Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90193/B
Page 1 of 16
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90193/B Applicant : The Hon. Laurence Skelly MLC, President Of Tynwald Proposal : Installation of an illuminated sculpture Site Address : Land Opposite Tynwald Hill Main Road St Johns Isle Of Man IM4 3NA
Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 19.03.2025 Site Visit : 19.03.2025 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 08.07.2025 __
Reasons for Refusal
R.1 The proposal would introduce a visually assertive structure that would be perceived as visually and materially at odds with the established character and symbolic clarity of the nationally significant ceremonial landscape surrounding Tynwald Hill. This risks undermining the visual and cultural primacy of the site. The development therefore conflicts with Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policies 40 and 42, which require that proposals protect or enhance the setting of heritage assets and respond sensitively to local character and identity. The absence of a Heritage Impact Assessment further weakens the proposal's ability to demonstrate compliance with these policies.
R.2 The sculpture's scale, verticality, and illumination would disrupt the openness, horizontality, and visual coherence of the Tynwald Green landscape. This is contrary to Strategic Policies 4 and 5, Environment Policy 42, and General Policy 2, which require that development respect landscape character, integrate with its surroundings, and contribute positively to the Island's environment.
R.3 The development site lies within an area of known archaeological sensitivity, with recorded features including subsurface anomalies and burial-related structures. While a geophysical survey has been submitted, it does not constitute a full archaeological evaluation and leaves several anomalies unverified. In accordance with Environment Policy 41 and Paragraph 7.33.2 of the Strategic Plan, proposals affecting sites of known or potential archaeological significance must be supported by appropriate evaluation prior to determination to enable an informed planning decision. The absence of such an evaluation prevents a proper understanding of the site's archaeological value and conflicts with policy. __
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: o DOI Highway Services - No objection
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90193/B
Page 2 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 Manx National Heritage (MNH) - Objection o German Parish Commissioners - Objection
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should NOT be given the Right to Appeal because: o Alpines, Curragh Road, St Johns - Objection does not identify land that is owned or occupied by the objector that would be impacted on (A10(2)(a))
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should NOT be given the Right to Appeal because: o Rushen Heritage Centre, Bridson House, Port Erin - No objection o Manchester House, Bradda West Road, Spaldrick, Port Erin - No objection o 15 Highfield Crescent, Isle of Man - No objection o 5 Mourne View, Peel - No objection o Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas - No objection __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site comprises a parcel of land that situated Opposite Tynwald Hill, and along Main Road, St Johns. This is located at the intersection of Peel Road and Tynwald Hill, with its northeastern boundary flanked by Glen Mooar Road which connects Main Road to Poor Town Road. It lies adjacent The Royal Chapel of St John the Baptist and Tynwald Hill, two prominent landmarks which hold historical and cultural significance within the area.
1.2 To the northeast of the site are the Millennium Stone and Flagstaff, while the southern edge is bordered by a variety of buildings, including commercial establishments along Peel Road. The broader context of the site includes a blend of open ceremonial spaces and developed areas comprising residential and commercial uses.
1.3 The site benefits from direct access via Peel Road, which runs along its southern boundary. Additional pedestrian pathways link the site to nearby landmarks, including Tynwald Hill and The Royal Chapel, enhancing its connectivity and integration with the surrounding area.
1.4 The site forms part of a larger open space associated with Tynwald Hill, contributing to its cultural and civic value.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application is seeking planning permission for installation of an illuminated sculpture. The proposed development consists of a sculpture installation set on a circular paved area. The design integrates multiple structural elements to create a visually prominent and accessible feature. Key elements include: i. The sculpture itself stands at a height of 2370 mm, mounted on a 100 mm high base, bringing the total sculpture height to 2970 mm. ii. The base width is 1050 mm, providing a stable platform for the sculpture. iii. The sculpture is positioned on a concrete plinth measuring 300 mm in height. iv. Surrounding the plinth is a stone wall or stair-like structure with a height of 500 mm and a diameter of 1800 mm, likely serving both structural and aesthetic purposes.
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90193/B
Page 3 of 16
v. The entire installation is enclosed within a circular paved walkway with a diameter of 4000 mm, offering pedestrian access and visual framing for the sculpture.
2.2 The proposed statue represents Godred Crovan - King Orry, a pivotal figure in Manx history. Positioned at Tynwald, the site of the world's longest continual parliament, the statue is designed to evoke a powerful connection to the Isle of Man's Viking heritage. King Orry is depicted standing at Tynwald, gazing across 1000 years of history, inviting us to explore the foundations the Vikings laid, their legacy since, and to discover more about the unique heritage of the Isle of Man.
