SOC Haven Homes Appeal Statement on Behalf of the Applicant

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE) ORDER 2019

At Appeal

STATEMENT OF CASE AGAINST THE DECISION DECEMBER 2024 1612-4.2.3.2 V1.0 APPLICATION REFERENCE: PA 24 / 00154 / B APPEAL REFERENCE: AP 24 / 0051 PROPOSAL: ADDITION OF FIFTH CONTAINER; WIDENED WALKWAY; AND VARIATION OF CONDITIONS 2 AND 4 OF PA 22/00757/B ADDRESS: LAND ADJACENT TO GLEN MOAR MILL, GLEN HELEN ROAD LAUREL BANK, ST. JOHNS, ISLE OF MAN IM4 3NN HAVEN HOMES LIMITED SUITES 6-8 FALCON’S NEST HOTEL PORT ERIN ISLE OF MAN IM9 6AF PHONE 01624 835222 EMAIL [email protected] WEB WWW.HAVEN.IM

0.0 Contents

• 1.0 Definitions 3
• 2.0 Introduction 3
• 3.0 Procedural Matters 3
• 4.0 Planning History 4
• 5.0 The Site and Surroundings 6
• 6.0 Visitor Economy 7
• 7.0 Public Sector Countryside Interventions 9
• 8.0 Reasonableness of Condition 10
• 9.0 Flood Risk 11
• 10.0 Summary 12

Appendices:

• A Comparative Photographs (Westwards Aspect) 2023
• B Comparative Photographs (Eastwards Aspect) 2023
• C Isle of Man Ordnance Survey Sheet IX.8 1869
• D Isle of Man Aerial Survey 2022
• E Superimposition of Ordnance and Aerial Surveys 1869/2022
• F Area Plan Map (Extract) with Key August 1982
• G Landscape Character Assessment Map (Extract) July 2008
• H Landscape Character Assessment Report (Extract) July 2008
• I Land Use Capability Map 2021
• J PROW Definitive Map January 2022
• K PROW Definitive Schedule January 2022
• L Examples of Government Works December 2024
• M Decision Notice of PA 24/00154/B 26th November 2024
• N PC Minutes PA 24/00154/B 25th November 2024
• O Decision Notice PA 21/01316/B 26th April 2022
• P Officer Report PA 21/01316/B 25th April 2022
• Q Decision Notice PA 22/00757/B 18th January 2023
• R Officer Report PA 22/00757/B 16th January 2023
• S Independent Inspector’s Report 22/00186/B 7th July 2023
• T Views of Supporting Structure at Creg-ny-Baa April 2010

1.0 Definitions

Act Town and Country Planning Act 1999 Agent Haven Homes Limited AHLV Area of High Landscape Value, IMSP §7.6.1 and Area Plan part 2 §10(36) Appeal the appeal (reference AP 24/0051) against the Decision, 28th November 2024 Appellant, Applicant Rockfell Limited Application planning application reference PA 24/00154/B, 23rd February 2024 Area Plan the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 CoMin Isle of Man Government Council of Ministers Course extents of public highway periodically closed for the Events Decision the Department ’s initial determination, 26th November 2024 Department Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (and predecessors) Development Plan the IMSP and the Area Plan in combination DPO Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 Events the IOMTT and the IOMFOM in combination IMSP Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 IOMTT Isle of Man TT Races IOMFOM Festival of Motorcycling, including the Manx Grand Prix LCA Landscape Character Assessment 2008 Local Authority German Parish Commissioners OPIPS Operational Policy on Interested Person Status 2020 PABC the planning authority, Planning and Building Control Proposal the development as proposed in detail by the Application PROW Public Right of Way PC Planning Committee PC Minutes the published minutes of the PC meeting of 25th November 2024 Report the Department’s report concerning the Application, 28th November 2024 Site the land that the Application directly concerns Statement this document together with its appendices Surroundings the land in the Site’s vicinity that the Application indirectly concerns VES Isle of Man Visitor Economy Strategy 2022-2023

2.0 Introduction

• 2.1 This Statement is presented on behalf of the Appellant at the Planning Appeal Administrator’s direction.
• 2.2 I am Euan Craine, an architect registered in the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom. Over the course of eighteen years I have represented commercial and domestic clients as well as various government departments in local planning matters, including the Departments of Infrastructure, Home Affairs, and Education Sport and Culture. I am a chartered member of the Royal Institute of British Architects.
• 2.3 I am familiar with the Site and its planning history. The Proposal and Surroundings remain as described in the Agent’s statement, comprising part of the submitted Application.

3.0 Procedural Matters

3.1 The Application is made pursuant to the Act and the DPO. In accordance with DPO §29(2), the Appeal shall be determined as if the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (Amendment) 2024 had not been made.

4.0 Planning History

• 4.1 The following planning cases relate to the Site:—

• • PA 02/00852/B approved 11/11/2002 Conversion of mill to dwelling.
• • PA 03/01490/B approved 15/12/2003 Conversion of mill to dwelling (amendments to 02/00852B).
• • PA 08/01706/B approved 19/01/2009 Conversion of mill to dwelling.
• • PA 15/01387/B approved 22/02/2016 Conversion of tearooms to create two dwellings.
• • PA 19/01057/B approved 25/09/2020 Conversion of mill to dwelling, with additional tourism use
• • PA 20/00937/C approved 26/10/2020 Cottages 1 and 2; additional tourism use.
• • PA 21/00151/B approved 16/04/2021 Cottage 3; garage doors replaced with French doors.
• • PA 21/01316/B approved 26/04/2022 Siting of four containers, platforms, spectator seating.
• • PA 22/00186/B refused 06/01/2023 Single storey side extension including viewing platform.
• • AP 23/0003 appeal allowed 18/07/2023 Appeal against refusal of viewing platform, 22/00186/B.
• • PA 22/00757/B approved 18/01/2023 Variation of Condition 2 to PA 21/01316/B.

• 4.2 The current Application concerns part of Field 315139, which was approved for residential use under 02/00852/B, and again under 03/01490/B and 08/01706/B. The latter decision was made after the IMSP’s publication in 2007, and after a Departmentcommissioned Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) in 2008.
• 4.3 The initial application for a spectator stand (21/01316/B) sought four containers and timber deck on a permanent basis, and to periodically remove bleacher seating and scaffold staging. The Agent pressed for a decision four months after the determination period lapsed under DPO §8(4). There would have otherwise been insufficient time to make arrangements before the Events.

• 4.5 PABC first contended that the proposal would not be acceptable at a PC meeting on 11th April 2022, that there are “no policies that support temporary spectator seating nor the temporary use of containers for café or bar uses in the countryside or AHLV“ (Appx. P §6.1i). The PC agreed to a deferral allowing a compromise to be explored. Acutely aware that an appeal would further delay any outcome, the Applicant agreed to several compromises. On such basis, the PC elected to conditionally approve 21/01316/B two weeks later. The stand was successfully implemented within a month.

• 4.6 Condition 2 of 21/01316/B required all elements be removed between the Events, both in summer and off season. The case officer noted other changes made to overcome various concerns. At §6.7 of their report (Appx. P) for example:—

The proposal now omits the importation of fill and thus there are no expected impacts on the adjacent watercourse in relation to the quality of this fill or the potential leaching in to the watercourse and as such the proposal is considered acceptable.

• 4.7 An application to vary Condition 2 was submitted immediately after the IOMTT (22/00757/B), to retain the stand between that year’s Events. It was approved by the PC the following year.
• 4.8 The case officer conceded there was little or no benefit in the stand’s summer removal. From §6.6 of their report (Appx. R):—

It is considered that the location is a very sensitive one, being an Area of High Landscape Value and simply a pleasant riverside location. But the effort and indeed energy required to remove and reinstate the stand for a two month break is disproportionate to the level of landscape harm caused. As such, it is considered that the stand and facilities can be retained for that period. Condition 2 can be altered to reflect this position.

Retaining the facilities will have an immaterial impact on flood risk amenity and highway safety for the interim period and may in fact improve highway safety as the physical works and associated highway movements will occur less frequently every year.

• 4.9 The Applicant had a concurrent application (22/00186/B) for a viewing platform situated on Field 312273, east of the nearby cottages and high above highway level. It was sought on the a permanent basis, as the spectator stand on the Site had been. That application was refused by delegated authority.
• 4.10 That refusal was appealed (AP 23/0003). The Inspector was tasked with assessing the balance between a perceived visual impact upon the AHLV (above highway level) against available policy exception criteria. From §84 of their report (Appx. S):—

IMSP EP1 and EP2 would, at first reading, be offended as the countryside needs to be protected for its own sake and, with the protection of AHLVs being the most important consideration, harm similarly would ensue. However, this is tempered by exception criteria which must be taken into account.

• 4.11 The Inspector was persuaded that the facility would help secure the Events’ future; a national need satisfying a policy exception. The Minister would go on to accept a recommendation to uphold the appeal. From §96 of the Inspector’s report (Appx. S):—

Therefore, the benefits of the proposed scheme to enhance the running, facilities and experience of the TT race in the location of Black Dub and, as part of the wider international race event, would strongly outweigh the limited harm to the character and appearance of the surroundings.

• 4.12 The current Application stems both from PABC’s late assessment of 21/01316/B (compelling the Applicant to make undesirable, yet urgent compromises) and subsequent recognition by the Minister that a more intrusive proposal is acceptable (a clear indication that earlier compromises need not have been made).

5.0 The Site And Surroundings

• 5.1 The Surroundings comprise the following:—

n) the Course to the north, retained above Site-level by overgrown stonework, the Course itself hewn in places from the bedrock of Ballavaish (farm of the steep-sided hill), with the Vaish Plantation rising above and beyond on a fairly precipitous slope;

w) the forecourt of a former fuel filling station to the west (formerly part of Field № 2323, Appx. C), retained by concrete blockwork topped with a metal handrail painted black;

s) Field 315139 to the south (formerly Field №2322, Appx. C), encompassed by the River Neb below, the land rising above and beyond into Beary Plantation; and

e) Field 315139 to the west (formerly Field №2322, Appx. C) as it tapers between the Neb and the Course where they converge.

• 5.2 The Area Plan shows the Surroundings within an AHLV (Appx. F).
• 5.3 The Island’s landscape character was assessed in a Departmentcommissioned study (LCA). Ten areas of Narrow Upland Glens were identified (Appx. G). Reference “B8” contains the Surroundings, and more widely the valley between Ballavaish and Beary Pairk, from Glen Helen (north) to Ballig (south). the LCA describes the Surroundings as follows (Appx. H):—

Lower Glen Helen, north of Doran’s Bend, consists of a V-shaped valley with dense mixed deciduous woodland and coniferous plantations such as the Vaaish and Eairy Beg Plantations alongside the small river and on the steep valley sides. Irregular fields of rough pasture divided by sod hedges with some mature hedgerow trees and gorse form a gradual transition into the surrounding upland area on the upper valley sides. Mature Oak, Ash, Beech and Sycamore overhang and enclose the road corridor along which TT Race paraphernalia is scattered in the form of Marshal’s stations, road markings and signage. The road is edged by a stone wall and pavement that at times runs along the western side of the River Neb passing an converted Mill until the Glen Helen Hotel car park is reached […]

• 5.4 In the Inspector’s report concerning AP 23/0003 (Appx. S §74):—

[…] The A3 twists and turns through the deeply cut valley, following the course of the River Neb. The heavily wooded steep sides of the valley creates a dominant sense of enclosure and forward views are restricted by the topography and roadside walls and vegetation. […]

• 5.6 The Course usually forms a high-volume route for the Island’s vehicles. The A3 is categorised as Primary — an A Road — in the Department of Infrastructure’s road hierarchy system. The initial application’s report (Appx. P §6.1i) accurately described the Site’s location as “directly alongside an arterial route with large volumes of passing public“.
• 5.7 Being so heavily trafficked, this Course section is anything but tranquil. The footpath alongside is isolated; it starts at Ballig Bridge, ends before it reaches Glen Helen, and is disconnected from settlements. Walkers are inevitably deterred from this remote footpath which — outside of the Events — serves next to no pedestrians. Visiting the Site makes this abundantly clear.
• 5.8 Other than for the enclosed corridor of the Course, the public realm is confined to PROWs, the closest of which are №s 117 (U87 to Staarvey Road), 118 (Glen Helen to Eairy Beg), 120 (Staarvey Road to U32) and 126 (A3 to Dowse). These are shown on the PROW Definitive Map (Appx. J), and schedule (Appx. K). None are situated within the Surroundings, nor view the Site.
• 5.9 The Northern Uplands (defined under reference “A1” in the LCA) also provide no views to the Site or the Surroundings.
• 5.10 The Course is the only public realm with views of the Site, the former being appreciably higher than the latter. Public views of the Site are generally fleeting, from within passing vehicles.
• 5.11 The Site’s levels are a product of the highway’s construction and the mill’s infrastructure. Land is terraced higher to the east of the mill than to the west, at one time providing the head of water required for the erstwhile waterwheel’s operation. The highway is filled and retained above lower-lying ground to the south, to establish the road’s smooth gradient.
• 5.12 The Site, part of the wider modified topography, fell redundant with the mill’s cessation. The Proposal was first conceived to turn these particular circumstances into an advantage; the containers’ negligible visual intrusion, being situated well below the level of the Course, would permit their retention and minimise their visibility when not in use (Appx. A, Appx. B).

6.0 Visitor Economy

• 6.1 The notice of the Decision (Appx. M) gives two refusal reasons. R1 states:—

“There is no overriding national need for the facilities on a permanent basis, while their siting for a temporary periods may be acceptable to meet the racing needs, the structures are of significantly poor visual quality which does not make a positively contribution to the Island and negatively detracts from and results in a unwarranted development in the landscape on a permanent basis harming the character and appearance of this tranquil glen and rural setting in the countryside contrary to Strategic Policies 1, 2 and 5, General Policy 3, Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016.”

• 6.2 From §90 of the report concerning AP 23/0003 for provision of permanent spectator facilities set above road level (Appx. S):—

The size of the large grandstand before the Black Dub buildings illustrates the importance and entertainment value of this section of the course. I take the view that the appeal proposal responds to a national need to secure the TT event into the future. The Our Island, Our Future Isle of Man Visitor Economy Strategy 20222032 [VES] sets out as one of its core principles the international recognition of the Island as the home of the TT. It recognises the strategy is not about quick wins. It is about recognising the need of both Government and the private sector to invest in building a visitor destination over time.

• 6.3 It is established that permanent Events-supporting facilities are indeed a matter of national importance, having already been weighed against countryside protection. Whereas the VES targets the Event’s growth, the Site is one of an ever-decreasing number of locations from which spectators may enjoy the Events. These factors in combination will necessarily intensify such locations. From §3.10 of the Application statement:—

Several other course-side locations that were previously enjoyed by spectators have been prohibited in an effort to improve the Events’ safety. The limited number of spectator sites that do remain must be operated at optimal efficiency to fulfil Visitor Strategy objectives. Any unreasonable limitations imposed on these sites will undermine their economic viability, thereby diminishing visitors’ experience (again, contrary to policy).

