216548

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                                 25/90192/B
                                 Page  1  of  16

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 25/90192/B Applicant : Mr Mark Pearce Proposal : Erection of replacement stone wall; creation of new vehicular access and driveway; erection of boundary fencing with drainage channel Site Address : Close Jairg Beg Old Church Road Crosby Isle Of Man IM4 2HA

Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 11.07.2025 Site Visit : 11.07.2025 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 21.07.2025 __

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

C 1. The development hereby approved, including the access, visibility, and driveway, shall be provided and surfaced strictly in accordance with the details shown on the approved plan (Drawing No. 21-01-100 REV C - Proposed Site Plan and Wall Elevation) prior to the first use of the access. Once provided, all access arrangements shall thereafter be permanently retained as such.

Reason: To ensure the provision of a means of access to an adequate standard in the interests of road safety.

C 2. The boundary fencing shown on the approved plan (Drawing No. 21-01-100 REV C - Proposed Site Plan and Wall Elevation) shall be no greater than 1.8m in height and shall be erected and completed in full prior to the first use of the new vehicular access hereby approved and shall thereafter be permanently retained in that form. The fencing shall be maintained to ensure continued physical and functional separation between the residential curtilage of Close Jairg Beg and the adjoining land to the south. At no time shall the residential dwelling and the adjoining land be reconnected by vehicular means, including through the reinstatement of any internal driveway link.

Reason: To secure and retain the functional separation that forms the basis of the highway safety justification for the development, and to ensure compliance with General Policy 2(h) and the Manual for Manx Roads (Section B.4.1).

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                                 25/90192/B
                                 Page  2  of  16

C 3. The development shall be carried out using the Cellweb root protection system and crushed stone sub-base detailed in paragraph 2.6 of the supporting planning statement. These measures shall be fully implemented and retained in situ for the lifetime of the driveway.

Reason: To protect the health and longevity of trees within the Registered Tree Area in accordance with Environment Policy 3 and General Policy 2(f).

C 4. Within 2 months of the date of this permission, a detailed Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) and Tree Protection Plan (TPP), prepared by a qualified arboriculturist, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The AMS and TPP shall assess the impact of all works already undertaken within or adjacent to the Registered Tree Area (RA0346), including excavation and levelling operations. The submission shall also set out any remedial or protective measures necessary to safeguard retained trees, and these measures shall be implemented in full within 1 month of approval and retained thereafter for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To mitigate the impact of previously undertaken works and to ensure the ongoing protection of trees within a Registered Tree Area, in accordance with Environment Policy 3 and General Policy 2(f).

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposal is considered acceptable when assessed against the development plan as a whole. While the absence of arboricultural and ecological documentation weighs against the application, the principle of development is established, and the revised access arrangements address previous highway safety concerns, achieving compliance with General Policy 2(h & i). The scheme also delivers a contextually sensitive visual and landscape response, consistent with Strategic Policy 5(a), which supports high-quality and locally appropriate design. Although environmental shortcomings remain, the Planning Inspector previously indicated that such matters could, in principle, be addressed by conditions requiring the submission of additional specialist arboricultural and ecological information. In light of the site's planning history, the reduced environmental impact relative to the earlier scheme, and the potential to mitigate outstanding risks via robust safeguards, the application is judged to be acceptable on balance, subject to conditions securing tree protection and biodiversity measures. Approval is therefore recommended in accordance with Environment Policies 3 and 4, General Policy 2, and Strategic Policies 4(b) and 5(a).

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This decision relates to the following documents and plans: o Drawing No. 21-01-100 REV C - Proposed Site Plan and Wall Elevation o Drawing No. 101 - Existing Site Plan Details o Drawing No. TS-5919 A - Tree Survey (Tree Constraints) o Photographs o Cover Letter dated 21 February 2025. o Email Correspondence between the applicant and DOI Highways dated 15 April 2025, and o Email received 30 June 2025

__

Right to Appeal

It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: o DOI Highways - as they have no objections.

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                                 25/90192/B
                                 Page  3  of  16

It is recommended that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal on the basis that they have submitted a relevant objection: o Marown Parish Commissioners

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given the Right to Appeal as they have submitted an objection that meets the specified criteria: o Marown Memorial Playing Fields, Crosby __

Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AS THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS MADE WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS OBJECTING TO THE APPLICATION AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site comprises the property known as Close Jairg Beg, a detached dwelling located on the east side of Old Church Road, Crosby. The house is set within extensive grounds and is positioned just north of the Douglas-Peel Heritage Trail. The property fronts west toward the Marown Memorial Playing Fields, with Close Jairg, another residential property, situated immediately to the north.

1.2 The wider landholding extends to approximately 2.6 hectares and includes Field 324318, which wraps around the southern and eastern sides of the dwelling and is under the same ownership. The existing access to the property is located at the south western corner of this field. While this access has historically served both the dwelling and the surrounding land, its relationship to the residential curtilage has been interpreted differently in past planning decisions.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for erection of replacement stone wall along the front boundary; creation of new vehicular access and driveway; erection of boundary fencing with drainage channel. It should be noted these works are partial retrospective which includes the replacement stone wall and creation of the access.

