Erection of two buildings, associated hardstanding and vehicle parking area, formation of earth banks and construction of road linking to public...

Refusal Reasons

• ✗The proposal represents an unjustified commercial depot in the open countryside, outside any settlement boundary and on land not allocated for development. The applicant has not demonstrated an overriding national need in land-use planning terms, nor shown that reasonable and acceptable alternatives such as established employment locations including Jurby are unavailable. The Strategic Plan identifies Ramsey and Jurby as the Major Employment Areas in the north, and the Employment Land Review 2025 reinforces this direction by confirming that sufficient, deliverable and appropriately located employment land exists within these designated centres. The proposal therefore fails to meet any exception under General Policy 3 and is contrary to Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, Strategic Policy 6, Business Policy 1 and General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• ✗The scale, massing and industrial appearance of the buildings, together with extensive engineered bunding and hardstanding, introduce an urbanised and commercial form that is wholly at odds with the rural character of the Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. The development alters natural landform, erodes openness and fails to respond to the Island's heritage landscape identity as set out in Paragraphs 4.3.4-4.3.11 of the Strategic Plan. The proposal does not conserve or enhance landscape quality, nor does it demonstrate the design quality required by Strategic Policy 5. It is therefore contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 2, General Policy 2, Strategic Policy 4 and Strategic Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• ✗Significant earthworks and bund creation have been undertaken without any ecological assessment, mitigation or post-construction evaluation. The Department is therefore unable to determine whether protected species, priority habitats or ecological networks have been harmed, including any that may have been present but not previously recorded. The absence of baseline information, coupled with the lack of any reinstatement or biodiversity enhancement measures, fails to meet the requirements of Environment Policies 1, 4 and 5, which seek to protect the countryside and its ecology for their own sake and require disturbance to be minimised and compensated where unavoidable. The proposal is also contrary to Strategic Policy 4, which requires development to protect or enhance nature conservation value.