• 6.4 The Proposal comprises purpose-built bleacher seating designed for periodic disassembly to allow off-season storage or removal (as originally intended). Similar seating generally requires a supporting structure, to allow elevated views. Such permanent Course-side structures are usually situated above ground level, such as at Creg-ny-Baa (Appx. T), with seating installed above when needed — and were established before more recent needs to intensify the use and utility of such spectator locations.
• 6.5 The containers are effectively a means to reduce the appreciable level difference between the Site’s modified topography and the road, and to provide a secure supporting structure to the seating. By also providing useful yet concealed factilities and storage space, the additional advantages are clear; the land would otherwise lie redundant for most of the year. Permanent supporting structures situated above road level in the Northern Uplands are of significantly greater visual intrusion than the Proposal, yet offer no equivalent utility when not in use.
• 6.6 The Report makes no assessment of the Site’s advantageous characteristics in concealing the Proposal, nor the Proposal’s additional utility. It is respectfully submitted that the Report misrepresents both the Site and the Proposal as a basis to require periodic removal of the supporting structure (where such requirement has not been imposed upon others). This, in addition to additional economic burden on the Applicant’s endeavours for the Black Dub complex as a whole, will cause unnecessary public disruption, energy consumption and environmental impacts discussed later in this Statement.

7.0 Public-Sector Countryside Interventions

• 7.1 The Report states, from §7.2:—

[…] Whilst landscape characteristics recognise “the road corridor along which TT Race paraphernalia is scattered in the form of Marshal’s stations, road markings and signage”, the permanent siting of shipping containers, timber boardwalks and large spectator stands goes way beyond a typical marshal station, road marking and signage paraphernalia and this having a negative visual impact.

• 7.2 Regarding the containers, it is noted that Department ownedland has obtained express approval for a total of five containers sited together within the countryside, on the Southern Uplands. Legislation required referral of that application (PA 17/00149/B) to CoMin, in turn requiring consideration by an Independent Inspector. The containers’ visual intrusion required assessment against their various functions as storage, kitchen and toilet facilities to support a recreational use. They are situated on land above the level of an adjacent highway, in direct public line of sight. It was recommended (and accepted by CoMin) that the application be approved subject to two conditions:—

• 1 All the containers hereby approved shall be finished in the same dark green colour, either as installed or within one month of their installation, and shall thereafter be maintained in the same colour for the duration of their use on the site.
• 2 Should the use of the site for recreational purposes cease, all the containers hereby approved shall be removed from the site within two months of the cessation of that use.

• 7.3 That application was brought to the attention of PC members when determining this Application (Appx N). Members suggested that any visual impact might be mitigated by use of timber cladding (if not paint). It was also suggested that structured planting could be introduced if done so in a manner that would not compromise spectator’s views. Such could be pragmatically conditioned in the manner of PA 17/00149/B, or by a standard condition requiring approval of a soft landscaping scheme.
• 7.4 Regarding the timber walkway, it is noted that Government works to PROWs within AHLVs regularly use timber boardwalks (Appx L). Whether this be as an effective means to protect sensitive environments from pedestrian traffic (e.g. Ballaugh Curraghs, Smeale Beach), or to otherwise provide a safe means of of access in more difficult terrain (e.g. Glen Helen, Glen Truck, Dhoon Glen, et cetera). These works aren’t restricted to remote paths; PA 04/00576/B concerns the construction of a timber boardwalk at Rehncullen, immediately adjacent to the A3 highway, to connect two otherwise disconnected footpaths. A timber walkway was proposed as the land adjacent to this section of the Course also falls away from the road level.
• 7.5 The foregoing demonstrates that the Proposal adopts the same approach as public-sector works and works on the Department’s own land — including those that have obtained express approval.

• 7.6 Installation of the timber walkway will obviate the need for:—

• a) scaffolding standards, ledgers, transoms, braces, couplers, base plates and boards to be transported to and from the Site, the components assembled and reassembled, and their integrity inspected and reinspected;
• b) portable conveniences to be transported to and from the Site, installed and reinstalled, and their contents chemically treated;
• c) storage containers for equipment, and the equipment itself, to be transported to and from the Site;
• d) utility supplies to be established and reestablished, or otherwise alternative supplies transported to and from the Site;
• e) the soft landscape of the surrounding curtilage to be heavily trafficked due to the aforementioned recurring activities; and
• f) the users of the local highway network to be inconvenienced due to repeated transport movements and road closures;

• 7.7 PABC does not appear to have made any assessment of the benefits of the permanent element, has misidentified those elements proposed as seasonal, and has held the Proposal to higher standards than public works, notwithstanding the more recent VES which further supports the Proposal’s acceptability.

8.0 Reasonableness Of Condition

• 8.1 Condition 2 of 22/00757/B requires the Site to be cleared in a condition suitable for agriculture. The Site is not designated any particular use, and there is no evidence (in the 1982 plan or otherwise) to show the Site having been used for any purpose other than in conjuction with the historic mill. Certainly, there is no evidence that the land has previously been used within the meaning of ‘agriculture’ provided in the Act, at §45(1):—

‘agriculture’ includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land), the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, market gardens and nursery grounds, and the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes, and ‘agricultural’ shall be construed accordingly.

• 8.2 IMSP Environment Policy 14 prohibits loss of agricultural land, except for any overriding need. It is submitted the land use capability of the Site (Appx. I) falls below the relevant threshold of versatile agricultural land requiring its retention in any event.
• 8.3 The former division of Field №s 2322 and 2323 indicates that the latter may have, at best, been used historically as a haggart (stack yard), being too small for efficient agricultural use.

• 8.4 The Application statement discusses this matter, from §3.3:—

IMSP §7.2.3 notes strategically important facilities may require rural locations, including transport, leisure, agricultural or tourism uses. The Site’s very small area, modified topography and isolation precludes the advantages of modern, mechanised agriculture and economies of scale. The tall topography surrounding the historically excavated land of the Site also significantly reduces the amount of annual sunlight it receives. It is therefore incapable of sustaining agriculture.

• 8.5 In short, there is no established use of the Site off-season (other than a previous residential approval, §4.2 of this Statement). The permanent element does not deprive the island of agricultural capacity at any time of year, and certainly not during the winter. The Proposal’s visual intrusion is balanced against its necessity, given the particular nature of the Site previously discussed. The reason for making the land suitable for agricultural use on an annual basis is, in and of itself, unreasonable.

9.0 Flood Risk

• 9.1 The relevant authority has not objected to the Proposal, requiring only that a suitable condition of approval be imposed detailing flood mitigation.
• 9.2 The stand is in former Field № 2323 — previously divided from the river by Field № 2322 (Appx. E). Indicative Flood Risk maps show some vulnerability to the vacant space of the latter. The stand is not within a risk area, no matter the season. The report concerning the initial application (Appx. P §6.8) acknowledged:—

Additional information provided by the applicants indicates the level changes between the site and watercourse with the proposed containers sitting much higher than the river and only on the cusp of the flood risk areas. […]

• 9.3 IMSP Environment Policy 10 states:—

Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission. […]

• 9.4 PABC will invoke this policy either at the point an application is validated under DPO §5(3)(c), or (as the matter is subject to the Department’s opinion) when PABC directs further particulars be furnished under DPO §5(6) . The Department did not require a flood risk assessment be provided.
• 9.5 The Proposal will, off-season, occupy otherwise redundant land below road level. It will not accommodate any habitable space during this time and, as such, a flood risk assessment would serve only to confirm this as a matter of fact — which this Statement does here in any event.

• 9.6 If PABC contends that the Proposal is of sufficient proximity to the River Neb to gives rise to flood risk, such proximity would also give rise to a risk of river sedimentation occasioned by the annual removal and re-installation of the permanent elements of the Proposal (see §4.6 of this Statement).
• 9.7 Whether the visual intrusion of the proposal is so significant as to outweigh the potential risk to aquatic wildlife is a matter that PABC does not appear to have consulted upon.

10.0 Summary

• 10.1 The Report did not give due consideration to the economic effects of requiring removal of the permanent elements of the Proposal, as previously discussed.
• 10.2 There was no consideration of the mitigating effect of the local modified topography, nor was the nature of the surroundings properly characterised.
• 10.3 The visual impact of the proposal was exaggerated by PABC’s Report, and was subsequently presented to the PC with views not possible from within the public realm.
• 10.4 The relevant conditions were ill-founded, placing unreasonable requirements upon the Applicant.
• 10.5 The matter of flood risk was not previously raised by PABC, and the relevant authority had no objection to the Proposal.
• 10.6 There remains significant doubts regarding the Report and whether PABC’s assessment gave due consideration to the Proposal, the Site, and its surroundings.
• 10.7 The Appellants’ rebuttal will follow receipt of respective parties’ statements of case.

Appendix — A

COMPARATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS (WESTWARDS ASPECT) WITH AND WITHOUT BLEACHER SEATING 2023

WESTERN ASPECT WITHOUT BLEACHER SEATING (CONTAINERS IN SITU)

WESTERN ASPECT WITH BLEACHER SEATING

Appendix — B

COMPARATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS (EASTWARDS ASPECT) WITH AND WITHOUT BLEACHER SEATING 2023

EASTERN ASPECT WITHOUT BLEACHER SEATING (CONTAINERS IN SITU)

EASTERN ASPECT WITH BLEACHER SEATING

Appendix — C

SHEET IX.8 ISLE OF MAN ORDNANCE SURVEY 1869

Appendix — E

SUPERIMPOSITION OF ISLE OF MAN ORDNANCE SURVEY AND ISLE OF MAN AERIAL SURVEY

Appendix — G

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER ASSESSMENT MAP EXTRACT JULY 2008

Appendix — H

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER ASSESSMENT STUDY EXTRACT JULY 2008

Reference

AREAS FOR SURFACE MINERAL WORKING	☑
AREAS FOR THE SURFACE DISPOSAL OF WASTE	☑
AREAS FOR GOVERNMENT OR SERVICE DEPARTMENT PURPOSES	☑
AIRFIELD	☑
WATERWORKS & RESERVOIRS	☑
SEWAGE DISPOSAL WORKS	☑
AREAS OF HIGH LANDSCAPE OR COASTAL VALUE AND SCENIC SIGNIFICANCE	☑
AREAS OWNED BY THE MANX MUSEUM & NATIONAL TRUST	☑
ANCIENT MONUMENTS & SITES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTEREST	☑
AREAS FOR CAMPING	☑
LAND UNSUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT OWNED TO A DANGER OF POLLUTION OF AN EXISTING OR FUTURE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY	☑
AREAS OF LAND OWNED BY THE ISLE OF MAN FORESTRY, MINES & LANDS BOARD OR THE GOVERNMENT PROPERTY TRUSTEES	☑
PLANTATIONS OWNED BY THE ISLE OF MAN FORESTRY, MINES & LANDS BOARD	☑
AREAS OF PRIVATE WOODLAND OR PARKLAND	☑
AREAS OF LAND SUBJECT TO A DEDICATION COVENANT	☑
OTHER LAND COVERED BY WATER	☑
AREAS FOR RECLAMATION	☑
AREAS WHERE THERE ARE BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS OR OTHER AIR SAFETY REGULATIONS	☐
PARISH, VILLAGE & TOWN BOUNDARIES	☐
NATURE CONSERVATION ZONES, NATURE RESERVES & SITES OF ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE FOR CONSERVATION	☐
AREAS VESTED IN THE ISLE OF MAN HARBOUR BOARD	☐

AREAS OF PREDOMINANTLY INDUSTRIAL USE	existing	proposed	☑
AREAS OF PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL USE	existing	proposed	☑
AREAS OF LOW DENSITY HOUSING IN PARKLAND	existing	proposed	☑
AREAS FOR PUBLIC OPEN SPACE	existing	proposed	☑
NATIONAL GLENS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC & OWNED BY THE ISLE OF MAN FORESTRY, MINES & LANDS BOARD			☑
AREAS FOR PUBLICACCOMMODATION IN PARKLAND			☑
AREAS OF PREDOMINANTLY TOURIST ACCOMMODATION	existing	proposed	☑
AREAS FOR PRINCIPAL BUSINESS, CIVIC, CULTURAL & OTHER SPECIAL USES FOR THE TOWN AS A WHOLE			☑
PRIMARY OVERHEAD EXTRA HIGH TENSION LINES			☑
AREAS FOR PREMON			☑
AREAS OF PREDOMINANTLY SHOPPING USE			☑
AREAS OF BUILDINGS FOR CIVIC, CULTURAL & OTHER SPECIAL USE marked:- A-Amuisement centre, APH-Aged persons home, CD-Cod Defence, E-Education, FS-Fire station, G-Control government, H-Hospital, K-Cinema, LG-Local government, M-Museum, P-Priory, PS-Primary school, SS-Swimming bath, SS-Secondary school, TT-Grandstand, TA-Tol, exchange, W-Worship, YH-Yth hostel, PHQ-Police headquarters, CC-Community centre			☑
PRINCIPAL CAR PARKS			☑
LAND FOR RAILWAY PURPOSES marked V.S.Ry.-Victorian Steam Railway, M.E.R.-Marx Electric Rte			☑
WATERWAY, DOCKS & HARBOURS OF TRAFFIC IMPORTANCE.			☑
SCHOOLS & OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS IN LARGE GROUNDS marked:- A-Amuisement centre, E-Education, H-Hospital, PS-Primary school, SS-Secondary school, SFF-staying field detached from school			☑
AREAS FOR OPEN SPACES NOT OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC marked:- C-Cemetery, GC-Golf course, MG-Market garden, NG-Nursery garden, PF-Playing field			☑
PROPOSED ROUTE OF COASTAL FOOTPATH	☑	☑	☑

Historic Features

• • Mills
• • Abandoned Chapels and burial grounds

Ecological Features

• • Aquatic and waterside habitats
• • Upland heather moorland habitats
• • Marginal farmland habitats
• • Hedgerows with high biodiversity

Evaluation of landscape sensitivities

• • Exotic trees and walkways in Victorian National Glen Helen.
• • Dense riverside and valley bottom deciduous woodland and vegetation.
• • Ecological value of riparian and aquatic habitats.
• • Sites of archaeological importance.
• • Scattered clusters of traditional farmsteads and dwellings clustered around river crossings with stone bridges in upper valley.
• • Remote and tranquil character in the upper valley.

Landscape Strategy

The overall strategy for the area should be to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the valley with its dense deciduous woodland in lower valley bottom, the National Glen Helen, the scattered clusters of traditional farmsteads and the tranquillity and remote character of the upper valley.