2.3 The scheme would also include the installation of underground cables to enable connection of electricity to the sculptor. This cabling will connect the new installation to the electric cabinet situated directly northwest of the sculptor and on the boundary of the site with the public part situated directly west. The cabling will comprise 100mm diameter plastic duct set 300mm below the ground level.
2.4 In response to the request for Arboricultural information due to the proximity of the cabling path to existing trees, the applicant has provided the following information: 1. The route of the duct has been indicated on the updated Proposed Site Setout drawing. 2. It is not anticipated that major tree roots will be encountered as part of the excavation for the new duct. 3. All excavations in the vicinity of the cabinet and existing trees will be carried out by hand. 4. Should any major tree roots be encountered, excavation work will cease until the recommendations of an Arboriculturist have been obtained. 5. Any recommendations provided by the Arboriculturist in the report will be adhered to during the remaining excavations.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Site Specific: 3.1.1 The site lies within an area broadly zoned as Public Open Space on the St. Johns Local Plan, and the site is situated within close proximity to ancient monuments and sites of archaeological interest, as well as sites of interest for nature conservation. The site is not with a Conservation Area or an area prone to flooding.
3.2 Relevant Strategic Plan Policies: 1. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations. 2. Environment Policy 4 - Protects biodiversity (including protected species and designated sites). 3. 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. 4. Environment Policy 5 - Mitigation against damage to or loss of habitats. 5. Environment Policy 40 - Development will not be permitted which would damage, disturb or detract from an important archaeological site or an Ancient Monument or the setting thereof. 6. Environment Policy 41 - The Department will require that archaeological evaluations be submitted prior to the determination of proposals affecting sites of known or potential archaeological significance. In cases where remains are affected but preservation in-situ is not merited, the Department will expect to secure excavations and/or recording in advance of construction work either by the imposition of suitable conditions attached to a planning permission or through a formal agreement entered into with the developer. 7. Environment Policy 42 - character and need to adhere to local distinctiveness. 8. Strategic Policy 1 - Supports development that makes efficient use of land by considering access, landscaping, open space, and amenity standards, while making use of existing infrastructure, facilities, and services.
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90193/B
Page 4 of 16
9. 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. 10. Strategic Policy 4 - development proposals must protect or enhance the nature conservation and landscape quality of urban as well as rural areas. 11. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact 12. Transport Policy 4 - Highway capacity and safety considerations. 13. Transport Policy 6 - Equal weight for vehicles and pedestrians. 14. Section 6.7 - Public Art: "6.7.1 Our environment is improved by the provision of works of art in public places, particularly if that art reflects the cultural traditions or history of a particular area. 6.7.2 The Department will support the inclusion of such artwork in development proposals, and will expect such inclusion within major proposals. Artwork may take the form of public sculpture, such as the recently erected statues of T. E. Brown and Sir William Hillary in Douglas, or may be incorporated into features such as friezes, railings or landscaping. Commissions to locally based artists would be particularly welcome." 15. Section 7.24 The Built Environment - Introduction: "7.24.1 The architecture of the Island, the quality of its buildings, the way in which they blend in with their surroundings, the respect for the built environment and the collective and individual cultural heritage, are all matters that are important to the sustainability of the Island's unique identity. 7.24.2 The Island possesses an extensive and well-preserved historical character. The presence of sites, features, buildings and Conservation Areas undoubtedly adds to the quality of our lives, and the physical remains of our past are to be valued and protected as a central part of our culture, heritage and sense of national identity. It adds to our 'sense of place' and is a constituent part of both the rural and urban environment. 7.24.3 The Island enjoys a rich heritage of buildings, all of which represent the social, economic and cultural history of the Island. These physical remains of our past, which may include historic buildings, ancient monuments and archaeological sites whether in towns, villages or in the countryside sustain the distinctiveness of the Island which is so vital to the retention of its unique character and our sense of national identity. The historic environment is also a material asset that makes a positive contribution to economic prosperity for the purposes of tourism, leisure and recreation." 16. Paragraph 7.33.1: "Archaeological remains provide irreplaceable evidence of human activity. The Isle of Man's archaeological heritage is the result of human activity over many thousands of years. It is a finite and non-renewable resource and is, in many cases, highly fragile and vulnerable. An understanding and management of the Island's archaeological heritage is essential to ensure it survives in good condition and is not needlessly or thoughtlessly destroyed. It contains irreplaceable information about the history of the Island and is part of our national heritage. Archaeological remains are valuable for their own sake and for their role in education and tourism. As a signatory to the Valetta Convention (The European Convention for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage 1992) the Isle of Man has international obligations in the identification, recording, protection, conservation and management of its archaeological heritage." 17. Paragraph 7.33.2: "There is a large number of archaeological sites on the Island of importance. In determining important archaeological sites reference will be made to the National Archaeological Record. Should development be proposed for these sites, an archaeological evaluation will be required, in advance of the determination of an application, in order to find out about any archaeological remains, so enabling an informed decision to be made. Should an application be approved, in order to ensure that sites are protected and/or recorded in advance of construction work, the Department will attach conditions to any grant of planning permission. The Department will require that any archaeological work of this nature is funded by the developer."
