Inspector's Report

APPEAL: AP24/0051 PLANNING APPLICATION: 24/00154/B

Report on a Planning Appeal by the Written Procedure Site Visit: Monday 24 February 2025 __________________________________________________________ Appeal by: Rockfell Ltd Against the decision of the planning authority to refuse an application for the addition of a fifth container and widened walkway, and the variation of Conditions 2 and 4 of P.A. 22/00757/B, to retain elements of spectator facility on site and in situ at Land Adjacent to Glen Moar Mill and Field 315139, Glen Helen Road, Laurel Bank, St Johns IM4 3NN. ___________________________________________________________ Introduction

• 1. This report provides brief descriptions of the appeal site and its surroundings; the proposal which is subject to the appeal; background information and relevant policy. The cases for the appeal parties are then summarised, fuller details being available for reference in the documents on the case file. My assessment, conclusions and recommendation follow.

Preliminary Matter

• 2. The application dated 6 February 2024 seeks planning permission for the matters described above; variation of conditions and the addition of a container and wider walkway. The planning authority has suggested how the conditions should be varied to include the new (retrospective) development, but it is not clear if this is possible under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and in the context of the submitted application for planning approval.
• 3. It seems to me, if the appeal were successful, Condition 21 and Condition 42 of planning permission ref: 22/00757/B would need to be deleted but that would not address the retrospective matters and there is no apparent mechanism to add the retrospective matters to that permission.
• 4. In that light I have considered the application on its face. Namely, for the retrospective development as described in the Planning Statement, and as shown on the drawings, accompanying the planning application. The considerations remain the same in any event and if the appeal were successful the appellants would have a new standalone permission upon which to rely. To consider the appeal on this basis would lead to no prejudice

• 1 The four containers, associated supports, platforms, scaffolding and spectator seating may be erected no sooner than two weeks before the first practice of TT and may remain until two weeks after the last race of the Festival of Motorcycling in the same calendar year. The land shall be cleared of all paraphernalia outside of race periods and in a condition suitable for agriculture.
• 2 For the avoidance of doubt, the four containers, associated supports, platforms, scaffolding and spectator seating shall not be stored anywhere outside on the site when not in use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Department.

to any party given the previous permissions and conditions therein form part of my deliberations.

Site, surroundings, background and planning history

• 5. Glen Moar Mill sits on its own in a relatively isolated spot on the south side of the A3 and within the pleasant, wooded Neb valley. The A3 is a well-used main road running through a rural area with little built development. The woodland creates the backdrop to the development at Glen Moar and reflects the predominantly rural nature of the wooded landscape nearby. That is as set out in the Landscape Character Appraisal 2008 (LCA) which includes the road corridor enclosed by woodland as one of the key characteristics.
• 6. The site relates to field numbered 315139 and the adjacent hardstanding which forms part of the Glen Moar Mill complex. Historically the buildings and hardstanding have been used as a filling station and for car sales. More recently permission has been given for tourist units and extensions including a roof top spectator area and dedicated marshals’ facility. The field itself has planning permission3 approved for four containers and spectator stand facilities on a temporary basis. That being for racing periods and retained between the racing periods over the summer months.
• 7. In addition to the aforementioned planning applications, an application for an extension to the existing buildings, to provide race marshal facilities and the creation of a roof terrace viewing platform was approved at appeal in July 2023 (the 2023 appeal).

The retrospective proposal

1. The proposal seeks retrospective permission for: the addition of a fifth shipping container; alterations to the walkway including its extension and widening; and the permanent all year-round retention of 5 containers and timber walkways.

Planning Policy

• 9. The site is within an area identified as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV) as identified in the adopted Island Development Plan (1982). It is not zoned for development. Flood maps identify part of the site as being at high river flooding risk and some surface water flooding.
• 10.The following policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP) are relevant to the appeal. Strategic Policy 1 requires development to make the best use of resources, Strategic Policy 2 states that development in the countryside will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances.
• 11.Environment Policy 1 emphasises that the countryside will be protected for its own sake unless there is over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas.

3 Refs: 21/01316/B and 22/00757/B

Environment Policy 2 sets out that the protection of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape or the location for the development is essential.