Appendix — I

AGRICULTURAL SOILS OF THE ISLE OF MAN CENTRE FOR MANX STUDIES (2001) MAP EXTRACT (FIGURE 4) 2001

Appendix — J

PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY DEFINITIVE MAP JANUARY 2022

Appendix — K

PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY DEFINITIVE MAP SCHEDULE JANUARY 2022

No		Index(es)	Route Description	Date Last Amended*	Brief Description of Amendments*	Length (m)
108	A	SC48NE/15	Runs from main Laxey to Ramsey Road just North of Dhoon corner Eastwards to join Dhoon Glen Road			88
109		SC48NE/15	Starts at MR 454864 on Dhoon Glen Road and runs South East crossing the Coast Road and finishing at MR 455862 on the Ballaragh Road			307
112		SC28NE/11	Satrts at MR 268853 on the Peel to Michael Coast Road and runs North West to the Shore at White Strand			444
117		SC28SE/17 SC28NE/11	Starts at MR 282842 on the Staarvey Road runs North to join the U87 at Crosh Mooar MR 278853			1322
118		SC28SE/17 SC38SW/18	Starts at the Suspension Bridge at Glen Helen and runs past Eairy Beg to MR 302839			1056
120		SC28SE/17	Starts at MR 281835 on the Staarvey Road and runs East along a defined track for a short distance to join Unscheduled Road No 32			284
122		SC28SE/17 SC38SW/18	Starts at MR 286824 on the T.T. Course near Ballig and runs generally Eastwards along a defined track past the Dowse and ending at MR 304828 to link with Path No 126			2112
123		SC28SW/16	Starts at MR 242830 at Glenfaba Bridge and runs West passing just North of Knockaloe Beg and climbing round the south side of Corrin's Hill to terminate above the old slate quarry on Contrary Head MR 231830. (The path continues physically along the bed of the old tram road to join a section of Path No 123 within the Peel Commissioners' boundary)			2270
124		SC28SE/17	Starts at MR 265823 on the main Peel to Douglas Road and runs South to join the Patrick Road at Close Leece			524
126		SC38SW/18	Continuation of Greeba Mill Road to Beary Park joining Path No 122 at MR 304828			644
131		SC28SE/17	From MR 287807 near Kennaa Farm South East to end at MR 291801			854
132		SC27NE/22	From MR 278799 on the St John's to Foxdale Road East through Ballahig to Ballnygeay on the Ballavar Road			726
137		SC38SW/18	Starts at MR 337810 on the U56 above the Braaid Farm and runs West through Bawshen to end at MR 326812			1324
138		SC38SE/19	Continues off commom land at Gob e Craggagh and runs South West down a well defined track to join a fourth class road near to Creg y Cowin at MR 376837			821
141		SC38SE/19	Starts at MR 368805 and runs round the perimeterof a field to continue West past Balliargey across the river to join the East Baldwin Road at MR 361806			792
142		SC38SE/19	Runs from MR 361810 to MR 354812 linking East Baldwin to West Baldwin			787
145		SC37NE/24	From Abbeylands southwards to join the road East of Sir George's Bridge (The Mill Road)			591

Appendix — L

COMPARATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS (EASTWARDS ASPECT) WITH AND WITHOUT BLEACHER SEATING 2023

Figure 4. Agricultural land use capability map of the Isle of Man.

GLEN DHOON, MAUGHOLD PARISH SMEALE, ANDREAS PARISH RHENCULLEN, MICHAEL PARISH (PA 04/00576/B) KILLANE, BALLAUGH PARISH

Haven Homes Limited The Old Chapel 32-34 Malew Street Castletown IM9 1AF

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019

In pursuance of powers granted under the above Act, and subordinate Orders and Regulations, the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture determined to REFUSE an application by Rockfell Limited, Ref 24/00154/B, for the The addition of a fifth container and widened walkway (retrospective) and the variation of Conditions 2 and 4 of PA 22/00757/B, to retain elements of spectator facility on site and in situ at Land Adjacent To Glen Moar Mill And Field 315139, Glen Helen Road Laurel Bank St Johns IM4 3NN for the following reason(s):

1. There is no overriding national need for the facilities on a permanent basis, while their siting for a temporary periods may be acceptable to meet the racing needs, the structures are of significantly poor visual quality which does not make a positively contribution to the Island and negatively detracts from and results in a unwarranted development in the landscape on a permanent basis harming the character and appearance of this tranquil glen and rural setting in the countryside contrary to Strategic Policies 1, 2 and 5, General Policy 3, Environment Policies

• 1 and 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016.
• 2. The application fails to provide sufficient flood risk information to meet Environment Policies 10 and 13 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016.

Date of Issue: 26th November 2024

J CHANCE Director of Planning and Building Control

Guidance Note

This decision was made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority delegated to it.

This decision refers only to that applied for under the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and its subordinate legislation.

A copy of the Officer’s report and any correspondence which led to the assessment and decision is available to view on the Government’s website (via Online Services www.gov.im/Viewapplications) or at the Department’s offices Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas.

Appeal Any appeal must be in writing and submitted to the Department within 21 days of the date of this Notice. The appeal must contain:

the grounds for making the appeal;

payment of the planning appeal fee (currently £355); and if relevant, confirmation that the appellant wishes to have the appeal determined by means of an inquiry and payment of the additional inquiry fee (currently £130).

Where the appeal is submitted by the applicant they must:

specify in detail and by reference to material planning considerations the reasons why the appellant disagrees with that determination; and

Where against a refusal, on the grounds of deficient detail or supporting documentation, set out why they consider the information or documentation forming part of the application was sufficient in the circumstance.

If the appeal is submitted by someone who has interested Person Status but is not listed in Article 4(2) of the Development Procedure Order 2019, that person must relate their grounds for making the appeal to issues which they included in representations made prior to the application being determined.

Failure to meet all of the relevant above requirements will mean that the appeal cannot be validated.

An appeal form and more detailed guidance are available either from Planning & Building Control, Tel 685950, or from the Department’s website www.gov.im/planningappeal

If this decision becomes final because there is no appeal, the Department’s public reference copy (counter copy) of the planning application (should one have been received) may be collected by the applicant or their agent from Murray House. Please note that if the counter copy of the application is not collected within thirty days following the last date on which a planning appeal can be made it will be destroyed without further notice.

Appendix — N

PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 25TH NOVEMBER 2024 APPLICATION REFERENCE: PA 24 / 00154 / B APPEAL REFERENCE: AP 24 / 0051

PROPOSAL: APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL FOR THE ADDITION OF A FIFTH CONTAINER, WIDENED WALKWAY, AND THE VARIATION OF CONDITIONS 2 AND 4 OF PA 22/00757/B

ADDRESS: LAND ADJACENT TO GLEN MOAR MILL AND FIELD 315139, GLEN HELEN ROAD LAUREL BANK, ST. JOHNS, ISLE OF MAN IM4 3NN

IItem 5.4 Land Adjacent To Glen Moar MIii And Field

The(retrospective) and the variation of Conditionsaddition of a fifth container and widened walkway2and 4 of PA I 22/00757 /B, to retain elements of spectator facility on site and in situ

315139, Glen Helen Road Laurel Bank St Johns IM4 3NN

Applicant : Rockfell limited Case Officer: Lucy Kinrade Recommendation : Refused

Pa24/00154/B

ThecaseOfficer 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 confinned there was nothing further to add to their consultee comments, confirming that access arrangements had been dealt with in a previous application.

The Agent spoke in support of the proposal. The points raised were as follows:-

• • Reference had been made to previous approvals including the permanent spectator platform at the east end of the complex which had been initially refused by DEFA, who averred that the 2022 Visitor Strategy did not override a presumption against countryside development.
• • This decision was successfully appealed with the TT Races shown to be of sufficient national importance to merit permanent spectator facilities. This location with narrow views in a wooded valley are highly advantageous in contrast to the Mountain Section's wide vistas where any visual impact would be much greater.
• • This precedent need not be solely relied on. Containers installed in the countryside for leisure purposes, prior to the Visitor Strategy, on DEFA land at South Barrule Plantation were set above the level of the adjacent highway and in plain sight. Business Policy 11 requires tourism uses be assessed on the same basis.
• • The Applicant , prohibited from using imported fill due to risk of run-off and sedimentation in the river was also required by condition to position and reposition containers each year. Disturbing soft ground in this manner would inevitably lead to the same risks DEFA had sought to prevent. The significant energy expenditure required was also contrary to established carbon sequestration objectives.
• • DEFA previously accepted there was no flood risk to this facility. Given the extant approval, DEFA is estopped from citing flood risk as a blanket reason for refusal. The Applicant was amenable to an appropriate condition as sought by the relevant authority. It should be noted that the Neb was typically In spate in winter months when no habitable space would be present.
• • The report referred to the unsightliness of temporary scaffolds, agreed, but raised concerns that the proposal was not fully understood. No scaffolding was shown. A purpose built walkway would conceal its supporting structure with a timber deck, with the containers set behind and below the road level. The deck's appearance would therefore be identical to that constructed by Government contractors on the Island's Public Rights of Way in the Curraghs, glens and uplands, where they were permitted to assimilate over time.
• • The only visible element above road level would be the bleacher seating, which was still proposed to be removed in winter months.

The Case Officer confirmed the Marshall's facilities had been considered at appeal and the Inspector concluding that the need for Marshalls' point in this location was vital to allow the racing event to take place and the marshal facilities were considered of sufficient visual quality and helping to accommodate Marshalls and the event taking place. The proposal in this case was not a marshal's facility and was for spectators' enjoyment only and was of poor visual quality.

The Agent confirmed that the term "bleachers" referred to the seating which had been le in place pending this decision. The original intention was for permanent seating, which was refused, the agent states that Policy has since been updated but with no reference to any specific policy.

The Members noted approval had not been granted for the retention of the seating all year round and that said seating had not been removed in compliance with the extant approval. They expressed that the site was in an area of high value landscape and the proposal would be visually detrimental to the area. Two of the members expressed potential for visual mitigation ofthe site, such as timber cladding of the containers. The members acknowledged and discussed the importance ofvisitor facilities in connection with the TT Races located away from the Grandstand and benefitting the public and other businesses. The Agent stated that existing DEFA containers were painted green but with no reference to any planning application numbers associated to these containers.

In response to a question from the Members, the Case Officer reported that it was her understanding that the intention was to retain all of the structures and facilities including the 'bleacher' seating all year round. The Agent confirmed the intention was to retain the containers and remove the seating, but proposed a more appropriate permanent walkway to replace the scaffolding.

The Case Officer reported that there was a typographical error in Rl in the first sentence, being "there" rather than ''their''. The Members agreed to the correction.

Decision

The Committee, with the exception of Mr Young and Mr Whiteway, accepted the recommendation of the Case Officer and the application was refused for the following reason(s).

• R 1. There is no overriding national need for the facilities on a permanent basis, while their siting for a temporary periods may be acceptable to meet the racing needs, the structures are of significantly poor visual quality which does not make a positively contribution to the Island and negatively detracts from and results in a unwarranted development in the landscape on a permanent basis harming the character and appearance of this tranquil glen and rural setting in the countryside contrary to Strategic Policies 1, 2 and 5, General Policy 3, Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016.
• R 2. The application fails to provide sufficient flood risk information to meet Environment Policies 10 and 13 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016.

Interested Person Status

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

Doi Frm

• 6. Site Visits None
• 7. Section 13 Legal Agreements (If any) The Members noted that no Section 13 Legal Agreements had been concluded since its last sitting
• 8. Any other business 8.1 Planning Committee Training

Appendix — O

DECISION NOTICE 21/01316/B 16TH APRIL 2022 APPLICATION REFERENCE: PA 24 / 00154 / B APPEAL REFERENCE: AP 24 / 0051

PROPOSAL: APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL FOR THE ADDITION OF A FIFTH CONTAINER, WIDENED WALKWAY, AND THE VARIATION OF CONDITIONS 2 AND 4 OF PA 22/00757/B

ADDRESS: LAND ADJACENT TO GLEN MOAR MILL AND FIELD 315139, GLEN HELEN ROAD LAUREL BANK, ST. JOHNS, ISLE OF MAN IM4 3NN

Haven Homes Ltd The Old Chapel 32-34 Malew Street Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1AF

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019

In pursuance of powers granted under the above Act and Order the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture determined to APPROVE an application by Rockfell Limited, Ref 21/01316/B, for the Temporary siting of four storage containers (for food and drink), platforms, scaffolding and spectator seating during the Isle of Man TT and the Isle of Man Festival of Motorcycling races at Land Adjacent To Glen Moar Mill And Field 315139 Glen Helen Road Laurel Bank St Johns Isle Of Man IM4 3NN .

Any conditions or notes which apply to the approval are set out below. This approval is subject to compliance with any conditions listed and may not be implemented until it becomes final (see guidance notes).

• 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.

• 2. The four containers, associated supports, platforms, scaffolding and spectator seating may be erected no sooner than one week before the first practice of TT and may remain until one week after the last race in that event, and no sooner than one week before the first practice of the Festival of Motorcycling and may remain until one week after the last race of that event. No approval is granted to the retention of the structures for the period in between the two events.

Reason: To clarify the extent of the planning approval and in the interest of the protection of the countryside.

• 3. The use for food and drink purposes shall be restricted to two containers only and may only be available for use no sooner than one day before the first practice associated with the TT races and up to one day after the last race in that event, and no sooner than one day before the first practice of the Festival of Motorcycling and up to one day after the last race in that event. No approval is granted for any food and drink purposes for the period in between the two events.

• Reason: To clarify the extent of the planning approval and in the interest of the protection of the countryside.
• 4. For the avoidance of doubt, the four containers, associated supports, platforms, scaffolding and spectator seating shall not be stored anywhere outside on the site when not in use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Department.

Reason: in the interest of visual amenity, and such storage would need to form part of a separate planning application.

• 5. The site highway layout, access and egress shall be carried out in full accordance with drawing number 100.02 Rev B and retained as such thereafter and visibility splays kept permanently clear of obstruction above 1.05m. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
• 6. Prior to the first coming into use the permanent and accessible car parking spaces shall be marked out on site and retained thereafter. Reason: in the interest of highway safety and parking provision.
• 7. The access lane (between the hardstanding and field) shall be surface finished in a bound material for the first 6m from the edge of the highway and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to avoid loose material from entering the road.

This approval relates to the following drawings and information:

• - drawing 100.00 Rev A
• - drawing 100.01 Rev A
• - drawing 100.03 Rev A
• - drawing 100.04 Rev A
• - drawing 100.05 Rev A
• - drawing 100.06 Rev A
• - Planning Statement 1612-4.2.3 V1.1 All date received 04th November 2021
• - Letter from the agent dated 05th January 2022
• - drawing 100.02 Rev B
• - drawing 100.10 Rev B
• - Planning Statement 1612/4.2.3 All date received by email 13th April 2022

This decision has been made for the following reasons(s) The proposal is only considered acceptable on a temporary basis during the Isle of Man motorcycle racing periods and suitably worded conditions will ensure no permanent or long term retention of any structures so as to protect the character and quality of the countryside and area of high landscape value in accordance with Environment Policies 1 and

• 2.

Date of Issue: 26th April 2022

Appendix — P

OFFICER REPORT 21/01316/B 15TH APRIL 2022 APPLICATION REFERENCE: PA 24 / 00154 / B APPEAL REFERENCE: AP 24 / 0051

PROPOSAL: APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL FOR THE ADDITION OF A FIFTH CONTAINER, WIDENED WALKWAY, AND THE VARIATION OF CONDITIONS 2 AND 4 OF PA 22/00757/B

ADDRESS: LAND ADJACENT TO GLEN MOAR MILL AND FIELD 315139, GLEN HELEN ROAD LAUREL BANK, ST. JOHNS, ISLE OF MAN IM4 3NN

Planning Officer Report And Recommendations

Application No. 21/01316/B Applicant : Rockfell Limited Proposal Temporary siting of four storage containers (for food and drink), platforms, scaffolding and spectator seating during the Isle of Man TT and the Isle of Man Festival of Motorcycling races Site Address Land Adjacent To Glen Moar Mill And Field 315139 Glen Helen Road Laurel Bank St Johns Isle Of Man IM4 3NN Case Officer : Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level Planning Committee

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 15.04.2022

Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• 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.

• C 2. The four containers, associated supports, platforms, scaffolding and spectator seating may be erected no sooner than one week before the first practice of TT and may remain until one week after the last race in that event, and no sooner than one week before the first practice of the Festival of Motorcycling and may remain until one week after the last race of that event. No approval is granted to the retention of the structures for the period in between the two events.

Reason: To clarify the extent of the planning approval and in the interest of the protection of the countryside.