2.2 The new access, to the house, would measure 4m wide and be connected to a new driveway that would be 4m wide and be positioned about 33m north of the existing access and driveway serving the site. This new driveway would terminate in front of the dwelling where it meets the existing driveway tarmac in front of the dwelling. The new access would have sight lines provided to show min 2.4m x 34m to the North and in excess of 2.4m x 49m to the south with no obstruction or vegetation above 1.05m in height.

2.3 Prior to this application the existing boundary treatment (sodbank and walls) had been removed. As part of this application, it is proposed to erect a new Manx stone wall along the front boundary between what would be the two accesses. To enable the access, with a new low boundary wall created along the boundary where these existed. From the photographs submitted it can be seen that the wall has already been erected and as such this part of the scheme is retrospective.

2.4 The current access serving the site and the adjoining field is to be retained to only serve the field, while a section of the driveway that currently serves dwelling would be removed with apx 6m hardstanding being retained. In addition, a new garden fence is shown with drainage which would create a boundary demarcation between the curtilage and the land area providing access to the fields.

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                                 25/90192/B
                                 Page  4  of  16

2.5 The proposal initially involved only partially closing the existing driveway, rendering it effectively identical to that previously refused under application PA 21/00796/B. However, following consultation with DOI Highways, the scheme has been revised to ensure full site segregation, so that a single, dedicated access point now serves the dwelling.

2.6 The applicant has provided the following clarifications in support of the proposal in their covering letter: 1. The original Manx stone boundary wall was collapsing and encroaching onto the footpath. It has been removed and is proposed to be rebuilt using reclaimed stone from the original structure. 2. The proposed new driveway is located to optimise visibility along Old Church Road, with sightlines of at least 2.4m x 43m in both directions. The new boundary wall will not exceed 1 metre in height to maintain these sightlines. 3. The driveway is positioned outside the root spread of any existing trees. Nonetheless, it will be constructed using a Cellweb root protection system with crushed stone to safeguard any roots that may extend toward the driveway. 4. A large Elm tree previously included in the tree survey has been removed due to advanced disease and has been certified for removal. 5. The existing driveway will be physically separated from the new house access and will remain in use to serve the remainder of the landholding.

2.7 Following discussions with the applicants regarding clarification of elements of the proposed development, the applicant's agent has provided correspondence which details the following (30 June 2025): Clarification of the Purpose of the Fence and Access Arrangements 1. The existing access was previously used to serve both the house and Fields 324318 and 324316. Historically, a fenced track adjacent to the Heritage Trail provided access to Field 324316. 2. The new access will serve only the house, Close Jairg Beg. The existing access will be retained solely for Fields 324318 and 324316. There will be no vehicular access from the house to these fields. 3. Field 320912 (the top field) will continue to be accessed via the existing entrance onto Peel Road. 4. Pedestrian access from the house will be maintained through gates leading to the southern field and former garden area, including Field 324318, but not Field 324316. 5. The fence was requested by the Highways Division to prevent the house from having two vehicular access points. It also serves a domestic function by containing the applicant's dog within the garden area.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Site Specific: 3.1.1 The application site is within an area not zoned for development on the Area Plan for the East (Map 10 - Crosby). The site is not within a Conservation Area and the broader site area is not within a Registered Tree Area. However, the tree along the entire site frontage which adjoins the Old Church Road sit within a Registered Tree Area. None of the trees along the site frontage are registered, although there are seven registered trees strung along the eastern boundary of the site with Field 320912. Most of the site area has high likelihood of surface water flood risks, although the proposed access area is not prone to flood risks.

3.1.2 The initial Area Plan for the East Map for Crosby (Map 10) initially zoned the northern part of the site as Predominantly Residential, with the southern part not zoned for any particular purpose. "Following a High Court judgment on the 19 November 2021 brought under Section 5 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, the High Court has quashed Map 10 in so far as it affects the property Close Jairg Beg, Old Church Road, Crosby, set out in the approved Area Plan for the East. As a result of this judgment, no part of the title of Close Jairg Beg including the existing bungalow is within the settlement boundary on Map 10 of the Area

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                                 25/90192/B
                                 Page  5  of  16

Plan for the East, which was brought into operation by the Town and Country Planning (Area Plan for the East) Order 2020. As a consequence, Map 3 has also been updated to reflect this." As well, the settlement boundary of Crosby on Map 10 of the Area Plan for the East, has also been updated to reflect this change.

3.2 The Area Plan incorporates the findings of the Landscape Character Appraisal as follows: 3.2.1 Union Mills, Glen Vine & Crosby (C3) Landscape Strategy "Conserve and enhance a) the character, quality and distinctiveness of the well treed valley with some scattered and nucleated settlements."

Key Views "Open views up to the Northern Uplands and the upper slopes of Foxdale in places. Glimpsed views in the east towards the urban edge of Douglas."

3.2.2 Natural Environment Proposal 4 (Green Gap) states that between the settlements of Glen Vine and Crosby, development which would erode the separation and detract from the openness between the settlements is unlikely to be supported.

3.3 National: STRATEGIC PLAN (2016) 3.3.1 The Strategic Plan stipulates a general presumption against development in areas which are not designated for a particular purpose and where the protection of the countryside is of paramount importance (EP 1 and GP3). As currently proposed, the scheme does not pass any of the exemptions for development that would be allowed in the countryside. However, given that the application site is serves an existing dwelling, it would be relevant to consider the general development considerations articulated in General Policy 2.