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90193/B
Page 5 of 16
4.1 The Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy (2015 - 2025) 4.1.1 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 site has not been subject of any recent planning application that is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of the current application.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 Consultees 6.1.1 DOI Highways Division have no interest (10 March 2025).
6.1.2 Manx National Heritage have made the following comments (14 April 2025): 1. The proposed sculpture is located near Tynwald Hill, a site of exceptional cultural and archaeological significance, within a proposed conservation area. 2. MNH was not consulted prior to the application's publication and stresses the importance of early engagement for heritage-sensitive sites. 3. The area contains known and potential archaeological features including Bronze Age burial mounds, Viking burials, medieval cemeteries, and assembly sites. 4. The development involves groundworks (plinth, paving, ducting) that could impact buried archaeology. 5. Recommended Archaeological Process: o Geophysical survey o Test excavation o Site selection refinement based on findings o A Written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation (WSI) as a planning condition 6. The sculpture's height and proximity may diminish the visual dominance of Tynwald Hill and alter its solemn, open setting. 7. The draft Area Plan for the North and West includes a policy (Landscape Proposal 10) opposing development that compromises the setting of Tynwald Hill or the Fairfield. 8. The sculpture's design and location must be assessed for visual impact on the monument and civic space, which is characterised by openness, quietness, and strong horizontal lines. 9. MNH questions the historical basis of associating Godred Crovan with the Milky Way and the title "King Orry," citing 19th-century myth-making and lack of evidence in medieval sources. 10. Recent media articles have inaccurately attributed achievements to Godred Crovan that are not supported by historical records. 11. MNH recommends holding the application in abeyance until archaeological and visual impact assessments are completed to inform design, placement, and mitigation.
6.1.3 DEFA Registered Buildings Officer has made the following comments (28 March 2025): 1. The area around the national assembly site in St John's has evidence of human activity dating back to the Bronze Age. 2. When the National War Memorial was erected in 1923, it was carefully placed equidistant from Tynwald Hill and the Royal Chapel to avoid impacting the setting of the ancient assembly site. 3. The proposed statue would be significantly closer to Tynwald Hill than the War Memorial and in a more prominent roadside location. 4. The assembly site and fair field are considered one of the island's principal civic spaces, requiring careful consideration for any new public art.
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90193/B
Page 6 of 16
5. The proposal is considered contrary to Strategic Policy 4 as it does not protect the setting of a site of archaeological interest. 6. The proposal fails to meet General Policy 2(b) as it does not respect the site and its surroundings. 7. Environment Policy 41 requires archaeological evaluations to be submitted prior to determining proposals affecting sites of known or potential archaeological significance. 8. No archaeological evaluation or heritage impact assessment has been submitted with the application. 9. The officer objects to the current proposal and strongly advises engagement with Manx National Heritage to identify a more suitable location that respects the site's historic and archaeological significance. 10. The officer supports the concept of public art near the assembly site but believes the current proposed location is too close and would negatively impact the setting. 11. If approved, a pre-commencement condition should require submission and approval of a written methodology for an archaeological watching brief to ensure archaeological remains are recorded or assessed before any ground disturbance.
6.1.4 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team Comments (28 March 2025): 1. The team objects to the application due to a lack of information. 2. The proposed development site lies within "Tynwald green," an area nationally important for its waxcap fungi population, including the vulnerable species Hygrocybe quieta. 3. Waxcap grasslands are a threatened habitat listed in the Manx Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), with key threats including development, trampling, and chemical treatments. 4. These grasslands are protected under Environment Policy 4(c) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. 5. The team recommends that a waxcap grassland mitigation plan, prepared by a qualified ecological consultant, be submitted before determination of the application. 6. Environment Policy 5 requires mitigation measures where development affects protected habitats, including minimising disturbance, conserving ecological interest, and providing replacement habitats if necessary. 7. Strategic Policy 4 requires development to protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of both urban and rural areas. 8. If the application is approved, the team recommends a condition requiring that no works commence until a waxcap grassland mitigation plan has been submitted and approved in writing.
6.1.5 German Parish Commissioners note that, while they do not object to the application, they regret that they cannot support it in its current proposed location (27 March 2025).