• 12.Environment Policy 10 addresses the risk of flooding and requires, for sites with potential to flood, a flood risk assessment and proposed mitigation measures. Environment Policy 13 states that development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding will not be permitted.
• 13.General Policy 3 states that development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of, amongst other things, development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative.

The Case for the appellant The material points are:

• 14.Planning history - The initial application for a spectator stand (21/01316/B) sought four containers and timber deck on a permanent basis, and to periodically remove bleacher seating and scaffold staging. The Agent pressed for a decision four months after the determination period lapsed otherwise there would have been insufficient time to make arrangements before the Events.
• 15.It was first contended that the proposal would not be acceptable as there are “no policies that support temporary spectator seating nor the temporary use of containers for café or bar uses in the countryside or AHLV“. Acutely aware that an appeal would further delay any outcome, the Applicant agreed to several compromises and a conditional approval. The stand was successfully implemented within a month.
• 16.Condition 2 required all elements be removed between the Events, both in summer and off season. An application to vary Condition 2 was submitted immediately after the Isle of Man TT, to retain the stand between that year’s Events. It was approved by the PC the following year. The Applicant had a concurrent application (22/00186/B) for a permanent viewing platform situated on Field 312273, east of the nearby cottages and high above highway level. That was refused but on appeal the Inspector was persuaded that the facility would help secure the Events’ future; a national need satisfying a policy exception. The Inspector’s report set out that the benefits of the proposed scheme to enhance the running, facilities and experience of the TT race in the location of Black Dub and, as part of the wider international race event, would strongly outweigh the limited harm to the character and appearance of the surroundings.
• 17.The current application stems both from the late assessment of the initial application and subsequent recognition by the Minister that a more intrusive

• proposal is acceptable (a clear indication that earlier compromises need not have been made).
• 18.Site and surroundings - The Course usually forms a high-volume route for the Island’s vehicles. The A3 is categorised as an A Road and being heavily trafficked, this Course section is anything but tranquil. The footpath alongside is isolated; it starts at Ballig Bridge, ends before it reaches Glen Helen, and is disconnected from settlements. Walkers are inevitably deterred from this remote footpath and there are no views of the site from surrounding public rights of way.
• 19.The Course is the only public realm with views of the Site, the former being appreciably higher than the latter. Public views of the Site are generally fleeting, from within passing vehicles. The Site’s levels are a product of the highway’s construction and the mill’s infrastructure. Land is terraced higher to the east of the mill than to the west. The highway is filled and retained above lower-lying ground to the south, to establish the road’s smooth gradient. The Proposal was first conceived to turn these particular circumstances into an advantage; the containers’ negligible visual intrusion, being situated well below the level of the Course, would permit their retention and minimise their visibility when not in use.
• 20.Visitor Economy - It is established that permanent events-supporting facilities are indeed a matter of national importance, having already been weighed against countryside protection. The Site is one of an ever-decreasing number of locations from which spectators may enjoy the events. Several other course-side locations that were previously enjoyed by spectators have been prohibited in an effort to improve the event safety. The limited number of spectator sites that do remain must be operated at optimal efficiency to fulfil Visitor Strategy objectives4.
• 21.Any unreasonable limitations imposed on these sites will undermine their economic viability, thereby diminishing visitors’ experience (again, contrary to policy). The Proposal comprises purpose-built bleacher seating designed for periodic disassembly to allow off-season storage or removal (as originally intended). Similar seating generally requires a supporting structure, to allow elevated views. Such permanent Course-side structures are usually situated above ground level. The containers are a means to reduce the appreciable level difference between the Site’s modified topography and the road, and to provide a secure supporting structure to the seating and concealed facilities and storage space. Permanent supporting structures situated above road level in the Northern Uplands are of significantly greater visual intrusion than the Proposal, yet offer no equivalent utility when not in use.
• 22.It is respectfully submitted that the officer’s report misrepresents both the Site and the Proposal as a basis to require periodic removal of the supporting structure (where such requirement has not been imposed upon others). This, in addition to additional economic burden on the Applicant’s endeavours for the Black Dub complex as a whole, will cause unnecessary public disruption, energy consumption and environmental impacts.