• C 3. The use for food and drink purposes shall be restricted to two containers only and may only be available for use no sooner than one day before the first practice associated with the TT races and up to one day after the last race in that event, and no sooner than one day before the first practice of the Festival of Motorcycling and up to one day after the last race in that event. No approval is granted for any food and drink purposes for the period in between the two events.

Reason: To clarify the extent of the planning approval and in the interest of the protection of the countryside.

• C 4. For the avoidance of doubt, the four containers, associated supports, platforms, scaffolding and spectator seating shall not be stored anywhere outside on the site when not in use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Department.

Reason: in the interest of visual amenity, and such storage would need to form part of a separate planning application.

• C 5. The site highway layout, access and egress shall be carried out in full accordance with drawing number 100.02 Rev B and retained as such thereafter and visibility splays kept permanently clear of obstruction above 1.05m. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
• C 6. Prior to the first coming into use the permanent and accessible car parking spaces shall be marked out on site and retained thereafter. Reason: in the interest of highway safety and parking provision.
• C 7. The access lane (between the hardstanding and field) shall be surface finished in a bound material for the first 6m from the edge of the highway and retained as such thereafter. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to avoid loose material from entering the road.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposal is only considered acceptable on a temporary basis during the Isle of Man motorcycle racing periods and suitably worded conditions will ensure no permanent or long term retention of any structures so as to protect the character and quality of the countryside and area of high landscape value in accordance with Environment Policies 1 and 2.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the following drawings and information:

• - drawing 100.00 Rev A
• - drawing 100.01 Rev A
• - drawing 100.03 Rev A
• - drawing 100.04 Rev A
• - drawing 100.05 Rev A
• - drawing 100.06 Rev A
• - Planning Statement 1612-4.2.3 V1.1 All date received 04th November 2021
• - Letter from the agent dated 05th January 2022
• - drawing 100.02 Rev B
• - drawing 100.10 Rev B
• - Planning Statement 1612/4.2.3 All date received by email 13th April 2022

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons None

________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT.

PRE-AMBLE

• 0.1 The application was deferred by the Committee at the meeting dated 11th April 2022, to allow the applicant time to consider amended the application.
• 0.2 The original application sought permanent siting of four containers, fill and raised platforms within the countryside, and the temporary siting of bleacher seating and scaffolding for watching the races during TT and Festival of Motorcycling (FOM) race periods and for this seating and scaffold to remain up during summer months between racing so as to reduce dismantling times.
• 0.3 This application was assessed by the case officer, although there could be some imminent need for the proposed developments during the race periods only, there was no overriding national need or exceptional circumstances to warrant the permanency of the four containers, fill and platforms on this site, nor to warrant the long-lasting impacts of the proposals on the countryside and AHLV. The application was also lacking in detail for the proposed imported fill and potential flood risk and so was recommended for refusal contrary to EP1 and EP2, EP 7 and 10.
• 0.4 Following the preparation of the PC agenda and the refusal recommendation, the applicant sought to amend the scheme to propose the four containers, platforms, scaffold and seating structures for only the race periods, seeking their erection one week before each race period and their removal one week after each race periods, and the structures were not to be retained over the summer period. They also sought to remove the imported fill and provide information to overcome and demonstrate no flood risk.
• 0.5 Committee members considered that the cumulative changes went too far beyond the original submission and so deferred the application until the next meeting to allow for amended drawings and information to be formally submitted, time for the Commissioners to comment should they wish and time for the officer to prepare condition wording if to be approved. THE SITE

• 1.1 The site represents a grassy field and hardstanding area forming part of the larger Glen Moar Mill complex situated on the south-eastern side of the Glen Helen Road part way between Ballig Bridge and Glen Helen, St Johns. Previously the site has been used as a car sales and filling station.
• 1.2 The site includes the old mill building and the large area of hardstanding which abuts the main road. Alongside the mill is an existing traditional dwelling and some outbuildings recently converted into residential accommodation.
• 1.3 The grassy field sits to the west of the buildings and hardstanding with an access path running between them. The field and path slope down from the road and towards the rear. Running along the rear boundary is the River Neb. THE PROPOSAL

• 2.1 The revised proposal seeks approval for the temporary siting of four containers and associated supports, scaffolding and platforms and the installation of bleacher seating for the IOM TT races and the IOM Festival of Motorcycling races. All the containers, associated structures and seating are to be erected one week before each race period and dismantled and taken off site one week after each race period. The containers, associated structures and seating are not to be retained between race periods.

• 2.2 Detail of the proposal also includes the use of two of the containers for food and drink purposes during the race periods, and the containers are shown as being on supporting jacks and scaffold.
• 2.3 Parking for the proposal is to be on the existing hardstanding area. The supporting statement indicates that there is capacity for 116 bikes, 8 cars and there is a shared minibus/coach area to encourage shared travel.
• 2.4 The current proposal follows from the original submission which sought the permanent siting of the four containers, the permanent installation of imported fill and raised platform, the temporary erection of scaffolding and bleachers seating for the race periods and the retention of the scaffolding and seating between race periods and over summer months to reduce dismantling times.

PLANNING HISTORY

• 3.1 The site has been subject to a number of application over recent years, including alterations and conversions to the existing house and outbuildings to provide new residential accommodation with additional tourist use and the extension and conversion of the existing mill into a new residential dwelling with similar tourist use (summary bullet pointed below).

3.2 There is one concurrent application 22/00198/B seeking approval for a further extension to the existing converted outbuildings to provide race marshal facilities and the creation of a roof terrace viewing platform. This application is pending consideration.

• 3.3 Summary of recent applications approved at the site;

• o 21/00151/B - Installation of stone cladding and patio doors - approved
• o 20/00937/C - Additional use of residential (class 3.3) as tourist living accommodation (class 3.6) - approved
• o 19/01057/B - Conversion and extension of Mill - approved
• o 15/01387/B - Conversion of tearooms to create two dwellings and siting of a gas storage tank - Approved
• o PA08/00966/B - conversion of the tea rooms into two dwellings and siting of a gas storage tank - Approved

• 3.4 There was also an application withdrawn in 2017 under PA 17/00354/B for the conversion of garage to one-bedroom tourist accommodation and creation of race day steward facility with viewing platform over. This was withdrawn due to the garage to be converted not actually existing and concerns expressed for the proposed extensions and viewing facilities.

PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The application site is identified on the 1982 Development Order as being within an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV), the site is also adjacent to land covered by water (River Neb) and close to Eairy Beg Plantation. Flood maps identify part of the site as being at high river flooding risk and some surface water flooding.

• 4.2 The land is not zoned for development therefore General Policy 3 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 is applicable which sets out a general presumption against any kind of development in the countryside. It is also relevant to consider Strategic Policies 1 and 2 which seeks to make best use of existing sites and resources and directing all new development to town centres and designated sites, Strategic Policies 4 and 5 requires development to protect the landscape and to make a positive contribution to the Island, Environment Policies 1 and 2 that seek to protect the countryside for its own sake and protect AHLV's from harm, Environment Policies 4, 7 and 10 in the protection of habitats, watercourses and risk from flood, Transport Policies 4 and 7 in relation to highway safety and Business Policies 11 in respect of tourist uses being assessed no differently to any other types of development in the countryside. Also relevant are the general development standards set out in General Policy 2.

• REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
• 5.1 German Parish Commissioners - objection (15/12/2021). The scaffolding will be unsightly in an area of high landscape value. The containers should not be on site permanently and they should be removed along with the scaffolding after each race period and not left up for the entire Summer season. The access is also on a blind dangerous corner and the potential movement of lots of vehicles where there is poor vision would be too dangerous particularly during the busy TT period.

5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - Do not oppose subject to condition (08/12/2021) -

• 5.2.1 Given the temporary nature of the proposal the works are considered acceptable from a highway perspective and not to raise significant road safety or network functionality issues. While not hitting all current highway criteria such as parking space sizes, the visibility splays have been maximised, there is ample space for pedestrians and vehicles, pick up and drop off and turning space and minded of the fact that the site will be subject to event management procedures it offers a further safeguarding and supervision of the use of the site. The residential and disabled parking bays should be marked and there should be a cap on parking numbers at 124 spaces. Temporary closure of the forecourt is welcomed and barrier details should be required by condition. The access to the field should be suitably surfaced.
• 5.2.2 Recommended conditions:

• - Temporary time period
• - Cap on the parking numbers at a total of 124 spaces
• - Spaces for the planned and accessible uses allocated and marked / signed,
• - The site layout access and egress to accord with drawing no 100.02 a,
• - Details of barriers to be provided and approved prior to commencement,
• - Field access surface material to be consolidated and bound for the first 6m.

ASSESSMENT 6.1 The following paragraphs are two fold, i) addressing the issues of the original scheme which was recommended for refusal and presented and deferred by the Planning Committee on Monday 11th April 2022, and ii) the assessment of the amended information and revised scheme which will go back to Planning Committee 25th April 2022.

• i) Original scheme recommended for refusal

• 6.2 The original officers report which was produced for the PC meeting dated 11th April 2022 made clear that there were are no policies that support the permanent siting of containers and no policies that support temporary spectator seating nor the temporary use of containers for café or bar uses in the countryside or AHLV. While there could be some optimised use of land and the proposal would utilise existing highway infrastructure, the original proposal for the more permanent structures failed to take into account the countryside landscape and no other reasonable or acceptable alternative was demonstrated. The permanent siting of the containers and platforms and the temporary retention of the scaffold and bleacher seating for near 5 months of the year was considered to present an unacceptable and significantly intrusive level of development and one that would have a detrimental impact on the countryside and the AHLV, even more so given its location directly alongside an arterial route with large volumes of passing public and with expected views not only to the scaffolding, but also across the tops of the permanent containers. Strategic Policy 5 also requires development to be of high quality making a positive contribution to the Island and the proposal was not considered to be such development meeting with these tests. Although it was agreed that there could be some imminent justification for the development during the racing periods, there was no exceptional reasons or national need for the proposals outside of this time and the long term impacts on the countryside were felt to be significantly harmful and damaging contrary to Environment

Policies 1 and 2. The lack of detail for the proposed imported fill and potential flood risk ask raised concern in respects of Environment Policies 7 and 10 in ensuring the watercourse was not harmed from potential leaching of fill material or that the proposal was safe from flood harm.

• ii) Revised scheme

• 6.3 The proposal now seeks to amend the scheme omitting the imported fill and now having the four containers assembled on supporting jacks and only having the structures, platforms and bleacher seating for the racing periods only and its removal in-between.
• 6.4 The supporting statement for the original application included some examples of similar temporary race spectator stands one of which was PA 15/00209/B approved for the annual erection of a temporary scaffolding spectator stand alongside an existing public house in the centre of Ramsey on the TT course. The Inspector's assessment stated "the grandstand offers an excellent spectator viewing point, with riders turning the corner almost below them followed by the sight, and sound, of machines accelerating hard out of Ramsey up Albert Road…As a permanent feature the grandstand would be ruinously intrusive, both in its impact on the attractive public house building and the wider setting of Parliament Square. However, limited to the race events, and seen along with many other temporary features, its beneficial purpose and temporary nature would be immediately apparent, countering any intrusive impact. There are no dwellings close by… Economic benefits to the applicant and the pub, as well as more generally, can reasonably be expected." The application was subsequently approve subject to a condition which said the stand could be erected one week prior to each race meeting and removed within one week after the last meeting, and the condition specifically stated that the grandstand could not be retained between the TT and MGP racing periods.
• 6.5 Since the original submission and the original refusal recommendation to Committee, the agents have sought to amend the application to a more temporary nature seeking the development for only the race periods and a scheme which is now perhaps not so far removed from the above referenced 2015 application. It has overtime become expected that during these race periods the Island's environment adapts and changes to meet with the imminent racing needs. Just as the Inspector concluded for the 2015 application, the proposals here would still have an adverse visual impact on the whole, but minded of their temporary nature and their positioning only to meet the apparent and immediate needs of the race periods that an exception is to be made for their short term siting and the proposal is considered acceptable subject to suitably worded conditions.
• 6.6 Turning to the temporary café and bar facilities, again there are no policies which support such retail uses in the countryside, however on a temporary basis for the purposes of the racing periods meeting the immediate racing needs and providing facilities for the site during these race times, that the proposed uses would likely be acceptable and suitably worded conditions should also be added to the application in respect of time limitations.
• 6.7 The proposal now omits the importation of fill and thus there are no expected impacts on the adjacent watercourse in relation to the quality of this fill or the potential leaching in to the watercourse and as such the proposal is considered acceptable.
• 6.8 Additional information provided by the applicants indicates the level changes between the site and watercourse with the proposed containers sitting much higher than the river and only on the cusp of the flood risk areas. For the short term duration of the works coupled with the height at which they sit and that the timing of the races is also during the summer months when there is less likely chance of flooding that the proposal is not expected to be at any unacceptable or increased flood risk. This view is concurred. It is also in the applicant's best interest to not have development susceptible to flood risk. On this basis it is considered that the temporary works would have an acceptable flood risk impact in line with Environment Policy 10.

• 6.9 The revised drawings were circulated for comment. The report as prepare will be published prior to the deadline for these comments and so these will be verbally updated to the Planning Committee at the meeting dated 25th April 2022. The original views of the Commissioners (as referenced at 5.1 of this report) stated that the scaffolding and structures would be unsightly and that they felt they should all be erected only before and removed after each race period. So minded that the revised scheme now proposes this it is felt that to some degree these concerns have been addressed. Nevertheless given the favourable findings as set out above the application the proposal is considered acceptable. Of course there have been no changes to the highway matters of the proposal and so the Commissioners original comments in respect of highway safety likely still remain unchanged. However given the now temporary nature of the whole scheme and the favourable comments received from DOI (subject to conditions) that the proposal is considered acceptable and not to have a significant adverse impact on highway safety as to refuse the application in this case. It is felt that it would be unreasonable to delay the determination of the application any longer but of course any comments received between now and the Planning Committee meeting will be updated verbally to the members and they would have the concluding view of the determination of the application.

CONCLUSION

• 7.1 In taking into consideration the above, the level and scale of development for the containers on a now temporary basis only for the racing periods that the proposal is considered to be acceptable. Ensuring the removal of these structures after the racing periods will ensure the countryside and AHLV is suitably protected in line with Environment Policies 1 and 2.

• 7.2 The removal of the imported fill and the additional information for the flood risk helps to ensure no harmful impact on the watercourse and to demonstrate how the temporary structures would not be at increased flood risk, and on this basis the proposal is considered to meet the tests of Environment Policies 7 and 10.

• 7.3 Suitably worded conditions shall be added to the application relating to the temporary timing of the structures and ensuring their erection and removal one week before and one week after each race period, the contemporaneous use of two containers for food and drink purposes only for those race periods, the need to undertake the access and highway works in accordance with the submitted drawings, the need to mark out the permanent and accessible spaces in the parking areas, provision of details for barriers and the need for a bound material up to 6m from highway on the access into the field. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
• 8.1 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.

• 8.2 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

---

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it 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.

Decision Made : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 25.04.2022

Signed : L KINRADE Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.

