significantly alter the site's green backdrop, compromising its integration into the surrounding rural landscape. This loss of landscaping intensifies the visual impact of the development, transforming the site from a tree-enclosed field into one with a more open, domestic appearance. The resulting change directly conflicts with Environment Policy 2 (EP2), which prioritizes the protection of areas of high landscape and scenic significance.
• 7.3.2 The additional built form adversely affects the site's character and scenic quality, introducing a degree of densification that undermines its rural integrity. Despite its singlestorey design reflecting the character of nearby properties and conforming broadly to Planning Circular 3/91, the increased mass relative to the existing context and reduced landscaping render the development conspicuous within its countryside setting. EP2 permits development only if it can be demonstrated that the landscape will not be harmed, or the location is essential. In this case, the proposal fails to provide sufficient evidence to justify the necessity of the location or to meet the criteria outlined under General Policy 3 (GP3) and Housing Policy

4 (HP4).

• 7.3.3 The introduction of a domestic character and removal of significant landscaping further contradicts General Policy 2(b and c), Strategic Policies 4(b), and Environment Policy 2, all of which emphasize the protection of the countryside and its ecological value. The proposal fails to demonstrate sensitivity to its surroundings or compliance with policy objectives. Moreover, the absence of an overriding national need or adequate justification undermines the proposal's alignment with the high standards required by these policies. The adverse visual and environmental impacts outweigh any potential benefits of the design, compromising the site's rural character and scenic quality.
• 7.3.4 Ultimately, the proposal does not align with key policy objectives aimed at preserving the countryside's unique characteristics and ensuring sustainable, context-sensitive development. Given the significant visual and environmental impacts and the lack of compelling justification, it is considered that the proposal would be contrary to STP 4, GP 2 (b & c), and EP2.

- 7.4 IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY OF OTHER PROPERTIES (GP 2 & RDG 2021)

• 7.4.1 With regard to potential impacts on neighbouring amenity, it is not considered that the proposal would result in adverse impacts on neighbours. The single storey nature, the proposed inclusion of boundary features such as fences, and shrub planting, would ensure that there is no overlooking concern for the nearby neighbours, particularly those residing at Carmodil to the northeast.
• 7.4.2 In terms of potential overshadowing or overbearing impacts, the separating distance between the proposed dwelling and its neighbours, and the single storey height would ensure that no adverse impacts result in this case.

- 7.5 HIGHWAY ISSUES (GP2, TP7)

• 7.5.1 Any new dwelling requires at least two off road parking space and turning provision. The proposal exceeds these requirements in providing for at least three parking provisions on the hard standing area on site. There is also sufficient provision in terms of allowances for pedestrians around parked vehicles on the site. As such, the proposed scheme complies with Transport Policies 6 and 7, as well as General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man strategic Plan.
• 7.5.2 Further to the above, DOI Highway Services have considered the application in detail as outlined in their representations and raise no concerns, subject to a condition to ensure that the required visibility is provided. Therefore, it is considered that the scheme as proposed would be acceptable from a highways perspective.

7.6 PROXIMITY TO POWER LINES (Energy Policy 2 & GP 2)

• 7.6.1 Energy Policy 2 safeguards land within 9 meters on either side of an overhead High Tension power cable from development to protect public safety and ensure appropriate clearances around critical infrastructure. The proposed development violates this policy, with the new dwelling located only 3.6 meters from the high-voltage electricity lines and the rear patio area positioned a mere 1.6 meters away. This encroachment into the safeguarded zone represents a significant deviation from the minimum required distance, compromising public safety and the integrity of the infrastructure.
• 7.6.2 This non-compliance also conflicts with General Policy 2 (m), which emphasizes the need to account for community and personal safety in the design of buildings and the spaces around them. By positioning the dwelling and its associated outdoor area within the exclusion zone, the proposal disregards safety standards aimed at minimizing risks from high-tension power infrastructure. The development does not adequately address the hazards posed by proximity to power lines, thereby undermining community safety and security in direct contravention of General Policy 2 (m).
• 7.6.3 In conclusion, the proposal breaches the safeguarding requirements of Energy Policy 2 and fails to meet the safety considerations outlined in General Policy 2 (m). The unacceptable risks associated with this proximity to high-voltage power lines render the development unsuitable and incompatible with established policy objectives.

