Statement of Case on Behalf of the Applicant

APPEAL STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT IN RESPECT OF THE REFUSAL OF

25/90944/B - Erection of two buildings, associated hardstanding and vehicle parking area, formation of earth banks and construction of road linking to public highway for use as an arboricultural service business (retrospective), Ballacallum Red Gates, The Lhen, Andreas IM7 3EH

1.INTRODUCTION 1.1 The above application was refused under delegated powers with the reasons for refusal given as follows:

• 1. 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.
• 2. 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.

• 3. 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.

• 1.1 This statement provides additional support to justify an overturn of this decision so that the application may be permitted.

1.2 Reason 1

• 1.2.1 We consider that the decision fails to take full account of the reasons provided for the choice of location for the proposed development and lack of reasonable alternatives. We provided information in the application which does not appear to have been referred to at all which refers to why the applicant is unable to find alternative premises including locations which the officer suggests would be suitable which were considered but discounted.
• 1.2.2 It was stated in the application that the applicant had considered finding industrial premises but that none was found to be either large enough, with sufficient parking or financial viable. To demonstrate this, the applicant has looked again at what is available at the nearest location to his premises and there are currently two units available in Jurby, unit 267 provides 16,520 sq ft (1,534 sq m) and would cost £44,605 pa to rent. This unit is a shared one with limited parking so even if it were financially viable to the company, which it isn't, there would be insufficient parking to properly accommodate his operation. Unit 298 is also available which is too small (0.1 acres) and has no building. The applicant needs inside storage for the longevity and security of his vehicles but with sufficient space to store wood chip which is collected by farmers and used as organic matter on their fields. An industrial estate is not the appropriate location for this.
• 1.2.3 There is a unit for sale at Jurby: unit 231 offers 3,190 sq ft (296 sq m) but is for sale rather than rent. The price is £450,000. This too, is financially unviable for the applicant's business. Here, it is relevant that other operators in the same business are located either at their own homes or at premises approved specifically for them in the countryside, as noted in paragraph 5.11 of the original planning statement submitted with the application. By comparison the application proposes 489 sq m of buildings with a further significant area for vehicle parking.
• 1.2.4 The officer's report does not refer to the support provided by Department for Enterprise or the various clients whose support was included in the application, all demonstrating the essential nature of the services which the applicant provides. Particularly, Department for Enterprise state in their submission: "Having considered the content of the application, we believe that the applicant has demonstrated a clear Island-critical need and the absence of any viable alternative site and directly supports the Our Island Plan by strengthening emergency response capability, supporting essential public services and sustaining local employment." The officer does not appear to have analysed this submission nor provided a reason why this position should not be accepted.

• 1.2.5 Department for Enterprise does not support applications lightly and in this case clearly considers that the proposal supports the local economy by providing critical infrastructure. We are not sure why the officer does not accept this. We explained how having the depot distant from the applicant's property will not work for him: it is not simply that the proximity to his home is convenient and reduces travel to work. It is because many of his jobs require prompt response and if he had to travel to another location - for example, Jurby, to which the officer refers, which is only some 2.5 miles from the applicant's home, this will add time and potentially a trip out of the direct route to whatever site the applicant is required to visit.
• 1.2.6 Of more importance is the absence of any viable site which would accommodate all of the required vehicle and equipment storage and the required car parking. The applicant has looked at finding a premises on an existing lawful industrial site but has yet to find anything that will accommodate securely all that he has to store. It is not just the cost of such a premises - at the moment and since the buildings were needed, there are simply no available suitable premises as is demonstrated in 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 above.
• 1.2.7 The applicant's home is in an extremely exposed location. As such it would not be acceptable to keep the equipment and vehicles here without them being under cover. Having the equipment and vehicles stored outside would also not be secure. The fact that the equipment and vehicles are immediately adjacent to his home also makes his business more sustainable and reduces its carbon footprint. This was discussed in another application for a site further south west. Ballasalla Farm is used as a base for a local construction company. The site was the subject of a successful application for a Certificate of Lawful use as an operational centre and workshop (24/00548/LAW).
• 1.2.8 Subsequent to the approval of the CLAW, an application for the erection of a detached portal framed building for use as a workshop was submitted for the same site. It was recommended for refusal by the planning officer for the following reason:

R 1. The proposed development for the erection of a detached portal frame building to provide a general engineering workshop space is unacceptable due to the size, bulk and scale of the workshop building with the use unconnected with agriculture in this open countryside location. The proposed development would be harmful to the character of the site and surroundings given that the site is located within the open countryside in an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance

(AHLV). As such, the application fails to accord with the provisions of General Policy

• 2 c); General Policy 3 f); and, Environment Policies 1 and 2 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

• 1.2.9 The Planning Committee, to whom the application was referred, however, disagreed and approved the application. The reason given for the decision was as follows:

The proposed development is acceptable. It proposes an expansion of the existing Lawful engineering works on what is now industrial land. The nature of the business operating from the site also has a connection with agriculture in that it provides services for the servicing, maintenance, and repair of agricultural plant and machinery, as well as for its own civil engineering plant and machinery, which it is lawfully allowed to do from this site. Furthermore, whilst they presence of the new workshop building in this location would be harmful to the character of the site and surroundings given that the site is located within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV), it is considered that the presence of the existing lawful industrial operation on the site, and the benefits offered by the proposed development to the economy of this part of the Island outweighs any such harm. The application accords with the relevant planning policies outlined in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, namely, the provisions of General Policy 2 b) and c); General Policy 3 f); and, Environment Policies 1, 2 and 15 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. It is, therefore, recommended that the planning application be approved.

• 1.2.10 There was no letter of support from Department for Enterprise nor any objection from any other statutory consultee or local resident. The applicant referred in their supporting information to the fact that they had to make sufficient allowances in the daily works program for unscheduled work, eg mechanical breakdowns. They stated that whilst their had taken out a leased for an industrial unit at Jurby, this was for minor repairs and within the parish none of the currently available sites lent themselves favourably to their multi-disciplinary activities. They also made reference to the following benefits from the proposal:

• • Supporting the sustainable growth and expansion of local businesses and enterprises in rural locations.
• • The provision of local jobs helps reduce the reliance on commuting and support more sustainable living.

• • Local employment development seeks to support the viability of existing local businesses and their expansion.
• • Strong and sustainable rural companies play a pivotal and important role in supporting the Manx economy.
• • Supporting the expansion of local rural businesses has additional growth potential for our community.

• 1.2.11 Whilst that site had the benefit of a CLAW for the use of the site for an operational depot which the current applicant does not, there was not obligation on the part of the Department to approve further buildings to support that use. That site was similarly exposed in terms of landscape and was closer to the highway than is the appeal site. We would submit that there are close parallels between the two operations and indeed that applicant has provided a letter of support for the current appellant which was submitted before the initial decision was taken. We would also refer again to the fact that many if not all of the other tree service operations on the Island are based in sites which are not on industrial estates and which are either adjacent to those operators' homes or on specifically approved developments all of which are in the countryside.
• 1.2.12 Unfortunately, whilst the Ballasalla Farm application was put before the planning committee, our current appealed application was determined under delegated powers and the applicant had no opportunity to discuss any misgivings the officer may have had before the application was refused.
• 1.2.13 The applicant's business is one of only a few arboricultural companies on the Island which is capable of undertaking large scale work and it now has a range of equipment which enables it to undertake work which other companies cannot. Many tasks involve the security of the Island's energy and communications systems and of these, there is often the need to respond promptly to issues which arise in extreme weather, of which the Island, like the rest of the world, is experiencing more incidents. This, we would say, distinguishes the applicant's business from others and is what makes this proposal of national need. This is supported by the submissions from Department for Enterprise and the Government Departments who have confirmed the work that the applicant does for them.
• 1.2.14 As such we would submit that we did demonstrate that the proposed development is of overriding national need and that there is no reasonable or practical alternative.

1.3 Reason 2

• 1.3.1 There is no evidence to support the reason for refusal which suggests that the development is harmful to ecology. The site is not identified in any document as far as we are aware as being of any particular ecological interest and there is no submission from Ecosystems Policy, or indeed any other party which suggests that there has been any damage or harm to ecology as a result of the proposed works.
• 1.3.2 The site of the proposed development is agricultural land which may be ploughed or grazed - activities which have the potential to destroy any flora of ecological interest. The introduction of new banks adds ecological habitat in itself as well as providing a physical barrier between the rest of the open land, and the buildings and associated activity.
• 1.3.3 Furthermore, in the two previous planning applications for development in this part of the site, neither the planning office, nor any other party or decision maker identified either any ecological value of the site as it formerly existed, or any unacceptable impact on ecology from those proposals, nor was any supporting ecological information requested. We consider it inconsistent therefore to assume that this current development, in the same general location as was the previous applications for stabling and an agricultural building, should have an unacceptable impact on ecology or be required to demonstrate that it did not have such an impact if the previous applications were not also required to address this potential impact.
• 1.3.4 It is customary where an officer has a concern which relates to a particular area of expertise that they would consult the relevant Government Department with knowledge of and expertise in that area. In this case, the consultee would usually be Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture's Ecosystem Policy Office. We are not aware that they were consulted which perhaps might have been expected if the officer had concerns in this particular area.
• 1.3.5 We bring no evidence to demonstrate that ecological surveys were undertaken prior to the works being undertaken but would refer to aerial photographs of the site (see below) prior to the works being undertaken which indicate that the site of the development was part of the wider agricultural field and which as not subject to any different treatment or use. We fully accept that the development has resulted in the loss of field but would submit that this is a relatively small part of the overall holding and that the sod hedges which have been introduced bring new ecological habitat which mitigates the loss of any agricultural field.