6.2 Representations 6.2.1 Alpines, Curragh Road, St Johns, Isle of Man, IM4 3LN (21 May 2025): 1. Volunteer warden at St Johns Church and member of the IOM Natural History & Antiquarian Society has researched and published on the Tynwald site. 2. Believes an ancient ditch, visible in an 18th-century plan and possibly still partially intact, was filled in during Victorian remodelling. 3. Has demonstrated that parts of the ditch may still be visible in satellite images during dry conditions. 4. States that the Tynwald site was originally surrounded by a ditch and entrance ways with upright stone pillars, which were integral to its historical interpretation. 5. Recommends confirming the exact location of the ditch, assessing how much survives, and marking its line on the surface to improve public understanding of the monument. 6. Urges archaeological investigation before any construction occurs. 7. Strongly opposes installation of any substantial structure (e.g., statue) without prior archaeological assessment. 8. Objects to the site being turned into a "theme park" with statues not aligned with the site's original design.
==== PAGE 7 ====
25/90193/B
Page 7 of 16
6.2.2 Rushen Heritage Centre, Bridson House, Bridson Street, Port Erin, Isle of Man, IM9 6AN (14 May 2025): 1. Rushen Heritage Trust supports the planning application. 2. Support is conditional on compliance with regulations (Highways, Antiquities, etc.). 3. Believes the statue of Godred Crovan (King Orry) will enhance the historic and cultural appeal of Tynwald Hill.
6.2.3 Manchester House, Bradda West Road, Spaldrick, Port Erin, Isle of Man, IM9 6PL (11 March 2025): 1. The John Nicholson Foundation supports the application. 2. Believes the statue will improve understanding of Tynwald Hill and Manx history. 3. Sees the project as a way to enhance a currently underused roadside verge. 4. Anticipates increased visitor interest and local economic benefit. 5. Notes alignment with strategic plan policy GEN9 through the inclusion of public art by local artist
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this current planning application are: 1. The principle of the proposed development (Strategic Policy 1, Strategic Policy 2, General Policy 2); 2. Heritage Impacts (Environment Policy 40, Environment Policy 42, Strategic Policy 4, Section 7.24.1-7.24.3, and Paragraphs 7.33.1-7.33.2); 3. The impacts of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area (Strategic Policy 3, Strategic Policy 4, Strategic Policy 5, Environment Policy 42, Section 7.24); 4. Potential Impacts on site Archaeology (Environment Policy 40, Environment Policy 41, Paragraphs 7.33.1 and 7.33.2); 5. The Impacts on highway safety (Transport Policy 4, Transport Policy 6); and 6. Potential Impacts on Trees and Biodiversity (Environment Policy 3, Environment Policy 4, Environment Policy 5, and Strategic Policy 4)
7.2 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT 7.2.1 The site lies within an area designated as Public Open Space in the St John's Local Plan. Strategic Policy 1 supports development that makes efficient use of land and infrastructure, while Strategic Policy 2 encourages development within existing towns and villages. The proposal's location within the village of St John's and its proximity to existing infrastructure aligns with these principles.
7.2.2 The proposal also aligns with Section 6.7 of the Strategic Plan, which supports the inclusion of public art that reflects the Island's cultural traditions and history. The commissioning of local artists and the thematic focus on Manx heritage are consistent with this objective.
7.2.3 However, General Policy 2 requires that development respect the character of the site and its surroundings. Given the site's proximity to Tynwald Hill and The Royal Chapel, both of exceptional cultural and historical significance, the proposal must therefore demonstrate a particularly high level of contextual sensitivity to be considered acceptable.
7.2.4 Based on the foregoing, the principle of development is acceptable in policy terms, subject to the proposal demonstrating full compliance with policies relating to heritage protection, landscape character, and environmental sensitivity.
7.3 HERITAGE IMPACTS
==== PAGE 8 ====
25/90193/B
Page 8 of 16
7.3.1 In assessing the heritage impacts of the proposal, it is important to recognise that Tynwald Hill is not merely a historic site, but a sacred and symbolic landscape that embodies the Isle of Man's national identity. Its significance lies not only in its association with the Island's legislative traditions, but also in its ancient ceremonial function, its archaeological richness, and its enduring role in the cultural consciousness of the Manx people. Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policy 40 require that development protect or enhance the setting of such monuments. The proposed sculpture, by virtue of its scale, illumination, and prominent siting, introduces a new focal point that risks disrupting the visual and symbolic primacy of Tynwald Hill within its open and solemn setting, such that its introduction would be visually competing, diminishing the key attributes of the site.
7.3.2 Paragraphs 4.3.4 to 4.3.7 of the Strategic Plan articulate the concept of "Manxness" as a unique and irreplaceable identity rooted in the Island's heritage landscape. This identity is not abstract, it is embodied in the physical and spatial relationships between historic sites, natural features, and ceremonial traditions. The proposed development, by inserting a vertical, illuminated structure into a landscape defined by horizontality, openness, and civic ritual, threatens to disrupt this delicate and deliberate balance.
