2 May 2024 · Acting Head of Development Management (Abigail Morgan)
Field 432477, Douglas Road, Ballasalla, Isle Of Man, IM9 3dn
The proposal sought retrospective approval for works already partly undertaken on a rural field, including widening an existing access from Douglas Road by removing gate pillars, creating a pull-in area surfaced in dark gravel aggregate, and installing a perimeter track around the field edges.
Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.
See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.
The officer concluded there was insufficient essential agricultural need demonstrated for the surfacing, pull-in area, and perimeter track, as the site lacks an established farming operation, vehicles…
General Policy 3
GP3(f) permits operations essential for the conduct of agriculture in countryside, requiring real agricultural need per Section 7.13. Officer found no established farm operation, no evidence of vehicle needs or frequency, and existing Malew Road access sufficient, so works not essential.
Environment Policy 1
Protects countryside for its own sake from harmful development. Pull-in area and track's engineered appearance, dark aggregate, and visibility from highway/footpath create incongruous, suburban intrusion with non-local materials, harming rural character in Landscape Areas F8/D14.
Strategic Policy 3 - To respect the character of our towns and villages
Promotes good design appropriate to locality. Track and pull-in visually dominant relative to field size, not sympathetic to landscape, introducing manmade features out of keeping with open fields and hedges.
Strategic Policy 4
Protects/enhances rural landscape quality. Proposal spreads imported materials, detracts from green rural quality, visible as detrimental intrusion.
Spatial Policy 5
Promotes use of local materials and character. Dark gravel aggregate and concrete/tarmac not characteristic of countryside, drawing attention compared to prior natural earth.
Environment Policy 14
No loss of high-quality agricultural land unless overriding need. 21% field loss (Class 1/2 soil) unacceptable without justification, on small 7.7-acre holding.
General Policy 2
GP2(g) protects neighbouring amenity. Intensified vehicle use adjacent to Maggies Cottage gable causes noise, activity, vibrations.
Environment Policy 22
Addresses impacts like noise on neighbours. Agricultural traffic intensification harms living conditions.
Environment Policy 23
Protects neighbours from adverse impacts. Proposal worsens current situation near residential property.
No objections (04/04/2024)
Do Not Oppose (18/03/2024) - no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking.
Highway Services HDC and Malew Parish Commissioners both raised no objections to application 24/00246/B.
Highway Services HDC
No ObjectionAfter reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking.
Malew Parish Commissioners
No ObjectionI can confirm that Malew Parish Commissioners have no objections to the following planning applications.; 24/00246/B Field 432477 Douglas Road, Ballasalla Modifications to an existing agricultural field access (field ref: 432477) and creation of a new perimeter track
The original application for modifications to an existing agricultural field access (widening to 6m, wall alterations, pull-in area) and creation of a perimeter track on Field 432477 was refused by delegated decision for reasons including lack of essential agricultural need (GP3(f)), adverse visual impact on countryside (EP1, SP2-5), loss of high-quality agricultural land (EP14), visual harm from wall reduction (EP1), and harm to neighbouring amenity at Maggies Cottage (GP2(g), EP22/23, EP15). Appellants argued agricultural need for heritage grain cultivation linked to their business, minimal visual impact in context of main road and local precedents, no additional land loss, compliance with highway standards, and no neighbour objections after nearly a year of use. The Inspector found insufficient evidence of essential agricultural need given small scale, alternative accesses, and temporary origins of works; unacceptable visual harm from urbanising materials and loss of traditional stone wall; no additional land loss but overall harm to countryside; and adverse noise/disturbance to Maggies Cottage despite no objections. The appeal was dismissed on 5th September 2024, upholding the refusal.
Precedent Value
Demonstrates strict application of GP3(f) requiring robust evidence of essential need for countryside engineering works, beyond business preferences or small-scale intensification; visual/heritage protection (stone walls) and neighbour amenity carry significant weight even adjacent to main roads; future applicants must submit full need evidence upfront, consider alternatives, and propose landscape-sympatheic materials.
Inspector: Frances Mahoney MRTPI IHBC