Aerial photograph 2021

Aerial photograph 2025

• 1.3.6 As such, we are struggling to understand why in this case there was concern about impact on ecology when there is no professional advice or evidence to support this position nor was there any concern in the case of the previous application for development in the same location and would suggest that this is not a supportable reason for refusal and should not weigh against the proposed development in this case.

• 1.4 Reason 3

• 1.4.1 We disagree that the development "erodes openness" or "fails to respond to the Island's heritage landscape identity". We are unaware of any designation of this site or surrounding area as of heritage importance or having any particular heritage identity. Whilst the Strategic Plan does indeed refer to heritage it states, "This “heritage identity” is a result of the combination of a rich diversity of historic sites and monuments, historic buildings and residential settlements and a specific range of natural history attributes set within a predominantly rural landscape setting which links modern life to a sense of historic legacy and beauty, the retention of which is strongly supported by Government and the resident community." We are unaware of any heritage assets within the site or sufficiently close as to be affected by the proposed development.
• 1.4.2 We provided photographic evidence of the only location from where we believe some of the proposed development may be seen and are of the view that what may be seen is not intrusive and appears as would an agricultural building group, examples of which are seen throughout this area. As such, we believe that the proposed development does not harmfully affect any recognised heritage asset or a heritage landscape, nor does it have an unacceptable impact on the character or appearance of the countryside.
• 1.4.3 We are aware that previous decision makers were concerned at the visual impact on the landscape. If it is the case that the decision maker in this case is of the same view, we would submit that the need for and benefit to the Island from this development outweighs any adverse impact on the landscape and would reiterate that the buildings are seen from only a single public viewpoint and that that is a distant view which encompasses other buildings in a largely agricultural vista.
• 1.4.4 The proposed buildings are adjacent to the existing building group and form part thereof, in accordance with the general advice in the Strategic Plan which advises against the erection of isolated buildings or those close to an existing highway.

1.5 Other matters

• 1.5.1 The application also proposed works to the access lane, introducing hard surfacing. There is no reference to this in the reasons for refusal and we would assume therefore that there is no objection from the Planning Office to this aspect of the application. The works have no public impact due to the nature of the winding access road but make access for the applicant much easier in all weathers. This is relevant whether or not the applicant's business operates her and would apply if the land were used solely for agricultural purposes.
• 1.5.2 The nature of the buildings is that they take the form of agricultural buildings which are often found within the countryside. As such, were the applicant's business to cease its use of the site, the buildings would be necessary in order to manage the land for agricultural or equestrian purposes, if the relevant change of use were permitted. The area of hardstanding where the car park currently sits would also be highly useful for the storage of hay bales and agricultural vehicles or equipment which is suitable for storage outdoors.

1.6 Conclusion

• 1.6.1 The applicant has established a highly successful business which provides critical services to the Island, ensuring the continued operation of energy and telecommunications services.
• 1.6.2 To do this, the applicant has invested heavily in the most up to date equipment and vehicles which enables him to provide a 24/7 call out service with enough staff and equipment to respond to any event anywhere on the Island and to keep the Island infrastructure safe. No other company can provide this comprehensive service. This investment enables the business to respond to almost any arboricultural event promptly and effectively.
• 1.6.3 The company started operating in 2011 from the applicant's parents' property which then grew and relocated to an agricultural premises. That site became unavailable whereupon the applicant purchased Ballacallum Red Gates where he has lived and the business has been based ever since. The business now employs 10 full time local people all of whom are fully qualified - their qualifications and continuing development paid for by the company. The move to Ballacallum Red Gates enabled the business to expand such as to take on 4 additional full time staff as Government work increased.

• 1.6.7 The proposed development is essential to enable the applicant to continue providing the critical response service that he is currently able to deliver. If he is forced to relocate, it is unlikely that a suitable site would be found and even if it could be identified, the cost of renting such a site would render the business unviable. Even if it were possible to find an affordable and suitable site, the distance from the applicant's home is likely to reduce the efficiency and promptness of response to the point that the quality of the service provided would fall. This could then result in the business having to contract, redundancies introduced and the scale of service diminished.
• 1.6.8 We remain of the view that the proposal represents overriding national need which justifies setting aside the general presumption against development here. The banking and hedging which has been introduced will in time soften the visual impact of the development such that the proposal will appear much like any other agricultural cluster in the countryside with an acceptable visual and environmental impact. We would ask that the comments which have been submitted, along with the letters of support are taken into consideration along

with the absence of any objection and that what is proposed may be seen as an acceptable form of development whose function delivers considerable benefit to the Island.

Sarah Corlett 13.03.26