3.3.2 Relevant Strategic Plan Policies: 1. General Policy 3 - Exceptions to development in the countryside. 2. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations. 3. Environment Policy 1 - Protection of the countryside and inherent ecology. 4. Environment Policy 4 - Protects biodiversity (including protected species and designated sites). 5. Environment Policy 3 - Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value. 6. Environment Policy 5 - Mitigation against damage to or loss of habitats. 7. Environment Policies 10 and 13 - presume against development which would affect or be affected by flooding. 8. Environment Policy 42 - character and need to adhere to local distinctiveness. 9. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources 10. Strategic Policy 2: New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions (2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3. 11. Strategic Policy 4 - development proposals must protect or enhance the nature conservation and landscape quality of urban as well as rural areas. 12. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact 13. Spatial Policy 5 - Development in countryside only in accordance with General Policy 3. 14. Transport Policy 4 - Highway capacity and safety considerations. 15. Transport Policy 6 - Equal weight for vehicles and pedestrians. 16. Transport Policy 7 - Parking considerations/standards for development. 17. Paragraph 7.4: Landscape Protection:

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                                 25/90192/B
                                 Page  6  of  16

"7.4.1 Development which is permitted in 'Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance' or in important landscape and coastal areas as recognised by any new landscape classification, will be subject to higher design standards than would normally be required. Development must be properly integrated into the landscape in terms of scale, materials, architectural style, engineering works and landscaping. Landscape features such as trees, hedgerows, sod banks or traditional stone walls which are important to landscape character should be retained. In cases where development is not capable of being sensitively and unobtrusively integrated into the landscape, permission will not be granted".

4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 THE MANUAL FOR MANX ROADS: 4.1.1 Section B4: Access Layouts It states: "B.4.1 The general rule is one access point to and from a property. More than one access point increases the potential for traffic conflict. Applications for two access crossings to a single property or a second access point where one already exists require you to provide strong evidence that it will add significantly to highway safety.

B.4.2 For such applications to be considered, the applicant will need to show: o how a second access will add to the safety of the access arrangements o why such added safety cannot be achieved from a single access, or by improving or repositioning an existing access.

"B.4.8 You must provide an access of consolidated and bound surfacing material over at least the first 5.0 m (6.0 m for a field access) adjacent to the public highway to minimise the risk of loose material being carried onto the highway".

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

4.2 IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025 The Department's Biodiversity Strategy is capable of being a material consideration. It seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary.

5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The planning history of the site is relevant to the current application, particularly in relation to the status of the land surrounding Close Jairg Beg and the interpretation of its curtilage.

5.2 Close Jiarg Beg was approved under planning applications 87/04110/A and 88/00415/B. These permissions allowed for the erection of the dwelling and the formation of the access in its present location. Since that time, the site has come to include a triangular area of land and associated trees situated to the north of the driveway.

5.3 PA 15/01156/A for Approval in principle for the residential development of thirty-six dwellings addressing siting and means of access - Refused at Appeal. In 2017, the Planning Inspector considered an appeal under PA 15/01156/A across a wider area including Fields 320912, 324316, and 324318 (which is included in the current redline boundary and sits south of the dwelling). In his report dated 4 April 2017, the Inspector described the majority of the appeal site as open fields and concluded that the land made a significant contribution to the rural character of the area. At paragraph 64, the Inspector stated:

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                                 25/90192/B
                                 Page  7  of  16

"The greater part of the appeal site consists of fields bounded by hedges containing numerous fine trees. In my view, it makes a substantial contribution to the open rural character of the landscape."

5.3.1 The Inspector did not explicitly define the residential curtilage of Close Jairg Beg in that decision, but the description of the land as open countryside implied that the fields, including Field 324318, were not considered part of the domestic curtilage for the purposes of that appeal.

5.3.2 Other relevant parts of the Inspectors report includes the following: "The development plan as it applies to the appeal site 61 In the 1982 Development Plan, the appeal site is shown to be within an Area of High Landscape Value but is not zoned for development. Paragraph 1.4.2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 makes it clear that those parts of the Island which are not the subject of approved Local Plans are covered by the land-use zones on the 1982 Development Plan. The appeal site is not within the area of any of the approved Local Plans. Therefore, it is covered by the land-use zones in the 1982 Development Plan.

62 The fact that, in 1987 and 1988, planning approvals were granted for the erection of a single dwelling on the present appeal site does not alter the land-use zoning of this land as shown in the Development Plan. Section 2(7) and Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 set out the procedural arrangements for the revision or repeal of the Development Plan. A grant of planning approval is clearly not sufficient to effect such a revision. The 1987 and 1988 decisions merely authorised the erection of a single dwelling; they did not alter Development Plan policy. "

5.4 A later appeal was determined in 2022 under application 21/00796/B (Appeal AP22/0028), which related to the construction of a new driveway, boundary fence, and garden levelling works at Close Jairg Beg. In that case, the Inspector accepted that the entire site formed part of the residential curtilage. At paragraph 7 of the report dated 17 October 2022, the Inspector stated: "It was also confirmed at the Hearing that the entire appeal site constitutes the domestic curtilage of Close Jairg Beg, by virtue of the original planning approval granted for the erection of the dwelling in 1988."

5.4.1 This more recent decision provides a clear and authoritative position on the curtilage status of the land, which is now treated as established for the purposes of this application.

5.4.2 The following parts of the Inspectors Report are specifically relevant to the current application: "Planning Policy and Guidance the Area Plan for the East (APE) 7. It was confirmed at the Hearing that the site is within an area unallocated for development in the APE as the relevant part of the APE has been legally quashed. It was also confirmed that the entire appeal site constitutes the domestic curtilage of Close Jairg Beg, by virtue of the original planning approval granted for the erection of the dwelling in 1988. 8. The APE incorporates the findings of the Landscape Character Appraisal (LCA). These include that, within the Union Mills, Glen Vine and Crosby Landscape Strategy Area C3, which includes the appeal site, the character, quality and distinctiveness of the welltreed valley should be conserved and enhanced. 9. Natural Environment Proposal 4 (NEP4) (Green Gap) states that between the settlements of Glen Vine and Crosby, development which would erode the separation and detract from the openness between the settlements is unlikely to be supported.

Assessment by the Inspector Planning Issues

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                                 25/90192/B
                                 Page  8  of  16

72. The appeal site is in the countryside outside the defined built settlement of Crosby but, as the land comprises the established residential curtilage of Close Jairg Beg, I find no objection in principle to the property having an additional vehicular driveway, provided this complies with relevant protective policies of the development plan. 73. I consider that the main issues about which this appeal turns are: highway safety, visual impact, effect on trees, impact on biodiversity, the degree of need for the new driveway and any planning benefits of the development. Highway Safety 74. There is no evident technical highway objection to the design of the proposed driveway in terms of entrance visibility or layout geometry. However, it is relevant that the advice of the MfMR is that an additional entrance is only justified where there would be an improvement to highway safety as a result. 75. In this case, the new entrance would be placed at the narrowest point of Old Church Road, where on-street parking frequently occurs due to activity at the Memorial Playing Fields opposite. There would be a degree of conflict between vehicles entering or leaving the property and passing pedestrians. This might be exacerbated by the frequent presence cars parked close to the entrance. 76. In my judgement this arrangement would be less safe that the use of the existing access further to the south. Moreover, the existence of two entrances to the same property would further reduce road safety, even with the present driveway severed from the house and limited to providing access to the associated fields. 77. I recognise that traffic on Old Church Road can be calmed by the mere presence of parked vehicles, reducing the effective width of the highway, but the Road evidently carries significant numbers of vehicles, including some large commercial vehicles. 78. The MfMR is advisory in status but properly informs judgement as to whether highway safety is maintained in terms of planning policy. On balance, I do not consider that the proposed developed is to be regarded as compliant with the aims of GP2, TP4 and TP6 of the IMSP to safeguard all road users including pedestrians.

Impact on Trees 80. I accept that there would be no immediate loss of mature trees consequent upon the construction of the proposed driveway and that retained trees would be reasonably well protected during the works. 81. I note the assertion of the Appellants that the root areas of the trees adjacent to the drive would be safeguarded by the Cellweb system. I also recognise the misgivings of the Arboricultural Officer in the absence of a full arboricultural impact assessment. From inspection I consider there to be significant uncertainty as to the precise levels of the driveway and earthworks necessary to construct it between the protected trees concerned. If medium- to long-term damage occurred to the protected trees as a result of the development, the tree canopy could be reduced, increasing the harm to visual amenity due to the development. 82. I accept that there would be little threat of harm to trees elsewhere on the site due to limited levelling works to the garden area. However, I am not persuaded on the available evidence that the appeal proposal is compliant with the objective of EP3 of the IMSP to protect woodland.

Impact on Biodiveristy 83. The appeal site will, by its nature, have biodiversity value which must at least be maintained overall. There is insufficient evidence that this would be achieved after the disruption to habitats necessarily occasioned by the driveway construction and garden levelling works. 84. In this respect, in the absence of an ecological assessment, I am not satisfied that the development would comply with aims of EP4 of the IMSP and the Biodiversity Strategy.

Need and Benefits 85. Plainly, there is no overriding national need for a new private drive and the existing entrance and driveway, or potential adaptions to it, offer a reasonable alternative to an entirely

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                                 25/90192/B
                                 Page  9  of  16

new entrance and driveway. The development accordingly does not meet the exceptions of GP3 of the IMSP. 86. The degree of need for the development amounts to little more than a preference by the Appellants to re-route the driveway for reasons of economy and convenience. 87. Any benefit of the development would be similarly limited. Conclusions 88. In my overall view, the objection related to highway safety alone warrants dismissal of this appeal and the degree of adverse visual impact adds weight to the case against the proposed development. The minimal degree of planning need and benefit does not affect this judgement. 89. For these reasons I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed. 90. The Minister is entitled to reach a different balance of judgement, in which case I suggest a range of conditions to be imposed on any approval granted. 91. It is possible that the uncertainties surrounding the protection of tree roots and biodiversity could be addressed by conditions requiring the submission of additional specialist arboricultural and ecological information of the kind mentioned by the Planning Authority and their consultees and set out in the Schedule of putative conditions appended below. However, because of these uncertainties I decline to recommend a split decision favouring only the levelling works."

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

6.1 DOI Highways Division had initially made the following comments on the application (3 March 2025): 1. The applicant should demonstrated visibility splays at the new site access of 2.4 x 43m in each direction onto Old Church Road as per Manual for Manx Roads Appendix B. 2. The applicant should demonstrate intervisibility splays at the new site access onto the footway of Old Church Road of 2.4 x 2.4m in each direction as per Manual for Manx Roads Appendix B. 3. The existing access should be closed up from highway boundary unless the new access, parking area and dwelling is fenced off completely from the existing access and driveway. 4. The Applicant should address the above issues before HDC will not oppose the application. They noted that a S109 highway agreement will be required for the new access and dropped kerb onto Old Church Road on any future approved planning permission.

6.1.1 Following review of amendments that addressed the visibility concerns, erection of fence to demarcate the site into two separate units, with the driveway to the existing dwelling partially removed, DOI highways considered the proposal to be acceptable (15 April 2025).

6.2 DEFA Forestry have not made any comments although they were consulted on 25 February 2025/7 May 2025.

6.3 Manx Utilities Authority - Electricity have not made any comments although they were consulted on 25 February 2025/7 May 2025.

6.4 Marown Parish Commissioners object to the application due to concerns about the loss of parking spaces and additionally the visibility splays that would be required for a new vehicular access (20 March 2025).

6.5 Marown Memorial Playing Fields object to the application on the following grounds (13 March 2025): 1. There is no clear necessity for an additional entrance, as a perfectly adequate entrance already exists.

==== PAGE 10 ====

                                                 25/90192/B                                      Page  10  of  16

2. The proposed entrance is located on a narrower section of Old Church Road than the existing one, potentially increasing traffic hazards. 3. Relocating the entrance may lead to extended parking restrictions on Old Church Road, which is heavily relied upon by users of the Playing Fields, particularly elderly and infant visitors. 4. Vehicles currently parked on the easterly side of Old Church Road help to slow down traffic. Their removal could increase vehicle speeds, posing a danger to pedestrians and cyclists. 5. The road is used by large commercial vehicles accessing the DOI Ellerslie Depot. Increased traffic speed would endanger users of the children's play area, cycle track, and the Heritage Trail, all of which require crossing Old Church Road. 6. The application closely resembles Application No. 21/00796/B, which was previously refused. No new circumstances have been presented to justify a different outcome. 7. The traditional Manx hedgerow, which supported wildlife, was removed in October 2023 and replaced with a stone wall, suggesting the application is retrospective and that works have commenced without approval. 8. The applicant appears to have disregarded the planning process and proceeded with construction in breach of the previously refused application. 9. The applicant has already visually created the opening for the additional entrance, indicating a lack of respect for due process. 10. The Committee requests to be granted "Interested Person Status" as their land lies within 20 metres of the proposed site.

7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The key considerations in the assessment of this planning application are: 1. The principle of the development; 2. Curtilage Definition and Ancillary Relationship of Land; 3. Visual and Landscape Impacts; 4. Highway Safety Impacts; 5. Impact on Trees; and 6. Impact on Biodiversity

7.2 THE PRINCIPLE (EP1, GP 3, STP 2, SP 5, GP 2 (h), & MFMR) 7.2.1 The application site is located within an area of open countryside, outside any defined settlement boundary or development zoning under the Area Plan for the East. As such, the Strategic Plan policies that seek to constrain development in the countryside apply in full, namely, Strategic Policy 2, which directs new development primarily to established towns and villages; Spatial Policy 5, which reinforces that position; and General Policy 3, which provides a narrowly defined set of exceptions.

7.2.2 The proposed development, the creation of a new vehicular access, associated boundary walling, drainage channel, and fencing, does not fall within the limited exceptions set out under General Policy 3.

7.2.3 However, paragraph 7.2.3 of the Strategic Plan recognises that, in certain circumstances, a need may arise outside settlements that was not foreseen at the time of plan preparation. The proposed access falls into that category: it addresses a practical site-specific requirement, the safe and operational separation of residential and agricultural access routes. This is not an intensification of use, nor does it extend built form or introduce development on previously undeveloped land. Instead, it represents a discrete infrastructural improvement to the management of a lawful dwelling within a contained site.

7.2.4 It is acknowledged that previous proposal to introduce a second access at this location was refused, and that an objector maintains that nothing has materially changed. However, the revised scheme introduces a clear and meaningful distinction: the site is now proposed to be formally segregated, such that the dwelling would be served solely by one access point, and

==== PAGE 11 ====

                                                 25/90192/B                                      Page  11  of  16

the retained entrance would serve only the adjoining land. This satisfies the general intent of the Manual for Manx Roads, which discourages multiple access points to a single unit unless functionally justified. The proposal also responds directly to the consultation response from the DOI Highways Division, who confirmed no objection once the revised layout and site separation were introduced.

7.2.5 The provision of physical separation through the erection of fencing is fundamental to the acceptability of the current scheme. While the fence may constitute permitted development in its own right, its function in planning terms is critical: it formally segregates the residential curtilage from the adjoining land, enabling each area to be served by its own dedicated access. This demarcation satisfies the expectations of the Manual for Manx Roads (Section B.4.1), which generally restricts multiple access points unless a demonstrable and enduring functional need exists. Crucially, the fencing also facilitates compliance with General Policy 2(h), which requires development to provide safe and convenient access for all highway users. In isolation, the new access does not inherently improve safety when compared to the existing arrangement. Indeed, in the absence of segregation, it would result in two entrances serving a single planning unit, a situation previously deemed by the planning inspector under PA 21/00796/B to be less safe than maintaining the original configuration. The inspector concluded that "the existence of two entrances to the same property would reduce road safety," reinforcing that the key safety concern lies not with the geometry of the access itself, but with the functional duplication and associated potential for vehicle and pedestrian conflict. The fencing, therefore, does not simply support the scheme, it is central to its planning justification. Without it, the proposal would fail to demonstrate the policy-compliant benefits now claimed, and the principle of a separate access would collapse. To prevent future erosion of this rationale, its retention would be secured by condition, ensuring that the access and internal layout remain materially linked to the principle now deemed acceptable.

7.2.6 On balance, although the site lies within the countryside and the development does not meet a strict exception under General Policy 3, the site-specific functional need, combined with the scheme's scale, containment, and positive response to policy guidance and consultation, support a conclusion that the development is acceptable in principle, subject to assessment of the other matters detailed in 7.1 above.

7.3 CURTILAGE DEFINITION AND ANCILLARY RELATIONSHIP OF LAND (General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1, Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policies 4 and 5). 7.3.1 The proposal introduces a new boundary fence and vehicular access, physically and functionally separating the dwelling from the wider landholding. While the 2022 appeal decision (PA 21/00796/B) accepted that the entire site formed part of the residential curtilage, that conclusion was based on the physical and functional arrangement at the time. Planning law recognises that curtilage is not fixed in perpetuity. It is a matter of fact and degree, assessed in context, and must be re-evaluated where changes to boundaries or use undermine the integrated operation of the land.

7.3.3 In this case, the proposed 1.8m boundary fence and the creation of a separate vehicular access introduce both physical and operational severance. The fence creates a spatial break in the land's continuity, while the new access serves only the dwelling and the original access is retained for the adjoining fields. Although a pedestrian gate is proposed, case law (e.g. Methuen-Campbell v Walters, Burford v SSCLG) confirms that such features do not preserve curtilage unity where the land is otherwise divided and used independently.

7.3.4 The applicant has clarified that the fence was requested by DOI Highways to prevent dual access and to contain a domestic pet. However, the planning consequence remains: the land is now functionally and physically divided. As established in Burdle v SoS and Wakelin v SSE, planning must assess the effect of changes, not the applicant's intention. A new, independent access point has been created to serve the enclosed land, separate from the main residential access. This second access facilitates direct entry from the public highway and

==== PAGE 12 ====

                                                 25/90192/B                                      Page  12  of  16

further supports the functional and physical separation of the land from the domestic curtilage. It also enables the dwelling to be used independently of the land, reinforcing its status as a distinct planning unit.

7.4 VISUAL IMPACT & LANDSCAPE IMPACT (GP2 (b, c, f, g), SP1b, STP5) 7.4.1 General Policy 2 requires that development respect the site and surroundings in terms of siting, scale, design, and landscape integration, while Strategic Policy 1b and STP5 promote locally appropriate and sensitive design, particularly in rural areas. The original character of the western boundary of Close Jairg Beg was defined by a vegetated stone wall and mature trees, contributing to the rural visual rhythm along this section of Old Church Road. However, the site context has evolved: the prominent Elm tree was removed under licence due to disease (see paragraph 2.6), and the boundary, visually interpreted to appear as a sodbank due to dense vegetation, was also cleared. These works have redefined the visual baseline of the site.

7.4.2 In its place, the proposal has introduced a 1.05m high boundary wall, constructed from Manx stone and rendered on the internal face. The new wall reflects a traditional boundary typology widely established along this part of Old Church Road. Its height, materials, and finish are consistent with adjacent rural boundary treatments along the Memorial Playing Fields. The design therefore demonstrates a locally responsive architectural rationale, avoiding the kind of "placeless" or "anywhere architecture" cautioned against in paragraph 4.3.8 of the Strategic Plan. It also does not exceed the scale or visual prominence of surrounding walls, thereby avoiding dominance in the streetscape.

7.4.3 Whilst the loss of the original Manx stone wall is regrettable, its replacement with a wall that adopts a vernacular form, using locally sourced materials, represents a measured and site- specific response. The access and hardstanding are visually contained, and the limited visual impact on the broader street scene is further softened by remaining vegetation and site enclosure. In views from the Heritage Trail, glimpses of the change may be possible, but these are neither expansive nor visually intrusive given the setback and treatment proposed.

7.4.4 Overall, the proposed design reflects a reasonable interpretation of rural design principles, honouring local context without rigidly replicating past forms. The wall contributes to a coherent boundary appearance and avoids features that would erode landscape quality or rural legibility. On that basis, the proposal is not considered to result in adverse visual impact and is compliant with General Policy 2 (b), (c), (f), and (g), SP1b, and STP5.

7.5 IMPACT ON HIGHWAY (GP 2 h&i, Transport Policy 4 & 6, RDG) 7.5.1 General Policy 2(h & i) of the Strategic Plan requires that development provide safe and convenient access for all highway users and avoid unacceptable effects on road safety or traffic flows. Transport Policies 4 and 6 reinforce this by prioritising access design that safeguards both vehicles and pedestrians. Under application PA 21/00796/B, the proposal was previously found to conflict with these provisions due to duplicative access points, reduced visibility, and potential conflict with pedestrian movement along Old Church Road.