- 7.7 TREES AND BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS (GP2, EP3 & EP4)

• 7.7.1 The site features significant tree coverage, particularly along its south eastern area and northern boundary, much of which would be removed to accommodate the proposed development. Initially, the application lacked essential documentation such as an Arboricultural Impact Assessment or Tree Protection Plan, making it difficult to fully evaluate the impacts on existing trees as required by Environment Policy 3 (EP3). Concerns about the removal of key trees, including the large silver birch (T2) potentially qualifying as a category B tree, have been partially addressed by the applicant, who has committed to assessing T2's condition and classification, and confirmed that trees T21 and T22 were removed during prior maintenance works by MUA.
• 7.7.2 The applicant has proposed mitigation measures, including planting tree species such as Betula Pendula, Prunus Spinosa, Alnus Glutinosa, and Sorbus Aucuparia, as well as implementing engineering solutions for footings near retained trees to minimize impact on root zones and canopy interference. While these measures aim to mitigate tree loss, the removal of substantial tree coverage, including T24 (Betula Pendula) due to its poor condition, raises concerns about compliance with General Policy 2(f), which requires developments to incorporate existing landscape features, particularly trees. The absence of a comprehensive Arboricultural Impact Assessment still limits a full understanding of the potential impacts on high-value and retained trees.

• 7.7.3 Although the applicant has addressed some concerns and proposed mitigation planting, the scale of tree removal conflicts with EP3 and the broader policy objectives to preserve woodland areas and the site's natural character. Even with biodiversity enhancement measures, the significant loss of mature trees is not sufficiently justified and undermines the emphasis in GP2(f).
• 7.7.4 The proposed development poses notable risks to the biodiversity of the site, which features semi-natural habitats and lies adjacent to a wooded river corridor, an area that likely supports protected species, including bats. Despite the sensitivity of the location, the lack of robust ecological information to enable the evaluation of the ecological impacts on the site are a clear shortcoming. Without such an assessment, there remains significant uncertainty regarding the extent to which the proposal may harm biodiversity. This absence contravenes Environment Policy 4 (EP4), which emphasizes safeguarding and enhancing ecological systems. The close proximity of the proposed works to vegetation further magnifies the risk of disturbing wildlife habitats.
• 7.7.5 The DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team has raised concerns about the ecological integrity of the site, highlighting its mixture of semi-natural grassland, scrub, and mature trees, along with its connectivity to the wooded river corridor. A specific issue identified is the presence of Japanese knotweed, a non-native invasive species that requires eradication to prevent further ecological harm. Although the applicant has proposed measures such as planting native species, introducing wildflower areas, and installing bat boxes, these actions do not substitute for the comprehensive analysis and mitigation strategies typically outlined in a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA). DEFA has emphasized the need for detailed ecological assessments for the site, given its potential to support important biota. The absence of such assessments weighs considerably against the application.
• 7.7.6 While the applicant has taken steps to incorporate biodiversity-enhancing measures, the omission of detailed ecological information, which should inform these strategies, means the approach to biodiversity mitigation is not evidence-based. The lack of a rigorous assessment results in the scheme failing to demonstrate alignment with EP4 and broader strategic policies aimed at protecting biodiversity. Consequently, the proposal remains at odds with established policy objectives, and the biodiversity risks posed by the scheme outweigh the mitigation efforts presented.

- 7.8 FLOOD ISSUES (GP 2, EP 10 & EP 13)

• 7.8.1 The site is bordered by watercourses, including the Ravensdale River to the west and a smaller watercourse near the north western boundary. Both are prone to exceeding their banks, causing localized surface water flooding. Although the site itself is largely unaffected by flood risks, a portion of the area proposed for the new dwelling lies within a low flood-risk zone. The dwelling's proximity to the northern watercourse, with its edge just 3.2 meters away, makes flood risk considerations essential. While the dwelling's floor level is elevated 1.8 meters above the river's typical level, it remains only 150mm above the surrounding site level, leaving it vulnerable to potential flooding. Therefore, robust measures must be implemented to protect the dwelling in case of flood incidents.

• 7.8.2 General Policy 2 requires developments to avoid unreasonable flood risks, emphasizing the need for adequate freeboard against surface water flooding. Similarly, EP 13 stipulates that development must not pose unacceptable flood risks, whether on-site or off-site. In this case, flood risks can be managed by incorporating appropriate safeguards, such as maintaining sufficient freeboard, implementing effective drainage systems, and adhering to established flood management practices.