7.3.3 Within this broader cultural landscape, the figure of King Orry, commonly associated with Godred Crovan, is widely recognised in the Isle of Man's cultural narrative and is often referenced in connection with the Island's Norse heritage. His name and image have become symbolic within local tradition and public memory. The intention to commemorate such a figure through public art is not without merit and aligns with the spirit of Section 6.7 of the Strategic Plan, which encourages the celebration of local identity through artistic expression. However, when considered in the context of the established ceremonial and symbolic significance of Tynwald Hill, the proposed siting, directly opposite the monument, introduces a new commemorative narrative and visual anchor into a space with an already well-established and symbolically resonant identity. In the absence of a heritage impact assessment, this layering of meaning risks unsettling the clarity and cohesion of the site's historic identity.
7.3.4 In policy terms, Environment Policy 42 requires that new development respond sensitively to the character and identity of its locality. In this instance, the locality is not a typical village setting but a nationally significant ceremonial landscape. The introduction of a new visual and symbolic element into this space, without the benefit of a Heritage Impact Assessment, raises legitimate concerns about contextual fit. These concerns, articulated by Manx National Heritage and the DEFA Registered Buildings Officer, highlight the risk that the proposal may not only visually intrude upon but also erode the carefully maintained ceremonial integrity of the site.
7.3.5 The Strategic Plan is clear: the Island's historic environment is a material asset that must be protected not only for its intrinsic value but also for its contribution to national identity, tourism, and civic pride. The proposal, in its current form, does not demonstrate that it would preserve or enhance the setting of Tynwald Hill. On the contrary, it introduces a visually assertive and potentially discordant element into a space whose power lies in its restraint, openness, and symbolic clarity.
7.3.6 While the cultural intent behind the proposal is acknowledged and the commemoration of King Orry is not inherently inappropriate; the proposed location and form of the sculpture are fundamentally at odds with the character and significance of Tynwald Hill. The development conflicts with Strategic Policy 4, Environment Policies 40 and 42, and the broader heritage vision of the Strategic Plan.
7.4 CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE 7.4.1 In addition to its heritage implications, the proposal raises significant concerns regarding its visual impact and spatial integration within the ceremonial landscape that includes Tynwald Hill, The Royal Chapel, the Flagstaff, and the surrounding green. This landscape is
==== PAGE 9 ====
25/90193/B
Page 9 of 16
defined by its openness, horizontality, and visual restraint, qualities that are clearly evident when visiting the site. Notably, the site itself contains visible mounds, including one with a flagpole, which contribute to the topographical rhythm and ceremonial character of the space. These features are not only visually significant but may also be of archaeological interest, reinforcing the need for sensitive design. The site's uncluttered views, low-lying contours, and subdued material palette contribute to a civic setting of clarity and dignity. Strategic Policy 4 seeks to protect such landscape qualities, while Strategic Policy 5 requires that new development make a positive contribution to the Island's environment. The proposed sculpture, by contrast, introduces a tall, illuminated, and materially contrasting structure that would disrupt the visual coherence and topographical integrity of this carefully composed setting.
7.4.2 The visual impact of the proposal is not limited to its proximity to heritage assets (as addressed in Section 7.3) but extends to its broader effect on the spatial legibility and visual hierarchy of the site. The sculpture's circular paved base, vertical massing, and lighting would introduce a new focal point that competes with the established ceremonial axis between Tynwald Hill and The Royal Chapel. The surrounding landscape is characterised by modest built form, natural contours, and open green space. The proposed intervention would interrupt this rhythm, creating a visual imbalance and undermining the site's compositional integrity.
7.4.3 The sculpture's location, at a key junction on Peel Road and directly opposite Tynwald Hill, ensures it would be highly prominent in views from multiple approach routes. The site currently benefits from uninterrupted visual connections across the ceremonial green, with Tynwald Hill and the Flagstaff serving as established visual anchors within a landscape defined by openness and horizontal emphasis. The introduction of a vertical, illuminated structure in this context would draw attention away from these existing features, altering the perceived visual hierarchy and ceremonial focus of the space. This impact would be amplified during night-time hours, when artificial lighting would create a new visual centre of attraction, potentially diminishing the prominence of both Tynwald Hill and The Royal Chapel.
7.4.4 These concerns above are underscored by General Policy 2, which requires that development proposals respect the site's character, integrate with existing landscape features, and preserve local amenity. The sculpture's positioning materiality conflict with these expectations, introducing a discordant element that undermines the visual clarity and ceremonial function of the space.
7.4.5 Overall, it is considered that the proposal introduces a visually assertive and materially incongruous structure into a landscape defined by openness, horizontality, and symbolic restraint. It disrupts the spatial coherence and visual hierarchy of a nationally significant civic setting. As such, the development conflicts with Strategic Policies 4 and 5, Environment Policy 42, and General Policy 2, and is not acceptable in its current form.