7.5.2 The current application addresses those concerns through material revisions to the site layout and access arrangements. These include the introduction of a fully segregated layout, achieved by erecting a boundary fence that separates the residential dwelling from the retained field, and the partial removal of the internal driveway connection to prevent vehicular overlap between the two areas. Additionally, the proposal includes the provision of full visibility splays measuring 2.4 metres by 43 metres in both directions, along with intervisibility splays of 2.4 metres by 2.4 metres with the pedestrian footway, in accordance with the standards set out in Appendix B of the Manual for Manx Roads. These revisions were reviewed by the DOI Highways Division, whose initial comments dated 3 March 2025 required compliance with visibility and layout standards and either closure or clear segregation of the original access. Following submission of revised plans demonstrating these changes, DOI Highways confirmed

==== PAGE 13 ====

                                                 25/90192/B                                      Page  13  of  16

on 15 April 2025 that the application was acceptable in highway terms, subject to the execution of a Section 109 agreement to implement a dropped kerb at the new access point.

7.5.3 Section B.4.1 of the Manual for Manx Roads establishes a general presumption against multiple access points to a single property unless a second access demonstrably improves highway safety. This reflects the broader aims of General Policy 2(h & i). The concern raised by the Inspector in the 2022 appeal decision, that two accesses serving the same planning unit would reduce road safety, has now been substantively addressed through the physical and functional separation of the residential dwelling from the retained field. By erecting fencing and removing the internal driveway link, the current scheme ensures that each access serves a distinct and independent use. While the new access may introduce an additional point of conflict on the highway, it is deemed acceptable by virtue of the separation now proposed. This distinction satisfies the exception threshold under MfMR B.4.1 and aligns with the safety and access provisions of General Policy 2.

7.5.4 Objections were raised by the Marown Parish Commissioners and the Marown Memorial Playing Fields Committee. Concerns included the loss of on-street parking, adequacy of visibility splays, and the necessity of a second access where one already exists. The Playing Fields Committee further noted that the proposed access lies on a narrower section of Old Church Road, where parked vehicles currently help to calm traffic, and argued that their removal could increase vehicle speeds, posing risks to pedestrians, cyclists, and users of nearby community facilities such as the children's play area and the Heritage Trail. These concerns are valid in principle and reflect the broader aims of Transport Policies 4 and 6, which seek to protect vulnerable road users.

7.5.5 While these objections are noted, it is also relevant that DOI Highways, having reviewed the revised layout and visibility data, did not maintain an objection. The proposed access meets the technical visibility standards set out in the Manual for Manx Roads, and the physical separation of uses addresses the core issue identified in the previous refusal. The impact on parking is limited in scale and does not materially compromise the operation or accessibility of the playing fields or the local highway network.

7.5.6 The development is therefore considered to achieve compliance with General Policy 2(h & i), the Manual for Manx Roads, Transport Policies 4 and 6, and the Residential Design Guide by demonstrating that each access point now serves a clearly differentiated purpose. Although the scheme does not enhance safety relative to the baseline condition, it addresses the core concern identified in the previous refusal by ensuring that the new access serves a distinct planning function. Notwithstanding the technical compliance and the absence of objection from DOI Highways, it is acknowledged that the proposed access introduces a new point of interaction on a constrained section of road. The concerns raised by third parties regarding pedestrian safety, traffic behaviour, and the loss of informal traffic calming remain material and are not dismissed lightly. However, in the absence of a sustained objection from the statutory highway authority, the Department must give appropriate weight to their professional advice. The continued acceptability of the scheme is therefore contingent on the long-term retention of the functional separation between the dwelling and the adjoining land, which must be secured by condition to ensure that the planning justification for the new access remains valid.

7.6 Impact on Trees (EP3 & GP2) 7.6.1 Tree-related considerations fall under the scope of Environment Policy 3 and General Policy 2(f), both of which require development to safeguard protected or locally important trees and existing landscape features. In this case, only one tree has been removed, a diseased Elm, taken out under licence as confirmed at paragraph 2.6 of this report. No further tree removals are proposed. Accordingly, the relevant assessment now shifts to whether the proposed development, including excavation for the access and boundary works, poses a risk of indirect harm to retained trees within the Registered Tree Area (RA0346).

==== PAGE 14 ====

                                                 25/90192/B                                      Page  14  of  16

7.6.2 While no new tree loss is proposed, the site of the new access and part of the driveway does lie within a Registered Tree Area, and therefore still warrants careful consideration as there is potential for the driveway to go over tree root areas. Though no formal consultation response has been received from DEFA Forestry for this revised scheme, previous concerns, raised during the 2021/2022 application, highlighted the potential for root disturbance, canopy conflict, and cumulative construction pressure where development abuts or encroaches upon the root protection areas of retained trees.

7.6.3 In this application, the applicant has clarified that the proposed driveway has been positioned outside the root spread of any retained trees and will be constructed using a Cellweb root protection system with a crushed stone sub-base, aiming to minimise compaction and disturbance (see paragraph 2.6). This specification is broadly consistent with best-practice guidance for construction within proximity of mature trees. However, the submitted plans do not include a detailed Tree Protection Plan or Arboricultural Method Statement, and no site- specific methodology has been provided to confirm how excavation, levelling, or hard surfacing will be implemented without harming trees, particularly those along the western boundary, which lie within Registered Tree Area RA0346.

7.6.4 This omission of tree information is particularly relevant in light of the 2022 appeal decision, in which the Planning Inspector expressed concern about the "significant uncertainty" surrounding level changes required to construct the driveway and the associated risk of long- term damage to protected trees. The Inspector noted that, should such harm occur, it could result in reduced canopy coverage and a loss of visual amenity. Although the earlier proposal involved direct tree removals not repeated here, the underlying concern, potential root-zone disturbance, remains highly pertinent and weighs against the proposal. Notwithstanding these concerns, it is understood that the majority of the works associated with the new access, namely excavation and levelling works have already taken place. As such, the absence of any arboricultural submission now holds limited preventative value. However, in the interests of responsible development, it is considered essential that the Cellweb root protection system and construction method outlined in paragraph 2.6 (point 3) are treated as integral to the development and are fully implemented and retained. A suitably worded condition securing this commitment would be necessary to safeguard the long-term health and amenity value of the retained trees.

7.6.5 Given that the site lies within a Registered Tree Area, and the surrounding trees contribute significantly to local landscape character and visual amenity, the absence of a formal Arboricultural Method Statement or detailed tree protection plan remains a concern under policy. Without evidence of active arboricultural oversight during construction, there is continuing uncertainty over whether appropriate root protection measures were implemented effectively. While any mitigation at this stage would be retrospective, the current scheme does not fully demonstrate compliance with Environment Policy 3 or General Policy 2(f). However, these concerns could potentially be addressed through the imposition of planning conditions requiring post-construction arboricultural assessment and remedial measures, which may help to mitigate the identified shortcomings in the overall planning balance.

7.7 Impact on Biodiversity (EP1, EP4, SP4, & GP2) 7.7.1 In assessing the potential impacts on biodiversity, it is considered that the site lies outside any designated ecological protection area but forms part of the open countryside, where Environment Policy 1, Environment Policy 4, Strategic Policy 4(b), and General Policy 2(d) require development to conserve ecological value and avoid harm to species and habitats. No ecological appraisal or Preliminary Ecological Assessment has been submitted, despite previous recommendations from the Ecosystem Policy Team. The Planning Inspector in the 2022 appeal decision (paragraph 83) also identified this as a shortcoming, noting there was "insufficient evidence" that biodiversity value would be maintained following habitat disturbance. This concern remains relevant, as the current application still proposes

==== PAGE 15 ====

                                                 25/90192/B                                      Page  15  of  16

development on previously undeveloped land but provides no ecological information. Accordingly, the scheme does not demonstrate compliance with the above policies.

7.7.2 The current proposal does not include any assessment of potential biodiversity impacts or demonstrate how ecological value would be maintained. Environment Policy 4 and Strategic Policy 4(b) require development to show that biodiversity is not adversely affected, even where species or habitats are not subject to specific statutory protection. This expectation was also highlighted in the Planning Inspector's 2022 appeal decision. In the absence of ecological information or compensatory measures, the application fails to demonstrate compliance with EP4, SP4(b), and GP2(d). However, it is considered that this matter could be addressed by condition, requiring ecological assessment and appropriate mitigation.

7.7.3 While the extent of direct habitat loss is more limited than under the previous proposal, the absence of even basic ecological information continues to prevent a proper evaluation of potential impacts. Without clarity on whether local species or habitats may have been affected, or whether biodiversity protection or enhancement has been incorporated, there remains a clear policy gap. In line with the precautionary principle, and the expectations set out in EP4, SP4(b), and GP2(d), this unresolved impact weighs against the proposal in the planning balance.

8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The revised application demonstrates a material improvement over the previously refused scheme, particularly in relation to access safety and site layout. The introduction of a physically and functionally segregated access arrangement addresses the core concern raised in the 2022 appeal decision, and the Highway Authority has confirmed that the revised access is acceptable in principle. These changes bring the proposal into alignment with General Policy 2(h & i) and relevant highway guidance.

8.2 However, the application continues to fall short in its treatment of environmental matters. No Arboricultural Method Statement or Tree Protection Plan has been submitted, despite the site's location within a Registered Tree Area. Similarly, the absence of any ecological appraisal or biodiversity enhancement measures, despite previous recommendations and the Inspector's own findings, represents a clear policy shortfall under Environment Policies 3 and 4, Strategic Policy 4(b), and General Policy 2(d and f). That said, the Planning Inspector previously acknowledged that conditions could be used to secure appropriate tree protection measures and mitigate ecological impacts, even in the absence of upfront documentation. In this context, it is considered that approval would be justified, subject to conditions.

8.3 Overall, this application presents a finely balanced case. Its acceptability is not founded on outstanding environmental credentials, but rather on the site's planning history, the limited scale of development, and the notably reduced extent of ecological and arboricultural impacts relative to the earlier proposal under PA 21/00796/B. Although some uncertainties persist, the potential for these to be resolved through the imposition of robust planning conditions, an approach previously acknowledged as appropriate in principle by the Planning Inspector, adds weight to the case. Accordingly, approval is considered justifiable, subject to conditions to prevent any further environmental harm from arising.

9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).

9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to: o applicant (in all cases).

==== PAGE 16 ====

                                                 25/90192/B                                      Page  16  of  16

o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.

9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10.

9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required): o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant); o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure, and the local authority for the area; o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and o in the case of a petition, a single representative.

9.5 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given the Right to Appeal.

__

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

Decision Made: Permitted Date: 28.07.2025

Signed : Presenting Officer - Mr Paul Visigah

Customer note

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