• 4 Set out in the “Our Island, Our Future” Isle of Man Visitor Economy Strategy 2022-2032 (VES)

• 23.Public sector countryside interventions - Regarding the containers, it is noted that Department owned land has obtained express approval for a total of five containers sited together within the countryside, on the Southern Uplands. The containers’ visual intrusion required assessment against their various functions as storage, kitchen and toilet facilities to support a recreational use. They are situated on land above the level of an adjacent highway, in direct public line of sight.
• 24.The application was approved provided they be finished in the same dark green colour and that they will be removed from the site should the use finish. Members in this case suggested that any visual impact might be mitigated by use of timber cladding (if not paint). It was also suggested that structured planting could be introduced if done so in a manner that would not compromise spectators’ views.
• 25.Regarding the timber walkway, it is noted that Government works regularly use timber boardwalks, whether this be as an effective means to protect sensitive environments from pedestrian traffic, or to otherwise provide a safe means of access in more difficult terrain. These works aren’t restricted to remote paths and demonstrates that the Proposal adopts the same approach as public-sector works, including those that have obtained express approval.
• 26.Further, installation of the timber walkway will obviate the need for: scaffolding and boards to be transported to and from the Site, the components assembled and reassembled, and their integrity inspected and reinspected; portable conveniences to be transported to and from the Site; storage containers for equipment, and the equipment itself and utility supplies to be transported to and from the Site; the soft landscape of the surrounding curtilage to be heavily trafficked; and the users of the local highway network to be inconvenienced due to repeated transport movements and road closures; there appears to be no assessment of the benefits of the permanent element.
• 27.Reasonableness of Condition 2 - Condition 2 requires the Site to be cleared in a condition suitable for agriculture. The Site is not designated any particular use, and there is no evidence (in the 1982 plan or otherwise) to show the Site having been used for any purpose other than in conjunction with the historic mill. Certainly, there is no evidence that the land has previously been used within the meaning of ‘agriculture’.
• 28.In short, there is no established use of the Site off-season (other than a previous residential approval). The permanent element does not deprive the island of agricultural capacity at any time of year, and certainly not during the winter. The visual intrusion is balanced against its necessity, given the particular nature of the Site previously discussed. The reason for making the land suitable for agricultural use on an annual basis is, in and of itself, unreasonable.
• 29.Flood Risk - The relevant authority has not objected requiring only that a suitable conditions be imposed detailing flood mitigation. Indicative Flood Risk maps show some vulnerability to the vacant space and the stand is not

• within a risk area, no matter the season. The level changes between the site and watercourse show the proposed containers sitting much higher than the river and only on the cusp of the flood risk areas. The Department did not require a flood risk assessment be provided.
• 30.The proposal will, off-season, occupy otherwise redundant land below road level. It will not accommodate any habitable space during this time and, as such, a flood risk assessment would serve only to confirm this as a matter of fact. Whether the visual intrusion of the proposal is so significant as to outweigh the potential risk to aquatic wildlife is a matter that does not appear to have been consulted upon

Summary.

• 31.The Report did not give due consideration to the economic effects of requiring removal of the permanent elements of the proposal. There was no consideration of the mitigating effect of the local modified topography, nor was the nature of the surroundings properly characterised. The visual impact of the proposal was exaggerated and subsequently presented with views not possible from within the public realm.
• 32.The relevant conditions were ill-founded, placing unreasonable requirements upon the Applicant. The matter of flood risk was not previously raised and the relevant authority had no objection to the proposal. There remain significant doubts regarding the Report and whether the assessment gave due consideration to the proposal, the Site, and its surroundings.

The Case for the Planning Authority The material points are:

• 33.Having some kind of spectator facilities at the site for the racing periods contributes towards objectives set out in the “Our Island, Our Future” Isle of Man Visitor Economy Strategy 2022-2032 (VES) by boosting the site during the peak tourist racing periods. However, outside of these times there is no demand for such facilities and the structures sit as an unwarranted blot on the landscape adversely impacting the rural glen setting.
• 34.Whilst landscape characteristics recognise "the road corridor along which TT Race paraphernalia is scattered in the form of Marshal's stations, road markings and signage", the permanent siting of shipping containers, timber boardwalks and large spectator stands goes way beyond a typical marshal station, road marking and signage paraphernalia and this has a negative visual impact.
• 35.The Inspector for the 2023 appeal made an exception to established policy on the basis that the purpose-built design of the marshals tower allowed for better access and response time for marshals in the event of any racing incident or rider emergency and that there was an essential and overriding national need for a marshal station at this specific location at the 'Black Dub' and for which there was no reasonable alternative. The benefits to enhancing