• 7.8.3 In addition, the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Flood Risk Management team has not raised concerns regarding identified flood risks, which are categorized as low or medium in certain areas. This approval suggests that the proposed development can proceed, provided

safeguards, such as ensuring adequate freeboard are established to mitigate the risk of surface water flooding.

- 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 The proposal incorporates certain biodiversity-enhancing measures aimed at mitigating environmental impacts. While the efficacy of these measures remains uncertain due to insufficient evidence-based strategies, their inclusion represents an effort to align with ecological objectives. Additionally, flood risks associated with the site have been assessed as low to medium, and the Department of Infrastructure's Flood Risk Management team has not raised objections, indicating a level of compliance with flood mitigation standards.

8.2 The proposal raises significant concerns regarding its principle, visual impact, and proximity to power lines. From a policy perspective, the development fails to align with Environment Policy 1, General Policy 3, Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, and Housing Policies 1 and 4 due to its countryside location and absence of exceptional circumstances justifying residential development outside the settlement boundary of Ballaugh. Furthermore, the visual impact of the proposal would adversely affect the site's character and appearance. The removal of mature trees compromises the rural landscape and results in a more domestic and conspicuous appearance, conflicting with Environment Policy 2 and General Policy 2(b and c). Additionally, the proximity of the dwelling to high-voltage power lines breaches the safeguarding requirements of Energy Policy 2, with distances well below the required threshold, posing unacceptable risks to public safety and infrastructure integrity as outlined in General Policy 2(m).

8.3 On balance, the proposal fails to meet the key policy objectives outlined in General Policies 2(f), (l), and (m); Environment Policies 2, 3, 4, and 13; Strategic Policies 2, 4, and 5; Spatial Policy 5; Housing Policies 1 and 4; and Energy Policy 2. The combined challenges, including non-compliance with the principle of sustainable development, adverse visual and environmental impacts, and safety risks associated with proximity to power lines outweigh any potential benefits. It is therefore recommended that the application be refused based on its incompatibility with established policy objectives. - 9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

9.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status.

9.3 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 Interested Person Status.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.

Decision Made: Refused Date: 19.05.2025 Signed : Presenting Officer

Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.

Planning Committee Decision 19.05.2025

Application No. : 24/00859/B Applicant : Mrs H M Radcliffe Proposal : Erection of single-storey dwelling Site Address : Plot Of Land North Of Scrondall

Glen Road Ballaugh Isle Of Man Presenting Officer : Paul Visigah Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Planning Committee considered the application at its meeting on 19th May 2025 and agreed with the recommendation to refuse the application subject to the officer's amendment to the Reasons for refusal to reflect changes to the Officer Report.

The revised reasons for Refusal shall read: Reason 1 as per original (R1): The proposed development is situated outside the settlement boundary of Ballaugh and within the countryside, where residential development is restricted by Strategic Policy 2, Housing

• Policy 4, and General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). The proposal fails to meet the criteria for exceptional circumstances that justify housing in this location, and no 'other material considerations' have been identified to outweigh these policies, which have been informed by public consultation and adoption by Tynwald.

• Amended Reason 2 (R2): Whilst many of the trees are of low amenity value, their removal still contributes to a fundamental shift in the site's rural and scenic character, affecting its visual integration within the countryside. Although individually these trees may not hold significant aesthetic or conservation importance, their collective presence maintains the character and landscape continuity of the area. The introduction of a domestic built form, combined with the loss of natural features, diminishes the site's ability to align with countryside preservation policies. As a result, the proposal fails to respect the rural setting, conflicting with Environment Policy 2 (EP2) and General Policy 2(b & c) (GP2) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016), which prioritize the protection of Areas of High Landscape and Scenic Significance.
• Amended Reason 3 (R3): The proposal involves the removal of T2, a category B silver birch identified as holding landscape significance, which directly conflicts with General Policy 2(f) and Environment Policy

• 3 (EP3) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). As the tree is highly visible from various locations it is considered to provide high amenity value to the area. The loss of the birch tree has not been justified in agricultural terms and its removal would have a detrimental impact on amenity and its loss to provide a dwelling on an unallocated site in the countryside is not considered to outweigh the loss of the amenity that would result from the removal of the tree. In addition it is considered that the proposed mitigation measures do not sufficiently compensate for the loss of this key landscape feature, failing to align with policy requirements for woodland preservation and site integration. Given the non-zoned status of the site, T2's

removal cannot be justified against existing policy protections, reinforcing the conflict with EP3 and GP2(f). _____________________________________________________________________________