7.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACTS 7.5.1 The Strategic Plan (Paragraphs 7.33.1 and 7.33.2) identifies archaeological remains as irreplaceable assets that must be protected through early and informed planning. Environment Policy 41 requires that proposals affecting sites of known or potential archaeological significance be supported by an archaeological evaluation prior to determination.
7.5.2 The application site lies within an area of established archaeological interest, including remains dating from the prehistoric, through to Early Christian and later periods. The geophysical survey provided by the applicants and undertaken in 2010 confirmed the presence of subsurface anomalies consistent with archaeological features, including possible ditches, walls, paths, and burial-related structures. The survey also recorded a Christian lintel grave and a stone cist in the vicinity, reinforcing the archaeological sensitivity of the area (See page 2).
7.5.3 While the geophysical survey provides valuable baseline data, it does not constitute a full archaeological evaluation. Several anomalies remain unverified, and the report itself
==== PAGE 10 ====
25/90193/B Page 10 of 16
recommends further investigation, such as trial trenching, to confirm the nature and extent of the features (Paragraph 3.9, Page 5). Both Manx National Heritage and the DEFA Registered Buildings Officer have raised concerns about the potential for unrecorded archaeological remains and recommend a phased archaeological strategy, including a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI).
7.5.4 The absence of a complete archaeological evaluation represents a clear conflict with Environment Policy 41, which requires that proposals affecting sites of known or potential archaeological significance be supported by appropriate assessment prior to determination. While a geophysical survey has been submitted, it is over a decade old, does not include trial trenching, and leaves several anomalies unverified. Given the site's proximity to recorded archaeological features and the recommendations of statutory consultees, the lack of a full evaluation prior to determination is considered a significant shortcoming and weighs against the proposal.
7.6 HIGHWAY AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 7.6.1 Transport Policy 4 requires that new development be served by highways capable of safely accommodating both vehicular and pedestrian movements. Paragraph 11.3.1 highlights the importance of junction design and pedestrian provision in ensuring safe and efficient traffic flow.
7.6.2 The site is located adjacent to a busy junction and near pedestrian pathways leading to Tynwald Hill. While the Department of Infrastructure (Highways) has raised no objection, the proposed sculpture is likely to attract increased foot traffic and informal crossings, particularly during ceremonial events. It should be noted that this part of the open space area is already served by multiple pedestrian access points, one on the northern edge adjacent to a public park and parking area, and another formalised entrance on the southwestern boundary. These access points confirm that the area functions as a pedestrian hub, with established foot traffic converging from multiple directions.
7.6.3 Despite this, there are currently no formal pedestrian crossings across the adjoining highways to these access points. Transport Policy 6 and Paragraph 11.4.1 emphasise the need to give equal weight to pedestrian needs. While the proposal includes a paved area around the sculpture, it lacks any enhanced pedestrian infrastructure or traffic-calming measures to support safe access. Given the potential for the scheme to increase pedestrian movement, the absence of supporting infrastructure presents a safety concern and represents a missed opportunity to improve connectivity and accessibility in line with policy objectives.
7.6.4 The proposed lighting scheme includes three recessed up lights, each with a 26° beam angle, directed upward and inward toward the sculpture. The lighting layout confirms that no fixtures are aimed toward the highway or pedestrian routes. The design is technically sound and unlikely to cause glare or distraction to drivers or pedestrians. However, a lighting strategy should be secured by condition to confirm beam orientation, lux levels, and operational timing.
7.6.5 In conclusion, while the lighting design is considered appropriate and the site benefits from existing pedestrian access points, the absence of formal pedestrian crossings and supporting infrastructure presents a clear safety concern. Although the Department of Infrastructure (Highways) has not raised an objection, the proposal does not address the increased potential for pedestrian movement generated by the development. The lack of infrastructure to safely facilitate these movements, such as designated crossings or traffic- calming measures, represents a shortfall in meeting the requirements of Transport Policy 6 and undermines the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety and connectivity in accordance with the Strategic Plan. As such, while the highway elements of the scheme may be technically acceptable, the proposal remains weak in its response to pedestrian accessibility and safety.
7.7 TREES AND BIODIVERSITY
==== PAGE 11 ====
25/90193/B Page 11 of 16
7.7.1 In assessing the potential impacts on biodiversity, it is considered that the sculpture is to be installed on a circular paved area, with associated underground cabling to connect to an existing electrical cabinet located near the site boundary. The site lies within the nationally important Tynwald Green landscape, recognised for its waxcap grassland habitat. This broader ecological context is protected under Environment Policy 4(c) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, which safeguards habitats identified as ecologically significant, including those supporting vulnerable species such as Hygrocybe quieta. The Manx Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) identifies waxcap grasslands as threatened and emphasises the need to manage biodiversity change, minimise habitat loss, and enhance native biodiversity where possible.