• the running, facilities and experience of the TT race, as part of the wider international race event, would strongly outweigh the limited harm to the character and appearance of the surroundings.
• 36.The VES seeks high quality visitor experiences. The spectator facilities here are not purpose-built like the marshal and roof top facilities, but appear as temporary and make shift scaffold, boarding and containers of low visual quality positioned only to meet a temporary need and of poor design. This can be accepted for short temporary periods but is wholly unacceptable on a permanent basis.
• 37.No national need has been demonstrated or other reasonable alternative. The stance throughout all applications has not changed; the proposal is unsightly and should not be retained on a permanent basis. Highway Services do not oppose the proposal, although comments now submitted differ slightly to those on the previous approval which required a number of conditions to secure the parking and access areas.
• 38.This application has received comment from DOI Flood Risk Management requiring flood mitigation measures to be taken. The application has failed to provide any information for flood mitigation measures for the permanent facilities to demonstrate compliance with Environment Policies 10 and 13.
• 39.Conditions 2 and 4 of 22/00757/B were added to ensure the spectator facilities and the associated equipment and were properly removed from the entire site. The reasons for each condition make clear that they were added to ensure the visual amenity and countryside landscape was protected.

Conclusion

• 40.The land is not zoned for development. There is no overriding national need for the facilities on a permanent basis, while the siting for temporary periods may be acceptable to meet the racing needs, the structures are of significantly low and poor visual quality and do not make a positive contribution to the Island. The development results in a unwarranted blot on the landscape, on a permanent basis, harming the character and appearance of this tranquil glen and rural setting in the countryside contrary to Strategic Policies 1, 2 and 5, General Policy 3, Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan. The application also fails to provide sufficient flood risk mitigation to meet Environment Policies 10 and 13.

Conditions without prejudice

• 41.In the event that the Minister chooses to grant approval, consideration should be given to the conditions appended to this report.

Other Representations

• 42.German Parish Commissioners object to the containers and spectator stands on this site which they consider very unsightly. Department of Infrastructure Highway Services have no objection stating that there would be no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking.

DOI Flood Risk Management ask that conditions for flood mitigation are imposed due to the site being within a flood risk zone.

Assessment by the Inspector Main Issues

• 43.I consider the main issues to be:

•  The effect on the character and appearance of the countryside location.
•  The risk from flooding.

Character and appearance

• 44.I recognise the A3 is part of the TT course and is a heavily trafficked main road. The site is fairly isolated, and I see no reason to disagree that the footpath that runs alongside it is disconnected and unattractive to walkers. Whilst views of the site are inevitably found from that footpath there is no dispute that the site cannot be seen from other Rights of Way nearby. The majority of views would be from passing vehicles.
• 45. Whilst the site’s relationship with the road is in part lower due to the historic layout of the mill being higher to the east, the site has an impact on the valley in which it sits. I see no reason to disagree with the Inspector who set out in the 2023 appeal report that the site as a whole creates a “prominent group of buildings in what is otherwise a generally unspoilt valley”. In particular, finding that “the large three tier grandstand, set up on shipping containers, which does include ‘servicing’ facilities below” contributing to the group. The Inspector went on to find that the development before her would result in some limited harm to the character of the surroundings.
• 46.I see no reason to disagree with the effect the group has on the locality, but my deliberations must focus on the effect of the development before me unlike the balustrading, side extension and viewing platform considered in the 2023 Appeal. To that end, even though the majority of the containers are below road level, the five containers and spectator stand come into view when passing in either direction. It is reasonable to assume that view would not be a surprise given many who pass-by will be aware of the TT course and recognise viewing platforms for what they are; much like others found dotted around the course (permanent and non-permanent).
• 47.However, whilst they may not be an unusual sight on the TT course, as confirmed in the LCA which refers to TT Race paraphernalia, they do not have any sense of permanence and appear very-much temporary in nature. Given that, it is also reasonable to assume there would be no surprise that they were not there outside of the racing season. Indeed, it is also not unreasonable to suggest, given the transient appearance, that the expectation would be for them to be removed. The fact that the development was not given permanent permission is not without merit.
• 48.I say that recognising that such seating generally requires a supporting structure to enable views of the course. In addition, some permanent structures will inevitably be above ground level and may not offer the storage

• capacity that the containers do. I do not have full details of similar structures in the Northen Uplands but note the photographs of the spectator stands, at Creg Ny Baa, appear to be simple open structures in a much different setting to that here. In any event, each case must be decided upon its own merits and particular set of circumstances.
• 49.There is no dispute that having spectator facilities contributes to the objectives of the VES and that contribution outweighs the temporary harm to the landscape. However, if one considered the development without the justification of being on the TT course it would simply be an unacceptable incongruous addition, unlike the built form of the mill buildings, the containers would continue to draw the eye having no relationship to the wooded valley in which they sit. Whilst views from the adjacent footpath may be less, the external utilities that serve the containers add to that harm. Therefore, were the containers sited there permanently, unacceptable harm to the countryside location would occur.
• 50.I recognise landscaping can help soften development but there is nothing before me to suggest that could be done successfully without compromising the fundamental purpose of the viewing platform. I also accept that timber walkways are used in many situations usually for safe egress. Painting the containers green may also reduce the impact. However, I must consider the effect of the development as a whole; the site is not within an area zoned for development; it is an Area of High Landscape Value where the most important consideration is protection of the landscape; and the countryside within which it sits is protected for its own sake.
• 51.For the reasons set out, the development fails to protect that landscape and is therefore contrary to Strategic Policies 1, 2 and 5, General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan.

Flood Risk

• 52.I accept that the relevant authority has not objected per se to the development. They have, nevertheless, confirmed that the site is within a flood risk zone and that conditions should be secured to require flood mitigation measures to be taken. Whilst the appellants may consider that the stand is not within a risk area, and the containers sit higher than the river on the cusp of the flood risk area, this is not corroborated by any formal flood risk assessment.
• 53.Moreover, Environment Policies 10 and 13 are clear in that where a site falls within a flood zone, a flood risk assessment and proposed mitigation measures are required. Developments which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding will not be permitted. I cannot be certain that there would not be an unacceptable risk, regardless of the use of the land and as such I must find the development is contrary to Environment Policies 10 and 13.

Other matters

• 54.A number of other matters have been put forward to weigh in the planning balance and it is to those which I now turn.

• 55.I recognise in the 2023 appeal the Inspector found that the development responded to a national need to secure the TT event into the future. Also, the VES recognised the need of both Government and the private sector to invest in building a visitor destination over time. In addition, there is no dispute that other course-side locations have been prohibited for event safety reasons and the land would lie redundant for most of the year.
• 56.However, I must temper the weight I give to the development contributing to securing the TT event. Unlike the 2023 Appeal, the development is not securing better access and response time for marshals in case of emergency. In the same way, whilst I recognise seating is needed for spectators’ enjoyment, it is not essential at this point, that is also unlike the marshals’ tower for which there was no alternative.
• 57.Undoubtedly, the periodic removal of the development will have a financial burden along with environmental and other impacts. Although, that financial burden should have formed part of the appellants’ considerations when choosing to apply for the permission on a temporary basis. Moreover, there is nothing to corroborate the view that the expense of annually erecting and dismantling the development would become prohibitively expensive. Any environmental harm, given the temporary nature of the structures, should be minimal, albeit that weighs marginally in favour of the proposal.
• 58.I accept that other containers are found elsewhere and used for recreational purposes on government owned land but as stated previously each case must be decided upon its own merits. I have also considered concerns regarding Condition 2 of 22/00757/B which requires the site to be cleared to a condition suitable for agriculture. Whilst arguments regarding whether or not the land is suitable for agriculture are not without merit, it seems to me when read with the reason5 for the condition it simply requires the land to be returned to its previous state before the development took place, reflecting the grassed areas currently found adjacent to the containers.
• 59.Overall, these matters, on their own or in combination, do not outweigh the harm I have found.

Conclusion

• 60.Having considered all matters raised, I conclude the development would result in permanent harm to the character and appearance of the countryside location in conflict with the aforementioned policies of the IMSP. In addition, given the absence of any Flood Risk Assessment, the development inevitably is at odds with the policies that seek to address flooding matters.
• 61.The reasons put forward to justify the development either on their own, or in combination, are insufficient to outweigh the harm I have found, or to set aside the presumption against development in the AHLV.

• 5 To protect the appearance of the countryside.

Planning Conditions

• 62.I recognise planning conditions could secure removal of bleacher seating and associated railings. Conditions for restrictions on food and drink would reflect the previous permission. Conditions for site highway layout and access lane, as per the previous scheme would be necessary as that work has yet to be implemented. However, there are no appropriate conditions that would justify a granting of approval for the development.
• 63.Nevertheless, if my recommendation is not accepted, and the Minister is minded to approve the development, the conditions set out in the schedule below are suggested. The conditions are those suggested by the planning authority and I see no reason to disagree.

Recommendation

• 64.I recommend that the appeal against the refusal of planning approval for the addition of a fifth container and widened walkway, and the variation of Conditions 2 and 4 of P.A. 22/00757/B, to retain elements of spectator facility on site and in situ at Land Adjacent to Glen Moar Mill and Field 315139, Glen Helen Road, Laurel Bank, St Johns IM4 3NN, be dismissed and that the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse approval be upheld. For the first two reasons set out in the decision dated 26 November 20246.
• 65.If, however, the Minister takes the opposite view and decides that the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application should not be upheld, I recommend that approval be given subject to the conditions set out below.

RJ Perrins

R J Perrins MA Independent Inspector 26 March 2024

• 6 Those reasons being replicated at the end of this report.

Schedule of Suggested Conditions to be applied if the Minister decides to grant Planning Approval

• 1. 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.

• 2. This approval relates to the permanent siting of five containers and walkway platforms and their associated supports only as shown in drawing 100.10 Rev X and 100.02 Rev X. All bleacher spectator seating and associated railings may be erected no sooner than two weeks before the first practice of TT and may remain until two weeks after the last race of the Festival of Motorcycling in the same calendar year as shown in drawing details 100.10 Rev X annotated ‘SOUTH ELEVATION (Bleacher Seating Disassembled and Removed)’.

Reason: The application has been assessed on this basis as set out in the submitted detail and the removal of the seating and rails will help towards reducing some of the adverse visual impact on the appearance of the countryside over the winter months and those parts of the spectator facilities not required outside of the racing season.

• 3. The use for food and drink purposes shall be restricted to two containers only as labelled ‘catering’ and ‘bar’ as per the plan on drawing 100.10 Rev X and their use may only be available to visitors and customers no sooner than one day before the 6 first practice associated with the TT races and up to one day after the last race in that event, and no sooner than one day before the first practice of the Festival of Motorcycling and up to one day after the last race in that event. No approval is granted for any food and drink purposes outside of these periods nor for any period in between the two events.

Reason: To clarify the extent of the planning approval and in the interest of the protection of the countryside.

NOTE: Condition 3 has been replicated from the previous approval 22/00757/B but amended to be clearer for flexibility of any possible set up prior to being open for use by visitors and customers to the site.

• 4. No approval is granted to any other works except those listed in C2 above.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as the application does not include for any artificial grass, shelters or large canopies.

• 5. The site highway layout, access and egress shall be carried out in full accordance with drawing number 100.02 Rev X prior to the first use of this approval and retained as such thereafter and visibility splays as shown in drawing numbers 100.03 Rev X and 100.04 Rev X kept permanently clear of obstruction above 1.05m. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

• NOTE: This condition has been replicated as the originally approved scheme was not implemented.
• 6. The access lane (between the hardstanding and field) shall be surface finished in a bound material for the first 6m from the edge of the highway and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to avoid loose material from entering the road.

NOTE: This condition has been replicated as the originally approved scheme was not implemented.

The reasons for the original refusal were:

• R 1. There is no overriding national need for the facilities on a permanent basis, while their siting for a temporary periods may be acceptable to meet the racing needs, the structures are of significantly poor visual quality which does not make a positively contribution to the Island and negatively detracts from and results in a unwarranted development in the landscape on a permanent basis harming the character and appearance of this tranquil glen and rural setting in the countryside contrary to Strategic Policies 1, 2 and 5, General Policy 3, Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016.
• R 2. The application fails to provide sufficient flood risk information to meet Environment Policies 10 and 13 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016.