Planning Committee Decision 25.04.2022

• Application No. : 21/01316/B Applicant : Rockfell Limited Proposal : Temporary siting of four storage containers (for food and drink), platforms, scaffolding and spectator seating during the Isle of Man TT and the Isle of Man Festival of Motorcycling races Site Address : Land Adjacent To Glen Moar Mill And Field 315139 Glen Helen Road Laurel Bank St Johns Isle Of Man IM4 3NN

Planning Officer : Miss Lucy Kinrade Presenting Officer As above

Addendum to the Officer’s Report The planning application was originally presented to Planning Committee at its sitting 11th April. Determination was deferred by the members in order to obtain further information.

Appendix — Q

DECISION NOTICE 22/00757/B 18TH JANUARY 2023 APPLICATION REFERENCE: PA 24 / 00154 / B APPEAL REFERENCE: AP 24 / 0051

PROPOSAL: APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL FOR THE ADDITION OF A FIFTH CONTAINER, WIDENED WALKWAY, AND THE VARIATION OF CONDITIONS 2 AND 4 OF PA 22/00757/B

ADDRESS: LAND ADJACENT TO GLEN MOAR MILL AND FIELD 315139, GLEN HELEN ROAD LAUREL BANK, ST. JOHNS, ISLE OF MAN IM4 3NN

Haven Homtes Limited Mr Euan Craine The Old Chapel 32-34 Malew Street Castletown IM9 1AF

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019

In pursuance of powers granted under the above Act and Order the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture determined to APPROVE an application by Rockfell Limited, Ref 22/00757/B, for the Variation of Condition 2 to PA 21/01316/B to retain spectator facilities in situ for the interim period between the Isle of Man TT races and the Isle of Man Festival of Motorcycling and to extend, from one week to two weeks respectively, the periods in which the facilities are erected and dismantled at Land Adjacent To Glen Moar Mill And Field 315139 Glen Helen Road Laurel Bank St Johns Isle Of Man IM4 3NN .

Any conditions or notes which apply to the approval are set out below. This approval is subject to compliance with any conditions listed and may not be implemented until it becomes final (see guidance notes).

• 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.

• 2. The four containers, associated supports, platforms, scaffolding and spectator seating may be erected no sooner than two weeks before the first practice of TT and may remain until two weeks after the last race of the Festival of Motorcycling in the same calendar year. The land shall be cleared of all paraphernalia outside of race periods and in a condition suitable for agriculture. Reason: To protect the appearance of the countryside.
• 3. The use for food and drink purposes shall be restricted to two containers only and may only be available for use no sooner than one day before the first practice associated with the TT races and up to one day after the last race in that event, and no sooner than one day before the first practice of the Festival of Motorcycling and up to one day after the last race in that event. No approval is granted for any food and drink purposes for the period in between the two events.

• Reason: To clarify the extent of the planning approval and in the interest of the protection of the countryside.
• 4. For the avoidance of doubt, the four containers, associated supports, platforms, scaffolding and spectator seating shall not be stored anywhere outside on the site when not in use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Department.

Reason: in the interest of visual amenity, and such storage would need to form part of a separate planning application.

• 5. The site highway layout, access and egress shall be carried out in full accordance with drawing number 100.02 Rev B and retained as such thereafter and visibility splays kept permanently clear of obstruction above 1.05m. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
• 6. Prior to the first coming into use the permanent and accessible car parking spaces shall be marked out on site and retained thereafter. Reason: in the interest of highway safety and parking provision.
• 7. The access lane (between the hardstanding and field) shall be surface finished in a bound material for the first 6m from the edge of the highway and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to avoid loose material from entering the road.

This approval relates to the following drawings and information:

• - drawing 100.00 Rev A
• - drawing 100.01 Rev A
• - drawing 100.03 Rev A
• - drawing 100.04 Rev A
• - drawing 100.05 Rev A
• - drawing 100.06 Rev A
• - drawing 100.02 Rev B
• - drawing 100.10 Rev B
• - Planning Statement 1612-4.2.3 V1.0 All date received 21 June 2022

This decision has been made for the following reasons(s) The proposal is considered acceptable on a temporary basis through the summer during the Isle of Man motorcycle racing periods and suitably worded conditions will ensure no permanent or long term retention of any structures so as to protect the character and quality of the countryside and area of high landscape value in accordance with Environment Policies 1 and 2.

Date of Issue: 18th January 2023

Appendix — R

OFFICER REPORT 22/00757/B 7TH JULY 2023 APPLICATION REFERENCE: PA 24 / 00154 / B APPEAL REFERENCE: AP 24 / 0051

PROPOSAL: APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL FOR THE ADDITION OF A FIFTH CONTAINER, WIDENED WALKWAY, AND THE VARIATION OF CONDITIONS 2 AND 4 OF PA 22/00757/B

ADDRESS: LAND ADJACENT TO GLEN MOAR MILL AND FIELD 315139, GLEN HELEN ROAD LAUREL BANK, ST. JOHNS, ISLE OF MAN IM4 3NN

Planning Officer Report And Recommendation

• Application No. : 22/00757/B Applicant : Rockfell Limited Proposal : Variation of Condition 2 to PA 21/01316/B to retain spectator

facilities in situ for the interim period between the Isle of Man TT races and the Isle of Man Festival of Motorcycling and to extend, from one week to two weeks respectively, the periods in which the facilities are erected and dismantled

Site Address : Land Adjacent To Glen Moar Mill And Field 315139 Glen Helen Road Laurel Bank St Johns Isle Of Man IM4 3NN Planning Officer: Mr Richard Boyt Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 09.01.2023 _________________________________________________________________ Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• 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.

• C 2. The four containers, associated supports, platforms, scaffolding and spectator seating may be erected no sooner than two weeks before the first practice of TT and may remain until two weeks after the last race of the Festival of Motorcycling in the same calendar year. The land shall be cleared of all paraphernalia outside of race periods and in a condition suitable for agriculture. Reason: To protect the appearance of the countryside.
• C 3. The use for food and drink purposes shall be restricted to two containers only and may only be available for use no sooner than one day before the first practice associated with the TT races and up to one day after the last race in that event, and no sooner than one day before the first practice of the Festival of Motorcycling and up to one day after the last race in

that event. No approval is granted for any food and drink purposes for the period in between the two events.

Reason: To clarify the extent of the planning approval and in the interest of the protection of the countryside.

• C 4. For the avoidance of doubt, the four containers, associated supports, platforms, scaffolding and spectator seating shall not be stored anywhere outside on the site when not in use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Department.

Reason: in the interest of visual amenity, and such storage would need to form part of a separate planning application.

• C 5. The site highway layout, access and egress shall be carried out in full accordance with drawing number 100.02 Rev B and retained as such thereafter and visibility splays kept permanently clear of obstruction above 1.05m. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
• C 6. Prior to the first coming into use the permanent and accessible car parking spaces shall be marked out on site and retained thereafter. Reason: in the interest of highway safety and parking provision.
• C 7. The access lane (between the hardstanding and field) shall be surface finished in a bound material for the first 6m from the edge of the highway and retained as such thereafter. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to avoid loose material from entering the road.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.

The proposal is considered acceptable on a temporary basis through the summer during the Isle of Man motorcycle racing periods and suitably worded conditions will ensure no permanent or long term retention of any structures so as to protect the character and quality of the countryside and area of high landscape value in accordance with Environment Policies 1 and 2.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the following drawings and information:

• - drawing 100.00 Rev A
• - drawing 100.01 Rev A
• - drawing 100.03 Rev A
• - drawing 100.04 Rev A
• - drawing 100.05 Rev A
• - drawing 100.06 Rev A
• - drawing 100.02 Rev B
• - drawing 100.10 Rev B
• - Planning Statement 1612-4.2.3 V1.0 All date received 21 June 2022 ______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT.

PRE-AMBLE

• 0.1 The original application 21/01316/B was deferred by the Committee at the meeting of 11th April 2022, to allow the applicant time to consider amending the application. At the Committee meeting of 25th April 2022, members unanimously approved the amended application, verbally thanking the applicant for taking on broad their concerns and one member suggested the structures could stay between race meetings. This application is a response to that suggestion as it requests that Condition 2 be reworded for that purpose.
• 0.2 The original application sought permanent siting of four containers, fill and raised platforms within the countryside, and the temporary siting of bleacher seating and scaffolding for watching the races during TT and Festival of Motorcycling (FOM) race periods and for this seating and scaffold to remain up during summer months between racing so as to reduce dismantling times.
• 0.3 This application was assessed by the case officer, although there could be some imminent need for the proposed developments during the race periods only, there was no overriding national need or exceptional circumstances to warrant the permanency of the four containers, fill and platforms on this site, nor to warrant the long-lasting impacts of the proposals on the countryside and AHLV. The application was also lacking in detail for the proposed imported fill and potential flood risk and so was recommended for refusal contrary to EP1 and EP2, EP 7 and 10.
• 0.4 Following the preparation of the PC agenda and the refusal recommendation, the applicant sought to amend the scheme to propose the four containers, platforms, scaffold and seating structures for only the race periods, seeking their erection one week before each race period and their removal one week after each race periods, and the structures were not to be retained over the summer period. They also sought to remove the imported fill and provide information to overcome and demonstrate no flood risk.
• 0.5 Committee members considered that the cumulative changes went too far beyond the original submission and so deferred the application until the next meeting to allow for amended drawings and information to be formally submitted, time for the Commissioners to comment should they wish and time for the officer to prepare condition wording if to be approved. THE SITE

• 1.1 The site is a grassy field and hardstanding area forming part of the larger Glen Moar Mill complex situated on the south-eastern side of the Glen Helen Road part way between Ballig Bridge and Glen Helen, St Johns. Previously the site has been used as a car sales and filling station.
• 1.2 The site includes the old mill building (currently concealed under scaffolding) and the large area of hardstanding which abuts the main road. Alongside the mill is an existing traditional dwelling and some outbuildings recently converted into residential accommodation.
• 1.3 The grassy field sits to the west of the buildings and hardstanding with an access path running between them. The field and path slope down from the road and towards the rear. Running along the rear boundary is the River Neb. THE PROPOSAL

• 2.1 The main approval 21/01316/B is for the temporary siting of four containers and associated supports, scaffolding and platforms and the installation of bleacher seating for the IOM TT races and the IOM Festival of Motorcycling races. All the containers, associated

• structures and seating were to be erected one week before each race period and dismantled and taken off site one week after each race period.
• 2.2 The containers, associated structures and seating are now proposed to be retained between race periods and erected and dismantled two weeks before and after the events each year, as opposed to one week before and after. This will be done by variation of Condition 2 of 21/01316/B.
• 2.3 Parking for the proposal is to be on the existing hardstanding area. The supporting statement indicates that there is capacity for 116 bikes, 8 cars and there is a shared minibus/coach area to encourage shared travel. The proposal also includes the use of two of the containers for food and drink purposes during the race periods, and the containers are shown as being on supporting jacks and scaffold. PLANNING HISTORY

• 3.1 The site has been subject to a number of application over recent years, including alterations and conversions to the existing house and outbuildings to provide new residential accommodation with additional tourist use and the extension and conversion of the existing mill into a new residential dwelling with similar tourist use (summary bullet pointed below).
• 3.2 Application 22/00198/B sought approval for a further extension to the existing converted outbuildings to provide race marshal facilities and the creation of a roof terrace viewing platform. This application has been refused.
• 3.3 Summary of recent applications approved at the site; o 21/00151/B - Installation of stone cladding and patio doors - approved o 20/00937/C - Additional use of residential (class 3.3) as tourist living accommodation (class 3.6) - approved o 19/01057/B - Conversion and extension of Mill - approved o 15/01387/B - Conversion of tearooms to create two dwellings and siting of a gas storage tank - Approved o PA08/00966/B - conversion of the tea rooms into two dwellings and siting of a gas storage tank - Approved
• 3.4 There was also an application withdrawn in 2017 under PA 17/00354/B for the conversion of garage to one-bedroom tourist accommodation and creation of race day steward facility with viewing platform over. This was withdrawn due to the garage to be converted not actually existing and concerns expressed for the proposed extensions and viewing facilities. PLANNING POLICY

• 4.1 The application site is identified on the 1982 Development Order as being within an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV), the site is also adjacent to land covered by water (River Neb) and close to Eairy Beg Plantation. Flood maps identify part of the site as being at high river flooding risk and some surface water flooding.
• 4.2 The land is not zoned for development therefore General Policy 3 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 is applicable which sets out a general presumption against any kind of development in the countryside. It is also relevant to consider Strategic Policies 1 and 2 which seeks to make best use of existing sites and resources and directing all new development to town centres and designated sites, Strategic Policies 4 and 5 requires development to protect the landscape and to make a positive contribution to the Island, Environment Policies 1 and 2 that seek to protect the countryside for its own sake and protect AHLV's from harm, Environment Policies 4, 7 and

• 10 in the protection of habitats, watercourses and risk from flood, Transport Policies 4 and 7 in relation to highway safety and Business Policies 11 in respect of tourist uses being assessed no differently to any other types of development in the countryside. Also relevant are the general development standards set out in General Policy 2.

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

• 5.1 German Parish Commissioners - objection
• 5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - no objection ASSESSMENT

• 6.1 The grandstand, containers and food trailers have been approved since the 25th April committee meeting. The proposal here is to simply amend Condition 2 of that approval 21/01316/B to allow all these spectator facilities to be installed 2 weeks before the TT and retained on site until 2 weeks after the Festival of Motorcycling each year.
• 6.2 The original scheme was recommended for refusal but deferred at committee for revisions.
• 6.3 The revised proposal then sought to amend the scheme omitting the imported fill and had the four containers assembled on supporting jacks and only having the structures, platforms and bleacher seating for the racing periods only and its removal in-between.
• 6.4 The proposal being considered in this application is that the time period for presence on the land is from 2 weeks prior to the TT, all through the summer and then removed 2 weeks after the Festival of Motorcycling. The applicant justifies this due to the difficulty in obtaining plant to carry out the erection and dismantling of the stands on the precise dates required. It is clearly a lot of effort to dismantle and erect the stand again every summer.
• 6.5 The planning question is whether leaving the stand, containers and food huts on site all summer and for the addition two weeks is so harmful to the appearance of the area that it warrants refusal.
• 6.6 It is considered that the location is a very sensitive one, being an Area of High Landscape Value and simply a pleasant riverside location. But the effort and indeed energy required to remove and reinstate the stand for a two month break is disproportionate to the level of landscape harm caused. As such, it is considered that the stand and facilities can be retained for that period. Condition 2 can be altered to reflect this position.
• 6.7 Retaining the facilities will have an immaterial impact on flood risk amenity and highway safety for the interim period and may in fact improve highway safety as the physical works and associated highway movements will occur less frequently every year. CONCLUSION

• 7.1 The annual removal of the spectator facilities were required by planning condition following the approval of this development in April 2022. Members of the committee stated at that time that they might look favourably on keeping the stand and facilities in place throughout the summer between the TT and the Festival of Motorcycling.
• 7.2 The applicant argues that the effort of removing these structures every summer is unsustainable. That effort has been weighed against the landscape impact of keeping the facilities in place for the summer season and it is concluded that the effort is not worthwhile, therefore it is acceptable for Condition 2 to be varied to allow additional weeks at either end of the annual cycle and for the facilities to stay in place for the summer.
• 7.3 Condition 2 should be varied from:

The four containers, associated supports, platforms, scaffolding and spectator seating may be erected no sooner than one week before the first practice of TT and may remain until one

week after the last race in that event, and no sooner than one week before the first practice of the Festival of Motorcycling and may remain until one week after the last race of that event. No approval is granted to the retention of the structures for the period in between the two events.