7.7.2 In comments dated 28 March 2025, the DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team objected to the proposal due to insufficient ecological information, particularly the absence of a waxcap grassland mitigation plan prepared by a qualified specialist. The objection referenced Environment Policies 4(c) and 5, the latter requiring that developments affecting protected habitats provide suitable mitigation through minimising disturbance, conserving ecological interest, and, where appropriate, replacing lost habitat. Strategic Policy 4 was also cited, highlighting the importance of preserving and enhancing biodiversity and landscape quality in both urban and rural settings.
7.7.3 During the site visit on 19 March 2025, it was noted that the area proposed for development is predominantly composed of closely managed mown grass. The uniformity and maintenance of the sward suggest that the site may not currently support the ecological conditions typically associated with waxcap grassland. However, no specialist survey was undertaken, and the absence of visible indicator species at the time of the visit does not rule out the possibility of latent habitat value. The site is bounded by mature trees and hedgerows, particularly along the western and northern edges, which may contribute to local biodiversity and provide habitat connectivity. These boundary features warrant further consideration in any ecological appraisal, particularly in relation to their potential to support protected species or function as ecological corridors. On balance, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is considered that the development is unlikely to result in significant harm to biodiversity, provided that appropriate pre-commencement conditions are imposed to secure further ecological assessment and any necessary mitigation.
7.7.4 In terms of arboricultural impact, the proposed underground cabling will be installed in a 100 mm duct approximately 300 mm below ground level. While most works are confined to the mown grass area, the route passes close to mature trees and hedgerows, introducing potential risk to root zones. Manual excavation is proposed in these areas, with work to be paused if significant roots are encountered, pending arboricultural advice. Although this approach is precautionary, the absence of a formal arboricultural impact assessment limits full evaluation. However, given the shallow depth and limited extent of works, the risk to trees is considered low and manageable. To ensure compliance with Environment Policy 3, a pre- commencement condition should require submission and approval of an arboricultural method statement.
7.7.5 In conclusion, the development site itself does not currently exhibit the characteristics of a high-value waxcap grassland, and the biodiversity impacts are considered to be limited, subject to further specialist appraisal. Similarly, while the proposed cabling route passes close to mature trees and hedgerows, the arboricultural risk is judged to be low and manageable, provided that appropriate safeguards are secured. To ensure compliance with relevant environmental policies, including Environment Policies 3, 4, and 5, it is recommended that planning permission, if granted, be subject to pre-commencement conditions requiring a specialist-led ecological appraisal, a waxcap grassland mitigation plan, and an arboricultural method statement. These measures would ensure that the development proceeds with due regard for biodiversity, tree protection, and the landscape character of the wider Tynwald Green area.
==== PAGE 12 ====
25/90193/B Page 12 of 16
7.8 ASSESSMENT OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT (PD) COMPLIANCE 7.8.1 The proposed sculpture was initially considered under Class 12 (Street Furniture) of Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2025. However, for any development to qualify as permitted development, it must comply with both the class- specific conditions set out in Schedules 1 or 2 and the general conditions listed under Article 5(1) of the Order. These conditions are mandatory, and failure to meet any one of them disqualifies the development from being treated as permitted.
7.8.2 The general conditions under Article 5(1) state that no part of a development falling within a Class in Schedules 1 or 2 may: (a) contravene any condition imposed on a grant of planning approval under section 10(1)(a) of the Act; (b) require or involve the formation, laying out, or material widening of a means of access to an existing highway used by vehicular traffic; (c) create an obstruction to the view of persons using any highway so as to be likely to cause danger to such persons; (d) fall within the curtilage of a registered building; or (e) be constructed (including foundations) so as to involve the felling, lopping, or limbing of any tree, except where exempt under section 3(3) of the Tree Preservation Act 1993.
7.8.3 In addition to the general conditions, Class 12 itself imposes a specific limitation: development is only permitted if it is carried out by or on behalf of a public body. The Order defines a public body as including Departments or Statutory Boards, local authorities, or joint boards established under the Local Government Act 1985 or the Recreation and Leisure Act 1998. In this case, the applicant is not a public body, nor is the development being undertaken on behalf of one. This alone is sufficient to disqualify the proposal from falling within Class 12.
7.8.4 Furthermore, the proposed sculpture stands at 2.97 metres in height and is located within a circular paved area, set back between 6.4 and 7.5 metres from the road edges. While these distances may appear sufficient on plan, the site's location at a cross junction involving Glen Moor Road, Station Road, and the A1 Peel Road, a principal east-west highway, introduces additional complexity. In such a context, the potential for the structure to obstruct driver sightlines cannot be reliably assessed through plan drawings alone. Article 5(1)(c) prohibits development that would obstruct the view of highway users in a way likely to cause danger. Determining compliance with this condition requires professional judgement, such as a visibility splay assessment or input from highway engineers. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be confirmed that the development avoids creating a visibility hazard. Therefore, the proposal fails to meet this general condition as well.
