31 March 2025 · Delegated - Head of Development Management (Stephen Butler)
Field 334952, Patrick Road, Patrick Village, Isle Of Man, IM5 3aw
The proposal seeks retrospective permission for 6 wildlife ponds of various sizes and depths up to 1m in Field 334952, south of the River Neb near Peel, within an Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV), high flood risk zone, and under high voltage power lines.
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 the ponds are not readily visible to the public and would blend into the rural riverside landscape without harming the AHLV or countryside character, in line with General Policy …
General Policy 2
Requires general standards for acceptable development including visual amenity, landscape quality, and no risk of erosion or flooding (b, c, d, f, l). Officer assessed ponds not readily visible, blending into rural surrounds, with no adverse visual harm to countryside or AHLV.
Environment Policy 1
Protection of countryside; development adversely affecting it not permitted. Officer found no adverse effect due to low visibility and positive biodiversity integration.
Environment Policy 2
Protection of AHLV; development must not harm character and quality. Ponds deemed acceptable as engulfed by rural landscape if viewed.
Environment Policy 4
Protection of species and habitats. Ponds expected to positively contribute to biodiversity and wetland habitat.
Environment Policy 7
Harm to watercourses. No new flood risk or surge issues noted, with FRM non-opposition.
Environment Policy 10
Flood risk and need for FRA. Site in high flood risk but proposal does not worsen it.
Environment Policy 13
Flood risk on or off site not permitted. No increase beyond existing situation.
Environment Policy 14
Loss of agricultural land. Class 3/2 soil; minimal impact on field usability.
Environment Policy 22
No harm to environment from pollution. No new pollution impacts expected.
General Policy 3
Countryside development exceptions for agricultural works (f) and wildlife interpretation (h). Ponds benefit agriculture and biodiversity appreciation.
Strategic Policy 4
Protect and enhance landscape and nature conservation value (b). Positive biodiversity impact.
Spatial Policy 5
New development to positively contribute to environment. Ponds promote biodiversity.
Energy Policy 2
9m either side of high voltage power lines protected. No new impacts to cables.
in support. Proposal creates valuable wetland habitat. No requests for conditions.
do not oppose - the wildlife ponds are in a flood zone, but FRM do not consider that the ponds will increase the flood risk. FRM request that the ponds are not bunded.
no highways interest
Highway Services HDC lists 25/90127/B as having no highway interest (NHI) with no objections. DOI Flood Risk Management does not oppose (DNO) the retrospective wildlife ponds, noting they do not increase flood risk provided they are not bunded.
Highway Services HDC
No ObjectionHighway Services HDC has no interest (NHI) in: ... 25/90127/B
Department of Infrastructure Flood Risk Management Division
No ObjectionWhilst it is recognised that the wildlife ponds are in a flood zone FRM do not consider that the ponds will increase the flood risk.; DNO
Conditions requested: the ponds are not bunded so that the failure of a bund would cause a surge retained water in to the Neb