To:

The four containers, associated supports, platforms, scaffolding and spectator seating may be erected no sooner than two weeks before the first practice of TT and may remain until two weeks after the last race of the Festival of Motorcycling in the same calendar year. The land shall be cleared of all paraphernalia outside of race periods and in a condition suitable for agriculture.

INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

• 8.1 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.

• 8.2 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.

---

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.

Decision Made : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 16.01.2023

Signed : C BALMER Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

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

Appendix — S

INDEPENDENT INSPECTOR’S REPORT PA 22 / 00186 / B AP 23 / 0003 JULY 2023 APPLICATION REFERENCE: PA 24 / 00154 / B APPEAL REFERENCE: AP 24 / 0051

PROPOSAL: APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL FOR THE ADDITION OF A FIFTH CONTAINER, WIDENED WALKWAY, AND THE VARIATION OF CONDITIONS 2 AND 4 OF PA 22/00757/B

ADDRESS: LAND ADJACENT TO GLEN MOAR MILL AND FIELD 315139, GLEN HELEN ROAD LAUREL BANK, ST. JOHNS, ISLE OF MAN IM4 3NN

Appeal No: AP23/0003 Application No: 22/00186/B

________________________________________________________________ Report on Planning Appeal – written representation case ________________________________________________________________ Site Inspection held on: 27 March 2023 _____________________________________________________________

Appeal by: Rockfell Limited

Against the refusal of planning approval for the installation of glass balustrading to Cottage 3, first floor and erection of single storey side extension, including viewing platform with associated works, Glen Moar Cottage 3 & field 312273 Glen Helen Road Laurel Bank St Johns

________________________________________________________________ Introduction

• 1. This report provides a brief description of the appeal site and its surroundings; background; the proposal which is the subject of the appeal and relevant policy. The cases for the appeal parties are then summarised, fuller details being available for reference in the appeal case documents. My assessment, conclusion and recommendation follow.

Site, surroundings and background

• 2. Glen Moar is a relatively isolated spot along the A3, set within the rural wooded Neb valley. The A3 is heavily trafficked, but the road, along much of its length, in the immediate area, is rural in character with little built development. The steep heavily wooded, undeveloped slopes of the valley, including a mixture of deciduous and coniferous trees, which cling to valley slopes, are the predominant characterising feature.
• 3. The appeal site comprises land at the end of a terrace of cottages that hug the southern edge of the A3 where it follows the Neb Valley, a mile north of St Johns. The cottages, now used for tourist accommodation, were previously used as a garage and tea rooms.
• 4. An old mill building awaiting redevelopment as holiday accommodation, stands immediately adjacent to, but outside of the appeal site, shrouded in scaffold supported wrappings1.
• 5. In addition, a large open viewing grandstand lies close by to the west. This is because the appeal site stands at a prominent point on the route of the TT and is known as Black Dub which includes a temporary marshalling station erected for the races.

Proposed development

• 6. The proposed extension is specifically to provide a first-floor viewing terrace and marshalling tower with toilets, storage and plant on the ground floor. It also includes a platform lift for disabled access to the viewing platform. The proposed

• 1 Is within the blue land - within the ownership of the appellant.

viewing terrace would extend an existing one which currently utilises the flat roof above the existing ground floor lounge and bedroom of the end cottage. It is currently accessed via temporary scaffold stairs and has a frontage parapet on the roadside.

• 7. The proposed glass balustrading would extend across the full frontage of the existing viewing platform and across that now proposed.
• 8. The proposed single storey addition would be constructed on an open grassed area immediately adjoining the end cottage and divided from the road/TT route by a low stone wall and hedgerow. It is on this land that the temporary marshalling station is constructed each summer, although it is open to the elements being constructed of scaffolding and boards set behind the wall, with an unprotected bench on the roadside for safety equipment and marshalls. It is also necessary for the stone wall to be scaled to give access to the road from this marshalling area. The appeal proposes direct access to the road from the marshalling tower via stairs to provide immediate emergency access to the carriageway. Relevant policy2
• 9. The site is within an area identified as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV) as identified in the adopted Island Development Plan

(1982). It is not zoned for development.

• 10. Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP) Environment Policy 1 (EP1) emphasises that the countryside will be protected for its own sake unless there is over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas.
• 11. IMSP Environment Policy 2 (EP2) develops the theme of the protection of the countryside further in relation to AHLV where the protection of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape or the location for the development is essential.
• 12. IMSP General Policy 3 (GP3) sets out that development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of, amongst other things:

(g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative.

• 13. IMSP General Policy 2 (GP2) sets out the considerations required for development to be permitted and includes, that policy compliant development should respect the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them.

• 2 Policies of most relevance.

Case for the Planning Authority3

• 14. The main issue, in this instance, is the impact of the proposed work to create a marshalling station and viewing platform on the character of the countryside and an AHLV4.
• 15. The proposed glass balustrading on the existing terrace is acceptable5. However, the proposals are for much more than minor changes to the existing building. Currently, the site is a hub for marshalling and viewing opportunities during the racing season. There are three holiday cottages on the site and the garages at No.3 have been converted to habitable accommodation with kitchen facilities and separately numbered as No.4 on its new patio doors. If this is an additional holiday cottage, notwithstanding its connecting door, it does not have express planning permission for such a use. The appellant confirms this would be a different use from the holiday cottages making for a mixed-use arrangement on the property as a whole.
• 16. It is accepted that there is a marshalling station at the appeal site annually, normally positioned on a scaffold tower. This proposal would create a permanent platform as a marshal's tower and increase viewing platforms for the residents of the holiday cottages and others. The appellant provides a planning statement explaining that permanent marshalling facilities would be beneficial for race and marshal safety as well as their convenience. Three separate WCs are proposed as well as two storage rooms.
• 17. The current 'No.4' unit was, until recently, domestic garages which were deemed surplus to requirements by the appellant and converted to living space. This conversion was carried out in the last few years and had marshal's amenities been an urgent requirement at the Black Dub, this appears to have been a good option for conversion in planning terms. However, the residential conversion works have now taken place and the proposal is to build further into the countryside as an addition to the former garages.
• 18. Albeit that there is annually a temporary marshalling station in this location and whilst it is acknowledged that access to the road involves ‘hopping over a wall’, it is not considered of such greater safety advantage to allow entirely changing the appearance of the area. Visibility lines up and down the A3 were assessed on site and the claims of improved visibility seem exaggerated, especially when you consider that a marshal tower stands in almost exactly the same position every year and could be adjusted in position to provide the best possible marshal visibility.
• 19. Proposed Extension - Visual Impact - The extension proposed is a single storey parapet roof structure going 9 metres further out from the existing building which is very prominent due to it forming a frontage onto the A3 and the proposal will be similarly visible. The cottages form a long façade and to extend that façade further along the main road would be prominent and out of keeping with the verdant, rural character of the valley which has very few buildings along its course. The annual appearance of the scaffold marshal's tower in this location

• 3 Source Planning Officer’s Report, Planning Statement of the Planning Authority and its accompanying documents.
• 4 IMSP GP2 & GP3.
• 5 Notwithstanding the objections regarding bird strikes, which is not considered a significant planning issue in this case.

has been taken into consideration, but that is a temporary and transient feature of the racing season and does not amount to a fall-back position of significant weight.

• 20. The proposal due to its prominent nature lengthening an already long row of cottages, do not respect the siting, layout and form of the buildings, spaces and surrounding landscape contrary to IMSP Policy GP2. Furthermore, as development outside of zoned areas for development, there is a conflict with Policy GP3 which discourages buildings and uses that are not essential for rural purposes. In this case any argument for approval on the grounds of overriding national need (section g) is outweighed by acceptable alternatives being reasonably available.
• 21. As a whole, building a marshal's building extension and viewing platform on a greenfield site is both unduly prominent and out of character with the valley landscape which is considered an AHLV. As a result the proposals are contrary to IMSP Policy EP1, which protects the countryside for its own sake, and IMSP Policy EP2 which protects AHLV from harmful development that is not essential in that location. Similarly, the proposals are not in accordance with rural land use zoning and affect the character by reason of their form, scale and design contrary to IMSP Policy GP2 and GP3 and there is no overriding national need for them, especially when an alternative is plainly available.
• 22. The proposal does not cause objection from the highway authority, notwithstanding the Commissioners' comments regarding the steps leading from the tower to the edge of the highway. There would be no additional need for parking as the marshals are already stationed at this point.
• 23. In terms of ecology, DEFA Ecologists are satisfied that good working practices can ensure the protection of common lizards on surrounding banks during works.
• 24. However, the proffered positive measures of protecting lizards, conserving energy and incorporating landscape features are all factors considered of very little material weight and in terms of conserving energy, the proposed built development in construction will involve a considerable energy and carbon outlay when compared to any shared energy it may save.
• 25. In terms of trees, there are no important trees on site and the tree officer is happy for development to proceed.
• 26. With regards to the support of the ACU for better marshal facilities, this is noted, but it is still considered that there are no lack of WCs on the site because they are provided as part of the grandstand development and visibility appears largely identical to the existing marshal tower and first floor terrace.
• 27. A Supplementary Statement from the appellant submitted on 6th December 2022 addressed officer concerns about conflict with policy. In summary, this Statement highlights that no other marshalling facility has been refused on the Island for forty years. The Statement also states that 'No.4' is ancillary to No.3 by virtue of an interconnecting internal door and is not a standalone dwelling, notwithstanding its numbering and separate kitchen. The nature and lawful use of 'No.4' is not a direct part of this proposal, aside from the fact that as garages they would have been available as a reasonable alternative location to the proposals being tabled. It may be correct that no marshalling facility applications have been refused in recent years, but each planning proposal must be judged on

its merits in relation to planning policy and not precedents elsewhere. It has been found that these proposals are not essential and clearly at odds with current planning policy.

Conclusion

• 28. The decision making in this case is a matter of weighting. It comes down to the weight to be attached to National Need, improved access and better marshal visibility/comfort against that given to visual impact.
• 29. It is considered that the proposals for an extension to accommodate increased permanent marshal facilities into a field adjacent to Glen Moar would create a prominent and visually intrusive built development at odds with the AHLV and would be injurious to the streetscene of the road that winds through the valley. Marshalling facilities are already provided on site on a temporary basis which avoids harming the long-term rural character of the land and nearby permitted toilet facilities are provided close to the grandstand. Even if an overriding need for better marshalling facilities were accepted as essential and of national need, the conversion of the garage block with its existing viewing terrace offered a sustainable alternative for housing toilets and storage. For these reasons the proposals are considered to conflict with IMSP Policies EP1, EP2, GP2 and GP3.

Case for the Appellants6

• 30. The Planning Authority in their assessment of the proposal did not fully acknowledge or give due weight to material considerations7 as they relate to those policies cited in the Decision, and that the alternative argument was not correct in its reasoning.
• 31. The surroundings are comprised as follows:—

•  the Course to the north, in places hewn from the bedrock of Ballavaish (farm of the steep-sided hill), with the Vaish Plantation rising above on a fairly precipitous slope;
•  Field 312273 to the east with the weir and millrace infrastructure of the old corn mill beyond (all part of the Appellant’s title);
•  Field 312273 also to the south, again encompassed by the millrace, with the River Neb below and the land rising above into Beary Plantation; and
•  To the west by an existing adjacent structure, itself the end of a terrace of three cottages.

• 32. The surroundings are located within an AHLV, as shown on the Area Plan map. The Island’s landscape character was assessed in a 2008 study. Ten areas of Narrow Upland Glens were identified. Reference “B8” contains the surroundings, and more widely the valley between Ballavaish and Beary Pairk, from Glen Helen (north) to Ballig (south). The study described the surroundings as follows:—

Glen Mooar - north of Doran’s Bend, consists of a V-shaped valley with dense mixed deciduous woodland and coniferous plantations such as the Vaaish and Eairy Beg Plantations alongside the small river and on the steep valley sides. Irregular fields of rough pasture divided by sod hedges with some mature

• 6 Source Statement of Case of the appellants, Planning Statement and other application documentation and plans.
• 7 Under §10(4) of the Act.

hedgerow trees and gorse form a gradual transition into the surrounding upland area on the upper valley sides. Mature Oak, Ash, Beech and Sycamore overhang and enclose the road corridor along which TT Race paraphernalia is scattered in the form of marshal’s stations, road markings and signage. The road is edged by a stone wall and pavement that at times runs along the western side of the River Neb passing a converted Mill until the Glen Helen Hotel car park is reached.

• 33. Other than for the enclosed corridor of the Course, the public realm is confined to Public Rights of Way, the closest of which are No 117 (U87 To Staarvey Road), 118 (Glen Helen To Eairy Beg), 120 (Staarvey Road To U32) and 126 (A3 To Dowse). None are situated within the surroundings or offer views to the site or the surroundings.
• 34. The Northern Uplands, defined in the 2008 study under reference A1, also provide no views to the site or the surroundings.
• 35. The site - The surroundings illustrate the site’s remoteness. The Course is the sole means of access to the site. The site is located immediately adjacent to historical built fabric on two sides:—

•  to the east by a stone-built structure retaining the Course in part, and once associated with the mill’s activities but more recently converted to tourist accommodation; and
•  to the north by (effectively a continuation of the same structure) a stone boundary wall primarily retaining the cross-profile of the Course’s surface (being some 600mm higher than the site).

• 36. These structures are apparent on the 1869 Ordnance Survey.
• 37. The land parcel (in which the site is situated) exhibits attributes relevant to the framework of the Act and Development Plan.

•  a) The parcel:—

• i) is treated as a single parcel by the Isle of Man Land Registry;
• ii) was treated as a single parcel in the Asylum Plan (1865);
• iii) serves, and has served, no purpose other than in connection with the mill and its buildings, and their more recent uses associated with the Events;
• iv) is attached to (and around) the mill and its buildings;
• v) is used together with the mill’s buildings and includes its associated infrastructure (such as weirs, sluices and races);
• vi) is bound by the Course (but not severed by it); and
• vii) plainly forms the setting of the buildings.

•  b) The foregoing attributes accord with the definition of curtilage as provided in the IMSP.
•  c) Moreover, the parcel:—

• i) is not farmed (as acknowledged at §1.2 of the Report), nor has it been used in

accordance with the definition of agriculture (or agricultural) as provided in the Act (at §45); and

• ii) comprises modified topography, particularly where proximate to the Course and the mill’s buildings and infrastructure.

•  d) The IMSP defines previously developed land as including the curtilage of the developed land.

• 38. Notwithstanding that the mill’s curtilage clearly includes the site (by all applicable definitions), the site may also be said to consist of previously developed land in and of itself.
• 39.Given the nature of the surroundings, public views of the site are confined to those available from the Course.

•  a) The available views towards the site are generally oblique, because of the enclosed corridor of the Course.

• i) When approaching from the south in a northbound direction, the site is for the most part occluded by the adjacent structure.
• ii) When approaching from the opposite direction, the site is partially shrouded from view by an existing hedgerow (where the retaining wall terminates) and on clear mornings is seen only in contre-jour shadow. The adjacent structure becomes hidden from view in places by the Course’s winding corners.

•  b) Views of a more direct angle are only available when sufficiently close to the site. Being at the edge of the field of view from the direction of travel, such views require an observer’s deliberate attention and, if in a vehicle, these views are especially fleeting.
•  c) Momentary views across the site (where not otherwise hidden) are of vacant grassland. This cannot be said to be of a particularly distinctive character in itself, nor when juxtaposed with the unfolding and more persistent interest found in the wider field of view; the high ramparts of the plantations, the meandering River Neb, the ivy and moss-covered slates, the contrasting hues of the bracken fronds, and everything in between.
•  d) The site is itself not a prominent feature in the surroundings.

• 40. The adjacent structure comprises historical built fabric. It was renovated and converted for tourism purposes in 2018. These renovation works were approved under PA 21/00151/B.
• 41. The precise location of the marshals’ station was established at the site prior to the renovation works. This scaffold (together with associated facilities) is implemented during the summer months. It has never been situated on the adjacent structure. The adjacent structure stands some 2500mm higher than Course level, the stone wall 1200mm higher, and the site 600mm lower. The adjacent structure’s height precludes the stationed marshals’ requirement for an

• unhindered access to the Course during the Events, as was also the case prior to the renovations.
• 42. The adjacent structure is also disadvantaged by the sight line through the apexes leading north-eastward (the nearest is cut from the hillside). Uninterrupted views of the Course from the site become interrupted when stood on the adjacent structure. Even if the renovation works had (somehow) overcome the structure’s height and gained Course access, this would evidently not have overcome visibility issues.
• 43. The Proposal - The submitted drawings show the design of the proposal, with additional description provided in the Agent’s statement. The roofed structure will extend 7.9m along the Course (from the end of the adjacent structure), and 5.9m deep from the Course. It will be set back from the Course, located behind the stone boundary wall that retains the higher level of the Course.
• 44. The appeal proposes no change from the established use even if it is currently temporary.
• 45. The purpose of the proposal is to:

•  a) minimise the impact of the site’s established use;
•  b) maximise accessibility and inclusivity of the adjacent structure;
•  c) mitigate the site’s remoteness and dependence on the Course;
•  d) conceal facilities required to support the marshal station;
•  e) make best use of the site, its existing utilities and infrastructure;
•  f) overcome foreseeable risks to the marshals; and
•  g) maintain the safe operation of the Events.

• 46. The Proposal will obviate the need for:

•  a) scaffolding standards, ledgers, transoms, braces, couplers, base plates and boards to be transported to and from the site, the components assembled and reassembled, and their integrity inspected and reinspected;
•  b) portable conveniences to be transported to and from the site, installed and reinstalled, and their contents chemically treated;
•  c) storage containers for equipment, and the equipment itself, to be transported to and from the site;
•  d) utility supplies to be established and re-established, or otherwise alternative supplies transported to and from the site;
•  e) the soft landscape of the surrounding curtilage to be heavily trafficked due to the aforementioned recurring activities;
•  f) the users of the local highway network to be inconvenienced due to the aforementioned repeated transport movements; and
•  g) the stationed marshals to negotiate a 1200mm high stone wall or unmade ground in the event of an emergency that requires a swift and unhindered response.

• 47. The preamble to IMSP EP2 (IMSP §7.4.2) sets criteria for permissible development within AHLVs. Routes taken to satisfy these falls into two general approaches; emulating vernacular forms already found in the countryside (a modern structure wearing a false guise of something older or approximating Manx character) or to minimise the extent to which the development can be perceived (a context-driven design that integrates a site’s existing assets). The proposal adopts the latter approach by:

•  a) retaining and integrating those elements identified as being important in the 2008 landscape character assessment;
•  b) allowing the site’s established use to blend into the surroundings in the process of time (in a manner seen elsewhere in the Glen, but not possible with temporary structures);
•  c) eliminating the recurring risk of damage to surrounding soft landscape (arising from the on-site operations required by the temporary structures), further reducing the impact of the established use; and
•  d) ending the indefinite expenditure of energy associated with the transport activities, as necessitate by temporary structures (quickly repaying the energy embodied during construction).

• 48. The proposal will accommodate the established use whilst providing a level of protection to the AHLV that the temporary structures do not.
• 49. The Neccessity - The Act requires the Area Plan and the IMSP to conform. Where a contradiction exists, the latter (being more recent) prevails. The Area Plan (§7) reserves land for designated uses, including AHLVs (§10). A presumption against development contrary to this designation is provided (§11), but is rebuttable subject to a development’s necessity and where no suitable alternative exists. IMSP EP2 is derived from the Area Plan’s provisions, and incorporates its landscape classification system into the IMSP. The presumption against development in AHLVs is of no greater force now than prior to the IMSP’s adoption.
• 50. The IMSP’s policies concerning development in the countryside conform with those of the Area Plan. No contradiction exists. The Department maintains a staple doctrine adopted from the adjacent isle (but not expressly provided for in the Act or DPO) whereby applications are each assessed on their own merits. The legal authorities of that jurisdiction also establish a convention of consistency; like cases should be decided in a like manner. Where a principle has previously been tested under policy, this itself establishes a material consideration. Where a decision would mark an inconsistent approach, this must be accompanied by substantive reasons for such a departure.
• 51. The appeal cites 9 previous decisions, concerning marshal stations, made when the Area Plan was in force, 8 being in the countryside. These decisions each concerned land that was not previously developed in locations far more prominent than that of the Site, such as the Northern Uplands. Each station was capable of being implemented temporarily, had a need for permanent stations not been found essential by the Department. These decisions, therefore, establish a clear and consistent approach to the principle of such a need, especially in remote locations.

• 52. The Department acknowledges the remoteness of the site.
• 53. Pursuant to §2(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the IMSP provides reasoned justification for the policies it contains. The IMSP acknowledges (at §9.5.3) that the Events do require some level of permanent development, including the Grandstand headquarters and the permanent marshal stations located around the Course.
• 54. The Visitor Strategy (at p27) envisions the IOMTT’s elevation to a truly sustainable world-class event, and targets increased visitor numbers in pursuit of this objective. The Events’ growth will naturally correspond to a greater need than that which previously justified permanent development in the countryside.
• 55. The Clerk of the Course reiterates the necessity of the proposal, and the significant national importance of the Events.
• 56. In short, the Department (through its actions) has established the principle that a need for permanent marshal stations exists, and has existed for the duration of the Area Plan’s adoption. The IMSP introduced no additional burden to rebut a presumption against development within an AHLV; it did, however, introduce recognition of the Events’ need for permanent marshal stations. This need has since grown and, consistent with adopted national strategy, will continue to grow in pace with the Events. It is for the Department to provide substantive reasons why this previously accepted principle should not be weighed equally against a presumption in this case as it was previously (and consistently) given national objectives for the Events’ growth, and especially given the authoritative representation made on this particular point by the Clerk of the Course. Conclusion
• 57. Whilst the surrounding’s AHLV designation is without question, the appellant does not consider the site itself to constitute a prominent feature for the detailed reasons provided.
• 58. The site’s use is already established (within the Act’s provisions) and was also previously recorded in a landscape character assessment commissioned by the Department. The application simply proposes this existing use be differently accommodated.
• 59. It is apparent that the land parcel within which the site is located is selfinclusive and always has been. The curtilage extends to include the site, itself consisting of previously developed land.
• 60. The adjacent structure comprises historical fabric higher than the Course. Even if renovations had somehow overcome this appreciable level difference (the Department does not elaborate), the adjacent structure does not provide the uninterrupted visibility found at the site. The site’s established use could not have been reasonably or appropriately accommodated at the adjacent structure (as an alternative).
• 61. The Department previously established the principle that a need for permanent marshal stations exists under the Area Plan. The IMSP, rather than reversing this principle, reinforces it. The weight with which this principle may rebut a presumption against development within AHLVs has not diminished, but has only increased with the strategic growth of the Events.

• 62. The appellant and their agent have not treated the surroundings’ designation lightly; the proposal represents a sincere effort to sensitively mitigate many of the issues arising from the manner in which the site’s established use is currently accommodated.
• 63. The proposal will introduce beneficial access to the Course and the adjacent structure. It will partly conceal itself (and the supporting facilities it contains) behind an existing feature deemed important to the surroundings’ character. It will remove risks otherwise posed to surrounding soft landscape. It will, over time, better assimilate itself into the surroundings and consume less energy than the manner in which the site’s established use is currently accommodated. Above all, it is anticipated that the proposal will secure the safety both of the Events’ participants, and the marshals upon whom they depend, as the Events continue to grow.

Other Parties

• 64. German Parish Commissioners - object on the grounds of overdevelopment of a prominent site in an AHLV. Also concerns about safety of steps going straight to the highway edge and question the need for lifts, toilets and storage and the close proximity of the viewing platform.
• 65. Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - no significant negative impact.
• 66. Tree Officer - no objections.
• 67. DEFA Biodiversity - initial requirement for a common lizard survey, followed by a Reasonable Avoidance Measures Statement (RAMS) in March 2022 which officers were satisfied could be secured by planning condition to overcome the initial biodiversity concerns8.
• 68. One letter of objection from a resident of Peel who highlights the possibility of bird strikes into the glass balustrading being proposed around the terrace9.
• 69. One letter of support for the Auto Cycle Union on the grounds of improved steward facilities.

Assessment by the Inspector

• 70. The Planning Authority allude to an issue of the lawfulness or otherwise of the use/conversion of the garages to a bedroom and lounge associated with the linked holiday cottage10. This use identified on the submitted floor plans is not part of the development proposed under the terms of this appeal. Therefore, I do not propose to consider the acceptability of such a use any further.
• 71. I agree with the parties that the main issue in this case is the impact of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside, weighed against any benefits which may ensue from the scheme. I also agree that this is a planning judgement to be made by the decision-maker in this case.

• 8 Condition has been proffered to be imposed – Annex A.
• 9 A condition has been proffered (Annex A) which would require the glass balustrading to be treated to seek to avoid such collisions. This may be as simple as etched or motif glass or proprietary stickers applied.
• 10 Although they acknowledge this conversion has been carried out in the last few years.

• 72. Therefore, I shall begin by considering the impact of the proposal on character and appearance.
• 73. The appeal site lies outside of areas zoned for development11, within countryside protected by policy for its own sake and recognised for its character and quality as an AHLV12 where the most important consideration is the protection of the landscape.
• 74. The appeal proposes the extension of the existing low-key group of cottages set on the back of the footpath, hugging the curve of the road. The grouping is broken up by varying roof designs and heights which does serve to minimise the visual impact of the existing cottages in the wider landscape surroundings13. The extent of the surrounding hardsurfaced area14 upon which the cottages stand, as well as the presence of the shrouded remains of the old mill awaiting redevelopment, and the large three tier grandstand, set up on shipping containers, which does include ‘servicing’ facilities below, all go to create a prominent group of buildings in what is otherwise a generally unspoilt valley. The A3 twists and turns through the deeply cut valley, following the course of the River Neb. The heavily wooded steep sides of the valley creates a dominant sense of enclosure and forward views are restricted by the topography and roadside walls and vegetation.
• 75. It is easy to see why this section of the road has become an exciting point at which to observe the TT course.
• 76. The terrace of cottages terminates at its eastern end in a single storey flat roof element which is used as a rather make-shift viewing platform with temporary access stairs and scaffold pole balustrade. Its appearance does not enhance the grouping of cottages when viewed from the A3 side.
• 77. The appeal proposes the extension of this flat roof element to provide a larger viewing area at first floor, and at ground floor there is proposed toilets and storage, along with an accessible toilet and a lift to enable those with mobility issues to easily access the viewing platform. In addition, there would be a purpose-built marshal tower with a direct staircase down to the roadside.
• 78. The use of a glass balustrade15 would tie the proposed extension into the existing building, as would the use of the same external finish and colour16. The extension is also proposed to be set back in from both the front and rear walls which would give some sense of visual subservience of the proposed new addition to the existing main single storey element. It would also break up the expanse of continuous walling along the roadside of the existing group of cottages.
• 79. The extension would be built on a section of grassed over land which forms part of a triangular piece of relatively open land defined by a roadside hedge and a row of trees running parallel to the hedgerow on the inner edge of the hedge. It has the character more of a simple garden area associated with the cottages.

• 11 IMSP GP3.
• 12 IMSP EP1 & EP2.
• 13 These cottages have been a permanent feature in the landscape for some considerable time along with the Mill, there having been some structures on the site at Glen Moar recorded in 1869.
• 14 Including car parking area.
• 15 For which the Planning Authority has no objection to it being added to the existing roof top viewing platform.
• 16 Secured by condition.

The thick valley side woodland surrounds it to the south and east maintaining the dominance of the wooded landscape character and appearance.

• 80. The proposed extension would diminish this green open area, to some extent, by the loss of the footprint of the proposed extension being 9 metres by 8.2 metres17, even in the context of a much larger open space.
• 81. However, the harm to the character of the landscape would be moderated by the immediate context of the proposal being included within a group of buildings and structures which already have considerable prominence along the A3 where buildings are few and far between along this section of road.
• 82. Nonetheless, there is a clear conflict with the terms of IMSP GP2 as the proposal would be contrary to land-use zoning and there would be some harm to the character of the surroundings as already described.
• 83. IMSP GP3 similar presents some harm as the site is outside of areas zoned for development unless the development is recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative.
• 84. IMSP EP1 and EP2 would, at first reading, be offended as the countryside needs to be protected for its own sake and, with the protection of AHLVs being the most important consideration, harm similarly would ensue. However, this is tempered by exception criteria which must be taken into account.
• 85. It is, therefore, necessary to consider how the appeal proposal measures up to the exception criteria within the identified policies.
• 86. Policy exceptions - IMSP GP3, EP1 and EP2 offer exceptions. In the case of IMSP EP1 and GP3 the exception is an over-riding national need in land use terms18 which outweighs the requirement to protect the countryside. For IMSP EP2 the exception is that the location of the development is essential to be within the AHLV.
• 87. The policy exception is firmly routed in the importance of Black Dub as a marshalling point along the internationally known route of the TT. The TT is of enormous importance to the tourist industry of the Island. It attracts by far the most significant number of tourists to the Island of any event held19.
• 88. The appeal site already accommodates a temporary marshalling station/platform made up of scaffolding and boards which stands on the site of the proposed extension. It is make-shift and, being set behind the roadside stone wall, requires marshals to climb over the wall to access the TT course20. Medical and emergency access is vital to offer an immediate response in circumstances where a rider may require aid or other emergencies. The view of the marshals from the existing platform is also limited by its height and the curve of the road may result in a blind spot as riders continue on around the twisting course.

• 17 Measurements taken from dwg no 1612 101.06 rev A.
• 18 IMSP GP3 requires consideration whether there is any reasonable and acceptable alternative.
• 19 IMSP paragraph 9.5.3.
• 20 I am aware that a wooden bench can be placed on the roadside of the low wall for marshals to sit on. However, this is largely unprotected from the racing bikes as they negotiate the straight into the bends. This, to my mind, places the marshals at risk and so I give this little weight as an alternative.

• 89. The appeal proposal would offer a purpose-built facility which, whilst not being much greater in footprint terms than the temporary platform, would offer a more fit for purpose asset. It would provide more comfortable marshalling facilities, including conveniently located toilets and storage. It would provide the immediate and direct access to the TT course, avoiding having to climb over the wall. Greater visibility along the course would also be achieved as a result of improved elevation. In addition, a lift and appropriate WC would be provided for those who would be currently excluded through difficulties of access to the viewing platform and/or marshalling station21.
• 90. The size of the large grandstand before the Black Dub buildings illustrates the importance and entertainment value of this section of the course. I take the view that the appeal proposal responds to a national need to secure the TT event into the future22. The Our Island, Our Future Isle of Man Visitor Economy Strategy 2022-2032 sets out as one of its core principles the international recognition of the Island as the home of the TT. It recognises the strategy is not about quick wins. It is about recognising the need of both Government and the private sector to invest in building a visitor destination over time.
• 91. The marshal station is long established at Black Dub and so any upgrade of facilities must take place in this location. Consequently, if TT infrastructure is to be upgraded it is essential it is in the Black Dub location, which lies within the AHLV23.
• 92. The alternative is for the make-shift stand to continue to be erected every year requiring materials, plant etc to be transported to the site. In addition, the resultant platform does not present a marshalling station which can be as responsive to the changing circumstances of the TT race with immediacy, which is necessary in an emergency situation, nor can it provide reasonable facilities for those who contribute their time and energy to making the TT a successful Island event for the future.
• 93. The Planning Authority also suggested as an alternative the conversion of the garages, which were below the existing flat roof viewing area. I agree this has not been explored but, in addition, the conversion of the garages to a lounge and bedroom associated with the linked cottage has not been challenged even though it has been acknowledged that the change was undertaken some years ago. I do not agree this presents another hoop for the scheme to jump through in the circumstances that the balance of the decision weighs heavily in favour of the proposal. Planning balance/Conclusion
• 94. There would be some limited harm to the character and appearance of the surroundings offending the terms of IMSP GP2. Logically this then would imply offence to IMSP GP3 in respect of the proposal being outside of those areas zoned for development and IMSP EP2 as the site lies within the AHLV.
• 95. However, the policy harm in respect of IMSP GP3, EP1 and EP2 is highly tempered by the conclusion that the proposal responds to an overriding national

• 21 Significant weight should be given to the response of the proposed scheme to the inclusion of those with mobility issues.
• 22 IMSP EP1 & GP3 – exception.
• 23 IMSP EP2 – exception.

need for which there is no reasonable alternative. Further, the location of the proposed marshalling station is essential to be located at Black Dub within the AHLV.

• 96. Therefore, the benefits of the proposed scheme to enhance the running, facilities and experience of the TT race in the location of Black Dub and, as part of the wider international race event, would strongly outweigh the limited harm to the character and appearance of the surroundings.

Recommendation

• 97. Therefore, I recommend that the appeal be allowed, and planning approval granted for the installation of glass balustrading to Cottage 3, first floor and erection of single storey side extension, including viewing platform with associated works, Glen Moar Cottage 3 & field 312273 Glen Helen Road Laurel Bank St Johns. If accepted, this recommendation will have the effect of setting aside the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application.
• 98. In the event that the Minister should agree with the Planning Authority’s case and decide to uphold their decision to refuse the proposal, their published reason for refusal, which I have reproduced at Annex B, should stand. Reason
• 99. The appeal proposal would support the approved Island Visitor Economy Strategy and, whilst some conflict to development plan policy has been identified, the recognition of the scheme as a response to an overriding national need and investment in the future of the TT as an Island event, and the lack of other significant harms, justifies the permitting of this proposal.

Frances Mahoney MRTPI IHBC

7th July 2023 Independent Inspector

Appendix — T

VIEWS AT CREG NY BAA 2010 APPLICATION REFERENCE: PA 24 / 00154 / B APPEAL REFERENCE: AP 24 / 0051

PROPOSAL: APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL FOR THE ADDITION OF A FIFTH CONTAINER, WIDENED WALKWAY, AND THE VARIATION OF CONDITIONS 2 AND 4 OF PA 22/00757/B

ADDRESS: LAND ADJACENT TO GLEN MOAR MILL AND FIELD 315139, GLEN HELEN ROAD LAUREL BANK, ST. JOHNS, ISLE OF MAN IM4 3NN

Appeal No AP23/0003 Application No 22/00186/B

1. The appellant and their agent have not treated the surroundings’ designation

lightly; the proposal represents a sincere effort to sensitively mitigate many of the issues arising from the manner in which the site’s established use is currently accommodated.

1. The proposal will introduce beneficial access to the Course and the adjacent

structure. It will partly conceal itself (and the supporting facilities it contains) behind an existing feature deemed important to the surroundings’ character. It will remove risks otherwise posed to surrounding soft landscape. It will, over time, better assimilate itself into the surroundings and consume less energy than the manner in which the site’s established use is currently accommodated. Above all, it is anticipated that the proposal will secure the safety both of the Events’ participants, and the marshals upon whom they depend, as the Events continue to grow. Other Parties

1. German Parish Commissioners - object on the grounds of overdevelopment of a

prominent site in an AHLV. Also concerns about safety of steps going straight to the highway edge and question the need for lifts, toilets and storage and the close proximity of the viewing platform.

1. Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - no significant negative impact.
2. Tree Officer - no objections.
3. DEFA Biodiversity - initial requirement for a common lizard survey, followed by

a Reasonable Avoidance Measures Statement (RAMS) in March 2022 which officers were satisfied could be secured by planning condition to overcome the initial biodiversity concerns8.

1. One letter of objection from a resident of Peel who highlights the possibility of

bird strikes into the glass balustrading being proposed around the terrace9.

1. One letter of support for the Auto Cycle Union on the grounds of improved

steward facilities. Assessment by the Inspector

1. The Planning Authority allude to an issue of the lawfulness or otherwise of the

use/conversion of the garages to a bedroom and lounge associated with the linked holiday cottage10. This use identified on the submitted floor plans is not part of the development proposed under the terms of this appeal. Therefore, I do not propose to consider the acceptability of such a use any further.

1. I agree with the parties that the main issue in this case is the impact of the

proposed extension on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside, weighed against any benefits which may ensue from the scheme. I also agree that this is a planning judgement to be made by the decision-maker in this case.

8 Condition has been proffered to be imposed – Annex A. 9 A condition has been proffered (Annex A) which would require the glass balustrading to be treated to seek to avoid such collisions. This may be as simple as etched or motif glass or proprietary stickers applied. 10 Although they acknowledge this conversion has been carried out in the last few years.

Appeal No AP23/0003 Application No 22/00186/B

1. Therefore, I shall begin by considering the impact of the proposal on character

and appearance.

1. The appeal site lies outside of areas zoned for development11, within countryside

protected by policy for its own sake and recognised for its character and quality as an AHLV12 where the most important consideration is the protection of the landscape.

1. The appeal proposes the extension of the existing low-key group of cottages set

on the back of the footpath, hugging the curve of the road. The grouping is broken up by varying roof designs and heights which does serve to minimise the visual impact of the existing cottages in the wider landscape surroundings13. The extent of the surrounding hardsurfaced area14 upon which the cottages stand, as well as the presence of the shrouded remains of the old mill awaiting re- development, and the large three tier grandstand, set up on shipping containers, which does include ‘servicing’ facilities below, all go to create a prominent group of buildings in what is otherwise a generally unspoilt valley. The A3 twists and turns through the deeply cut valley, following the course of the River Neb. The heavily wooded steep sides of the valley creates a dominant sense of enclosure and forward views are restricted by the topography and roadside walls and vegetation.

1. It is easy to see why this section of the road has become an exciting point at

which to observe the TT course.

1. The terrace of cottages terminates at its eastern end in a single storey flat roof

element which is used as a rather make-shift viewing platform with temporary access stairs and scaffold pole balustrade. Its appearance does not enhance the grouping of cottages when viewed from the A3 side.

1. The appeal proposes the extension of this flat roof element to provide a larger

viewing area at first floor, and at ground floor there is proposed toilets and storage, along with an accessible toilet and a lift to enable those with mobility issues to easily access the viewing platform. In addition, there would be a purpose-built marshal tower with a direct staircase down to the roadside.

1. The use of a glass balustrade15 would tie the proposed extension into the

existing building, as would the use of the same external finish and colour16. The extension is also proposed to be set back in from both the front and rear walls which would give some sense of visual subservience of the proposed new addition to the existing main single storey element. It would also break up the expanse of continuous walling along the roadside of the existing group of cottages.

1. The extension would be built on a section of grassed over land which forms part

of a triangular piece of relatively open land defined by a roadside hedge and a row of trees running parallel to the hedgerow on the inner edge of the hedge. It has the character more of a simple garden area associated with the cottages.

11 IMSP GP3. 12 IMSP EP1 & EP2. 13 These cottages have been a permanent feature in the landscape for some considerable time along with the Mill, there having been some structures on the site at Glen Moar recorded in 1869. 14 Including car parking area. 15 For which the Planning Authority has no objection to it being added to the existing roof top viewing platform. 16 Secured by condition.

Appeal No AP23/0003 Application No 22/00186/B The thick valley side woodland surrounds it to the south and east maintaining the dominance of the wooded landscape character and appearance.

1. The proposed extension would diminish this green open area, to some extent,

by the loss of the footprint of the proposed extension being 9 metres by 8.2 metres17, even in the context of a much larger open space.

1. However, the harm to the character of the landscape would be moderated by

the immediate context of the proposal being included within a group of buildings and structures which already have considerable prominence along the A3 where buildings are few and far between along this section of road.

1. Nonetheless, there is a clear conflict with the terms of IMSP GP2 as the proposal

would be contrary to land-use zoning and there would be some harm to the character of the surroundings as already described.

1. IMSP GP3 similar presents some harm as the site is outside of areas zoned for

development unless the development is recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative.

1. IMSP EP1 and EP2 would, at first reading, be offended as the countryside needs

to be protected for its own sake and, with the protection of AHLVs being the most important consideration, harm similarly would ensue. However, this is tempered by exception criteria which must be taken into account.

1. It is, therefore, necessary to consider how the appeal proposal measures up to

the exception criteria within the identified policies.

1. Policy exceptions - IMSP GP3, EP1 and EP2 offer exceptions. In the case of

IMSP EP1 and GP3 the exception is an over-riding national need in land use terms18 which outweighs the requirement to protect the countryside. For IMSP EP2 the exception is that the location of the development is essential to be within the AHLV.

1. The policy exception is firmly routed in the importance of Black Dub as a

marshalling point along the internationally known route of the TT. The TT is of enormous importance to the tourist industry of the Island. It attracts by far the most significant number of tourists to the Island of any event held19.

1. The appeal site already accommodates a temporary marshalling

station/platform made up of scaffolding and boards which stands on the site of the proposed extension. It is make-shift and, being set behind the roadside stone wall, requires marshals to climb over the wall to access the TT course20. Medical and emergency access is vital to offer an immediate response in circumstances where a rider may require aid or other emergencies. The view of the marshals from the existing platform is also limited by its height and the curve of the road may result in a blind spot as riders continue on around the twisting course.

17 Measurements taken from dwg no 1612 101.06 rev A. 18 IMSP GP3 requires consideration whether there is any reasonable and acceptable alternative. 19 IMSP paragraph 9.5.3. 20 I am aware that a wooden bench can be placed on the roadside of the low wall for marshals to sit on. However, this is largely unprotected from the racing bikes as they negotiate the straight into the bends. This, to my mind, places the marshals at risk and so I give this little weight as an alternative.

Appeal No AP23/0003 Application No 22/00186/B

1. The appeal proposal would offer a purpose-built facility which, whilst not being

much greater in footprint terms than the temporary platform, would offer a more fit for purpose asset. It would provide more comfortable marshalling facilities, including conveniently located toilets and storage. It would provide the immediate and direct access to the TT course, avoiding having to climb over the wall. Greater visibility along the course would also be achieved as a result of improved elevation. In addition, a lift and appropriate WC would be provided for those who would be currently excluded through difficulties of access to the viewing platform and/or marshalling station21.

1. The size of the large grandstand before the Black Dub buildings illustrates the

importance and entertainment value of this section of the course. I take the view that the appeal proposal responds to a national need to secure the TT event into the future22. The Our Island, Our Future Isle of Man Visitor Economy Strategy 2022-2032 sets out as one of its core principles the international recognition of the Island as the home of the TT. It recognises the strategy is not about quick wins. It is about recognising the need of both Government and the private sector to invest in building a visitor destination over time.

1. The marshal station is long established at Black Dub and so any upgrade of

facilities must take place in this location. Consequently, if TT infrastructure is to be upgraded it is essential it is in the Black Dub location, which lies within the AHLV23.

1. The alternative is for the make-shift stand to continue to be erected every year

requiring materials, plant etc to be transported to the site. In addition, the resultant platform does not present a marshalling station which can be as responsive to the changing circumstances of the TT race with immediacy, which is necessary in an emergency situation, nor can it provide reasonable facilities for those who contribute their time and energy to making the TT a successful Island event for the future.

1. The Planning Authority also suggested as an alternative the conversion of the

garages, which were below the existing flat roof viewing area. I agree this has not been explored but, in addition, the conversion of the garages to a lounge and bedroom associated with the linked cottage has not been challenged even though it has been acknowledged that the change was undertaken some years ago. I do not agree this presents another hoop for the scheme to jump through in the circumstances that the balance of the decision weighs heavily in favour of the proposal. Planning balance/Conclusion

1. There would be some limited harm to the character and appearance of the

surroundings offending the terms of IMSP GP2. Logically this then would imply offence to IMSP GP3 in respect of the proposal being outside of those areas zoned for development and IMSP EP2 as the site lies within the AHLV.

1. However, the policy harm in respect of IMSP GP3, EP1 and EP2 is highly

tempered by the conclusion that the proposal responds to an overriding national

21 Significant weight should be given to the response of the proposed scheme to the inclusion of those with mobility issues. 22 IMSP EP1 & GP3 – exception. 23 IMSP EP2 – exception.

Appeal No AP23/0003 Application No 22/00186/B need for which there is no reasonable alternative. Further, the location of the proposed marshalling station is essential to be located at Black Dub within the AHLV.

1. Therefore, the benefits of the proposed scheme to enhance the running,

facilities and experience of the TT race in the location of Black Dub and, as part of the wider international race event, would strongly outweigh the limited harm to the character and appearance of the surroundings. Recommendation

1. Therefore, I recommend that the appeal be allowed, and planning approval

granted for the installation of glass balustrading to Cottage 3, first floor and erection of single storey side extension, including viewing platform with associated works, Glen Moar Cottage 3 & field 312273 Glen Helen Road Laurel Bank St Johns. If accepted, this recommendation will have the effect of setting aside the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application.

1. In the event that the Minister should agree with the Planning Authority’s case

and decide to uphold their decision to refuse the proposal, their published reason for refusal, which I have reproduced at Annex B, should stand. Reason

1. The appeal proposal would support the approved Island Visitor Economy

Strategy and, whilst some conflict to development plan policy has been identified, the recognition of the scheme as a response to an overriding national need and investment in the future of the TT as an Island event, and the lack of other significant harms, justifies the permitting of this proposal.

Frances Mahoney MRTPI IHBC 7th July 2023 Independent Inspector

APPENDIX — T VIEWS AT CREG NY BAA 2010 APPLICATION REFERENCE: PA 24 / 00154 / B APPEAL REFERENCE: AP 24 / 0051 PROPOSAL: APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL FOR THE ADDITION OF A FIFTH CONTAINER, WIDENED WALKWAY, AND THE VARIATION OF CONDITIONS 2 AND 4 OF PA 22/00757/B ADDRESS: LAND ADJACENT TO GLEN MOAR MILL AND FIELD 315139, GLEN HELEN ROAD LAUREL BANK, ST. JOHNS, ISLE OF MAN IM4 3NN

CREG NY BAA, ONCHAN PARISH (LOOKING NORTH) CREG NY BAA, ONCHAN PARISH (LOOKING NORTH)