7.8.5 As the proposal does not meet the class-specific requirement that it be carried out by or on behalf of a public body and also fails to demonstrate compliance with the general condition relating to highway visibility, it cannot be treated as permitted development. A full planning application is therefore required. Such an application must be assessed on its full planning merits, not solely on the reasons it fails to qualify as permitted development. This includes consideration of highway safety, visual impact, design and materials, public amenity, and any other material planning considerations relevant to the site and proposal.
7.8.6 It is also noted that the potential to carry out a similar development under permitted development rights, if it could realistically be done in a compliant manner, may constitute a fallback position. This fallback can be a material consideration in the assessment of the planning application, particularly where the differences between the fallback and the proposed scheme are minor or where the fallback could be implemented without further planning control.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposal demonstrates a commendable intent to celebrate Manx heritage through public art, aligning with Strategic Policy 2 and Section 6.7 of the Strategic Plan, which
==== PAGE 13 ====
25/90193/B Page 13 of 16
encourage cultural expression and community identity. Its location within the village of St John's, close to existing infrastructure and pedestrian routes, supports the principle of sustainable development as outlined in Strategic Policy 1. The commissioning of local artists and the thematic focus on King Orry reflect a genuine effort to contribute positively to the Island's cultural narrative. The lighting design is technically sound, and the proposal includes precautionary measures to minimise potential harm to nearby trees and root zones. Subject to appropriate conditions, the archaeological and ecological risks could be mitigated through further specialist assessment and method statements.
8.2 Despite its cultural intent, the proposal raises significant concerns in relation to heritage, landscape character, and pedestrian safety. The sculpture's scale, verticality, and illumination introduce a visually assertive and materially incongruous element into a nationally significant ceremonial landscape defined by openness, horizontality, and symbolic restraint. Its siting directly opposite Tynwald Hill risks disrupting the visual and symbolic primacy of the site, conflicting with Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policies 40 and 42. The absence of a Heritage Impact Assessment and a full archaeological evaluation further undermines the robustness of the proposal. Additionally, the lack of formal pedestrian infrastructure to support increased footfall presents a safety concern and a missed opportunity to enhance connectivity in line with Transport Policy 6.
8.3 In conclusion, while the proposal is underpinned by a culturally valuable objective and contains elements that align with strategic planning goals, it fails to demonstrate sufficient contextual sensitivity to its nationally significant setting. The development, in its current form, would result in unacceptable harm to the heritage value, visual coherence, and ceremonial function of Tynwald Hill and its surroundings. It also falls short in addressing pedestrian safety and lacks the necessary supporting assessments to fully evaluate its environmental and archaeological impacts. Accordingly, it is recommended that the application be refused.
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); 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.
==== PAGE 14 ====
25/90193/B Page 14 of 16 __ 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: Refused Date: 28.07.2025 Signed : Mr Visigah Presenting Officer 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.
==== PAGE 15 ====
25/90193/B Page 15 of 16 PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 28.07.2025 Application No. : 25/90193/B Applicant : The Hon. Laurence Skelly MLC, President Of Tynwald Proposal : Installation of an illuminated sculpture Site Address : Land Opposite Tynwald Hill Main Road St Johns Isle Of Man IM4 3NA Presenting Officer : Paul Visigah Addendum to the Officer’s Report The Committee at its meeting held on 28th July 2025, overturned the recommendation of the case officer to refuse the application and recommended approval, subject to the inclusion two conditions and the standard four-year conddition. Reason for approval: The proposal is considered to positively contribute to the cultural and landscape setting of Tynwald Hill through the introduction of a modest, symbolically significant sculpture that enhances public appreciation of the Island's Norse heritage. Its scale, siting, and design are considered appropriate to the context. Subject to conditions securing archaeological monitoring and lighting design, the development is considered to comply with Strategic Policies 4 and 5, and Environment Policies 40, 41, and 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. Conditions on Approval: C1.The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C2. No groundworks or other development shall take place until a written methodology for an archaeological watching brief relating to the site groundworks has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The programme of archaeological monitoring shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved written methodology. Reason: To ensure that any archaeological remains are appropriately recorded and/or assessed prior to their damage or destruction by the development in accordance with Environment Policy 41 of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. C3. Prior to any above-ground works, details of the lighting design are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details and be retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure that the setting of Tynwald Hill and the safety of the adjacent road junction are not adversely impacted by the development.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal