713756

==== PAGE 1 ====

Appeal Ref: AP25/0020 Application No: 24/00859/B __ Page 1 of 17

Report by Mrs Jennifer Vyse DipTP, MRTPI, DipPBM on a Planning Appeal - Written Representations Case Site Inspection carried out on 22 September 2025 __

Appeal Ref: AP25/0020 Planning Application: 24/00859/B Address: Land north of Scrondall, Glen Road, Ballaugh IM7 5JD1 The appeal is made by Mrs H M Radcliffe against the decision of DEFA Planning to refuse planning permission for the erection of a single-storey dwelling.

PREAMBLE

1. This Report provides a brief description of the appeal site and its surroundings, the proposal the subject of this appeal and relevant policy. The cases for the appeal parties are then summarised, fuller details being available for reference in the appeal case documents. My assessment, conclusion and recommendation follow.
2. Amended plans were submitted to DEFA Planning prior to determination of the application. My Report is based on those amended plans, which are listed at Annex A below, and the related consultation responses as updated.
3. Concerns are expressed in the grounds of appeal about the handling of the planning application by DEFA Planning. Frustrating as that might have been for the appellant, that is not a matter that is within my remit in dealing with this appeal, which is confined to the planning merits of the respective cases.
4. DEFA Planning confirms that the reference in the third of the reasons for refusal on the Decision Notice to ‘agricultural’ justification is an error. It should refer to ‘arboricultural’ justification. DESCRIPTION
5. The grassy, well treed appeal site comprises a roughly triangular parcel of land (around 430sqm) on the western side of Glen Road, some 800m south of the settlement boundary of Ballaugh. At the time of my visit, the site was enclosed by wire fencing on timber posts, with access (via a metal field gate in the southeastern corner) taken from a narrow track that runs along the southern site boundary, which also provides access to the small Carmodil electricity substation (located adjacent to the southwestern corner of the appeal site) a neighbouring farm, Glion-Shugal, and Braggan Gorym, a residential property. An electricity pole is located within the appeal site, to the north of the substation.
6. The substation is surrounded by overgrown conifer trees within the appeal site. The rear (western) boundary of the appeal site is defined by the Ravensdale River. The northeastern site boundary is defined by a narrow track that is separated from Glen Road by a sliver of land that forms part of the curtilage to Carmodil West, a residential property to the north of the

1 The address stated on the application form is Plot of Land - Glion Shugal, Glen Road. The address I have used in the header to this Report, which is taken from the Authority’s Decision Notice and the appeal form, more accurately describes the site.

==== PAGE 2 ====

Appeal Ref: AP25/0020 Application No: 24/00859/B __ Page 2 of 17

appeal site that fronts onto Glen Road, with overgrown hedgerow along the boundary with the track. The two tracks converge at Ballaugh Glen road, adjacent to the southeastern corner of the appeal site. 7. Stoneleigh, another residential property lies to the north of Carmodil West. A pair of detached dwellings are located on the opposite side of the main road to the appeal site, whilst a further dwelling, Scrondall, lies to the south, also fronting on to the main road. There are other scattered dwellings in the locality. 8. Permission is sought for the erection of a single-storey, two-bed dwelling on the site, measuring some 8.9m x 11.3m. It would be finished in a smooth painted render, with a timber-clad porch beneath a slate tile roof. The building would face east, set on a roughly north/south alignment. Two on- site parking spaces are shown adjacent to the southern site boundary, in front of the substation, accessed via new gates at the southeastern corner of the site. A ground mounted solar array is shown along the southern side of the proposed dwelling. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY 9. The site lies outwith the settlement boundary of Ballaugh as defined on the 1982 Development Plan, within an area not zoned for development. The Plan also shows the site as located within a defined woodland area and within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV). Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 10. Strategic Policy 2 and Housing Policy 4 seek to locate new housing development within existing towns and villages or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions. They resist development in the countryside other than in the exceptional circumstances set out in General Policy 3. 11. General Policy 3 resists development outwith those areas zoned for development in the relevant Area Plan other than for specified purposes. 12. Environment Policy 1 protects the countryside for its own sake, with countryside defined as all land outside the settlements defined at Appendix 3 to the Plan or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development that would affect the countryside adversely is not permitted unless there is an overriding national need for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative. 13. Environment Policy 2 confirms that within AHLVs, protection of the character of the landscape is the most important consideration unless it can be shown that there would be no harm to the character or quality of the landscape, or that the location of the development is essential. 14. Environment Policy 3 resists development that would result in the unacceptable loss of, or damage to, woodland areas which have public amenity or conservation value. 15. General Policy 2 is generally permissive of development that accords with the land use zoning and proposals in the relevant Area Plan provided that: b)

==== PAGE 3 ====

Appeal Ref: AP25/0020 Application No: 24/00859/B __ Page 3 of 17

it respects the site and its surroundings; c) that there would be no adverse impact on the character of the surrounding landscape; and f) that it incorporates, where possible, existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks. Draft Area Plan for the North and West 16. This is an emerging plan which has not yet been approved. It does not include the appeal site within the settlement boundary for Ballaugh. Planning Circular 3/91- Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside 17. The Circular sets down some basic principles intended to protect the quality of the countryside, including through the design of new development where it is allowed. It reiterates that new buildings are limited to essential purposes. IoM Biodiversity Strategy 2015-2025 18. This Strategy sets out a vision for the future health of the Island’s biodiversity, mapping out a framework for action to conserve and enhance its natural richness for the health, enjoyment and economic well-being of all the people of the Isel of Man. PLANNING HISTORY 19. The appeal site itself has not been the subject of any planning application. However, as set out in the Officer’s Report, there are a number of previous applications for development in the immediate locality. 20. Permission was given for a dwelling to the north of the appeal site for a property, Carmodil West, on the site of an old workshop building - 07/00958/A and 10/00090/REM. 21. Permission was given for an agricultural worker’s dwelling adjacent to Mylvoirrey, Glen Road - 08/00208/A. 22. In addition, permission was refused for the erection of a detached building providing self-contained living accommodation at Faaie Wyllin, Glen Road - 09/00711/B. A subsequent application for a detached garage and workshop was also refused - 11/01268/B. THE CASE FOR MRS RADCLIFFE (THE APPELLANT) The material points are: Principle of Development 23. Whilst the 1982 Development Plan is still in effect, it is now 43 years old. As such, it is clearly out of date for what the Government is seeking to achieve for the Island. The emerging Draft Area Plan for the North and West should be given consideration, although ongoing delays mean that applicants are hindered by out-of-date information whilst knowing that new information that is in the public domain paints a different picture.

==== PAGE 4 ====

Appeal Ref: AP25/0020 Application No: 24/00859/B __ Page 4 of 17

24. Strategic Policy 2 and Housing Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan allow for new housing in existing towns and villages, or in sustainable urban extensions, confirming that development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 4.
25. The appeal site is on one of two roads off the main A3 road running through Ballaugh. This road is classed as ‘access’ on the IOM hierarchy map, the same level as the road on which the main proportion of Ballaugh settlement is located.
26. Ballaugh is classed as a village in the Settlement Hierarchy and Policy Approach within the Draft Area Plan, a village that has a public house, shop, school, village hall, church, amenity space and strong connections to public transport serving all areas of the Island. The appeal site is only 0.8km from the settlement boundary.
27. Paragraph 8.8.1 of the Strategic Plan recognises that there are many small groups of dwellings in the countryside which, whilst not having the character of, or the full range of services usually provided in a village, nevertheless have a sense of place and community. This part of Glen Road has a strong sense of place and community. The appeal site is not open countryside, woodland, nor an enclosed field. It is in a location sheltered by trees, next to an old workshop that has been replaced with a residential dwelling. There are approximately 25 houses to the north of the proposed site along the road, on similar plots, with around 15 houses to the south. These plots are located on both sides of the road. In that context, the appeal site is a natural infill within the existing settlement, not sporadic or isolated development in the countryside.
28. Unfortunately, the Draft Plan totally ignores the guidance in the Strategic Plan2 in not identifying small settlements for the provision of new appropriate development. The appeal scheme falls into the latter category,3 the appellant having grown up along Glen Road, with close family members still living in surrounding properties, including running a nearby farm that utilises some of the surrounding farmland. A sensitively added dwelling on the site would consolidate the hamlet without expansion into the open countryside and would provide a home for a local family strongly connected with the farming economy. The proposal would contribute to the character of the settlement and would certainly not be ad hoc.
29. Previous applications have been approved for the erection of dwellings, extensions and conversions in the area, all of which lie beyond the settlement boundary, including Carmodil West (07/00958/A) immediately to the north of the site. Attention is also drawn to a new dwelling allowed on appeal in Ballaveare, Port Soderick, which is very similar to this scheme (23/00267/A)
30. The Draft Plan states development should maintain the existing settlement character and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and employment opportunities. The proposal clearly meets this approach, maintaining the character of the Glen Road settlement, being of an appropriate scale that meets the specific needs of the appellant. Whilst

2 Paragraph 8.8.3 of the Strategic Plan 3 As per paragraph 8.8.2

==== PAGE 5 ====

Appeal Ref: AP25/0020 Application No: 24/00859/B __ Page 5 of 17

not a new dwelling, Carmodil Beg (opposite the appeal site) is more than twice the size of the original property there, much larger than the appeal scheme, showing how development can be done in these areas without being detrimental. The appeal scheme achieves this. Trees 31. The 1982 Development Plan identifies the site as lying within private woodland and parkland. This has been amended in the Draft Area Plan for the North and West, which shows the appeal site as being outside of any noted woodland areas and not within any areas of registered trees. 32. The Island’s Biodiversity Strategy 2015-2025 is also a material consideration. In its current state, the appeal site does not have any ecological benefit, as acknowledged by the Ecological Department. The proposal would see the enhanced implementation of a variety of native trees, hedging, planting and wildflowers, which would not only safeguard but would enhance the ecosystem, allowing for genetic diversity to the area. 33. The appeal site includes a large number of Leylandii trees, deemed by Manx Wildlife Trust to be an invasive species on the Island. The Forestry Department confirms that these trees are unsuited to the landscape and in poor condition. The trees to be removed are identified in the application (as opposed to applying for a separate felling licence). It makes no sense then, for DEFA Planning to form a reason for refusal on the basis that the trees to be removed are, in their own words, of low amenity value, with no significant aesthetic or conservation importance and with strong native mitigation being put forward, including native hedging, native tree species and wildflower sections. (Dwgs PL04rev2 and PL05rev1). All applications should be judged on their own merits. By not seeing past the low amenity value trees to the site, the Department fails to judge the site on its full merits. 34. MUA has a wayleave over part of the site for ongoing access to the substation and electricity pole. This was factored into the proposal. During the application process, the MUA visited the site multiple times and, as allowed for within its powers, subsequently lopped back and felled several trees on the site. Two of these trees were on the opposite side of the river and trees noted as a woodland backdrop to the site. 35. The silver birch to be removed has not been confirmed as a category B tree. It has merely been assumed as such by the Forestry Department (mainly due to the poor condition of it covered in ivy etc). The tree does not hold any landscape significance. It is a poorly formed, solitary tree, that if anything impedes the more mature and aesthetically pleasing tree line behind. The proposed mitigation was designed with Forestry assistance. Indeed, it exceeds their advice by introducing significant areas of native hedging and wildflower space. 36. Assessment of the scheme against Environment Policy 3 is flawed, since the site is clearly neither a woodland nor a semi-woodland area, with no surrounding registered trees or areas of trees. Absolutely no amenity would be lost to the site through removal of the silver birch and the erection of the proposed single storey dwelling. The tree line and fields behind the site, including the Keyllagh Nature Reserve, are the visible feature of the surroundings, providing a backdrop to the site. The proposal clearly

==== PAGE 6 ====

Appeal Ref: AP25/0020 Application No: 24/00859/B __ Page 6 of 17

incorporates the topography of the site, with the inclusion of new trees and hedges incorporating the site as whole into the surroundings and improving the surrounding aesthetics. The proposed building, along with the existing frontage development, would continue to be seen against the rural backdrop. The site and the proposed development would be partly screened by existing and proposed boundary vegetation, thereby softening its visual impression when viewed from the road. THE CASE FOR DEFA PLANNING The material points are: Principle of Development 37. The Strategic Plan establishes a spatial strategy based on a hierarchy of settlements. This is implemented through Spatial Policies 2, 3, 4 and 5, which direct development to defined settlements and restrict development in the countryside to the exceptional circumstances set out in General Policy 3. 38. The appeal site lies outside the defined settlement boundary of Ballaugh, as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and as depicted on Map 13 of the Draft Area Plan for the North and West. It is not identified in the 1982 Plan or the Strategic Plan as part of a recognised grouping or settlement cluster. As such, the proposal falls to be assessed against the countryside protection policies of the Strategic Plan, particularly Environment Policy 1, which states that development in the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an overriding national need and no reasonable alternative. 39. The site does not form part of a clearly identifiable group of houses in either physical or functional terms. While the concept of a ‘group of houses’ is referenced in Section 8 of the Strategic Plan, this is not applicable to the appeal site, as it relates to specific exceptions for countryside development, which are not engaged in this case. Whilst the appellant refers to an appeal decision elsewhere on the Island, the circumstances of that case are materially significantly different from the instant appeal. It is not directly comparable to the current proposal, which falls to be considered on its own merits. 40. The 1982 Development Plan remains the operative land use designation. Whilst the Draft Area Plan for the North and West is useful for context, it has not yet been approved and so carries no material weight. The Draft Plan does not adopt a spatially integrated approach to rural development through the use of functional groupings or sub-regional clusters. Instead, it treats each village as a discrete unit, with no attempt to define shared infrastructure, economic linkages, or service interdependencies between settlements.4 As a result, the emerging Plan does not provide a framework for identifying or assessing whether a site forms part of a wider spatial grouping. In the absence of any mapped or policy-defined groupings in the Draft Plan, there is no evidential basis to support the appellant’s reliance on the Plan to justify development outside a defined settlement. Indeed, there is no policy basis within the Draft Plan to support the proposal.

4 Paragraph 1.4.1

==== PAGE 7 ====

Appeal Ref: AP25/0020 Application No: 24/00859/B __ Page 7 of 17

41. The Strategic Plan remains the statutory development plan and the primary basis for determining planning applications. Whilst paragraphs 8.8.1-8.8.3 acknowledge that small groups of houses exist in the countryside and that, in principle, some may be suitable for limited development, paragraph 8.8.3 makes clear that such development must be controlled through the development plan process, with village envelopes or curtilages identified through formal designation. This part of Glen Road is not recognised as such in any adopted plan. Moreover, the Draft Area Plan does not identify this location as a defined group or settlement cluster, nor does it propose a village envelope for this area.
42. The appeal site lies outside the defined settlement boundary of Ballaugh, is not zoned for development and is not demonstrably part of a group of houses or a recognised spatial cluster. It does not meet any of the exceptions set out in General Policy 3 or Housing Policy 4. While the appellant refers to the presence of nearby dwellings, this does not in itself establish a policy-compliant grouping, nor does it override the presumption against development in the countryside. As such, the proposal is contrary to the Island’s spatial strategy and fails to comply with the relevant policies of the Strategic Plan. The introduction of residential development in this location would represent an ad hoc decision taken in isolation, precisely the type of development that paragraph 8.8.3 cautions against. Landscape and Countryside Character
43. The appellant’s assertion that the site is not open countryside is not correct. It lies outside the defined settlement boundary of Ballaugh and is located within open countryside as designated in the 1982 Development Plan, which shows the site as lying within Private Woodland and Parkland and within an Area of High Landscape Value. It is visually and functionally part of the wider rural landscape. Environment Policy 2 and General Policy 2(b) and (c) require that development respects and preserves the character of such areas, with 2(d) supporting proposals that have no adverse effect on protected wildlife or locally important habitats.
44. The Strategic Plan supports enhancements to biodiversity and landscape character, but only where the principle of development is acceptable under policy. Such enhancements cannot be used to justify otherwise inappropriate development. The proposed landscaping measures do not in themselves justify development in the countryside and would not negate the visual impact of introducing built form onto an undeveloped rural plot. The cumulative effect of tree removal, domestication of the site, and loss of openness remains contrary to policy. The proposal fails to demonstrate that the landscape character would be preserved or that the location is essential for development.
45. Whilst MUA may have removed some trees on the site for operational purposes, that has not altered the fundamental landscape character of the area. The proposal falls to be considered on the basis of the prevailing and intended landscape context, not on temporary or incidental changes. The loss of mature vegetation, combined with the introduction of domestic built form, would result in a lasting and adverse change to the site’s rural character.

==== PAGE 8 ====

Appeal Ref: AP25/0020 Application No: 24/00859/B __ Page 8 of 17

46. The appeal site lies within open countryside and does not meet the criteria for development under the Strategic Plan. The proposed enhancements, such as replacement tree planting, while positive in isolation, do not override the policy presumption against development in such locations. Moreover, the removal of existing vegetation and disruption of an established ecological network cannot be considered an enhancement where it is not essential or justified on policy grounds. In such cases, mitigation does not equate to compliance. Trees
47. The site is designated as Private Woodland and Parkland under the 1982 Development Plan, reinforcing the need for careful evaluation under Environment Policy 3 and General Policy 2(f) of the Strategic Plan, which policies provide for the protection of trees, woodlands, and hedgerows where they contribute to the character, biodiversity, or amenity of an area. The policies do not distinguish between native and non-native species in determining whether trees are worthy of protection. While the Draft Area Plan does not re-state the formal woodland parkland designations for the site, it is still shown as lying within the countryside for the purposes of planning policy.
48. DEFA Arboriculture has confirmed that the group of Cupressus sp. within the southwestern part of the site is of low amenity value and their removal is not considered a material constraint. However, the removal of a mature silver birch, considered to be at least a category B specimen under BS5837:2012 and therefore worthy of retention, remains a key concern. Although the appellant disputes its classification and amenity value, no formal Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) has been submitted to substantiate that claim. A precautionary approach is therefore appropriate.
49. The application lacks an AIA and Tree Protection Plan (TPP), both of which are essential for assessing the impact of development on existing trees, including the impact of future pressures on trees to the north and west of the site, at application stage. This omission is a significant shortcoming since delaying the survey until after planning permission is granted risks undermining the ability to protect trees during the design and construction phases. It may also result in avoidable harm to trees that could otherwise be retained through informed design.
50. The proposed mitigation planting, whilst welcome in principle, does not replace the need to assess the value and condition of existing trees and is not a substitute for the loss of a potentially valuable tree, particularly in the absence of evidence regarding its condition or amenity value. The long-term benefits of new planting do not outweigh the immediate loss of a mature tree with ecological and visual significance and the policy conflict remains unresolved.
51. While ecological impacts can be mitigated through planning conditions, the arboricultural objection remains valid. The removal of the mature, category B silver birch without adequate justification or assessment, is contrary to policies EP3 and GP2(f), particularly given the site’s non-zoned status. The absence of policy support for the development further weakens any justification for tree removal.

==== PAGE 9 ====

Appeal Ref: AP25/0020 Application No: 24/00859/B __ Page 9 of 17

OTHER REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED 52. DoI Highway Services: no objection subject to conditions. 53. DoI Flood Risk Management: does not object subject to a condition. 54. DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team: whilst the amended plans mitigate some ecological impacts, additional mitigation is required which can be secured by conditions. 55. DEFA Arboriculture: No objection to removal of the group of Cupressus sp, which are of relatively low amenity value and are in poor condition. Object however, due to the removal of large, mature birch tree, which is considered to be a least Category B in terms of its value. Application lacks sufficient arboricultural information to allow for accurate assessment of impacts. Effect on trees to the west of the site is unclear. Concern at potential for future pressure to prune or fell large broadleaf trees in the adjacent field. Similar demands may also be placed on trees to the north. 56. DEFA Fisheries: no objection subject to conditions. 57. MUA Electricity: Initial objection removed following receipt of the amended plans. 58. Mill Bank Cottage, Glen Road, Ballaugh: concerns about highway safety at the access; loss of large tree that hosts multiple birds; presence of Japanese Knotweed; potential damage to the riverbank and the crossing; lack of care for the site over the last five years. ASSESSMENT BY INSPECTOR 59. The main issues in this case relate to:

• whether the site is an appropriate location for a new dwelling, having regard to planning policy for development in the countryside; and
• the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Location and the Principle of Development

60. The appeal site lies beyond the defined settlement boundary for Ballaugh as shown on the 1982 Development Plan. It also lies beyond the settlement boundary for Ballaugh, as depicted on Map 13 of the Draft Area Plan for the North and West (although I recognise that this Plan is not yet operational and thus carries little weight in the planning balance, since it could still change). In both instances, its location means that the development proposed falls to be assessed against those policies that relate to development in the open countryside.
61. Environment Policy 1 seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake, with Strategic Policy 2 and Housing Policy 4 directing new housing to existing towns, villages or sustainable urban extensions. They specifically resist development in the countryside other than in the exceptional circumstances set out in General Policy 3, none of which are relevant here.
62. In support of appeal, the appellant seeks to rely on the concept of groups of dwellings in the countryside referenced in Section 8.8 of the Strategic Plan.

==== PAGE 10 ====

Appeal Ref: AP25/0020 Application No: 24/00859/B __ Page 10 of 17

Notwithstanding the clear policy presumption against development in the countryside, paragraphs 8.8.1-8.8.2 of the Plan recognise that there are many small groups of dwellings in the countryside that have a sense of place or community where the addition of further dwellings, whilst not according with the Plan’s strategic objectives may, among other things, maintain social and family associations and assist in sustaining the rural economy. 63. However, that needs to be read in the context of the subsequent paragraph, 8.8.3, which makes it clear that that such opportunities have been identified in the most recent local and Area Plans and that in future Area Plans, all groups of houses in the countryside will be assessed for development potential by identifying a village envelope or curtilage and providing the opportunity for development within such areas. 64. The appeal site does not lie within any such identified grouping as defined in either an existing or emerging Area Plan. I am mindful, in this regard, that paragraph 8.8.3 concludes by confirming that it remains important that such development is controlled by the development plan process, rather than as ad hoc planning decisions taken in isolation. 65. The Draft Area Plan does not provide a framework for identifying or assessing whether a site forms part of a wider spatial grouping. In the absence of any mapped or policy-defined groupings in the Draft Plan, there is no evidential basis to support the appellant’s approach. Whilst the appellant takes issue with the Draft Area Plan, in that it makes no provision for development within groups of houses in the countryside housing, it is clear from the wording of paragraph 8.8.3 of the Strategic Plan that that is a matter for the Area Plan process, not this appeal. As it stands therefore, and in the absence of any exceptional justification pursuant to the provisions of Environment Policy 1, General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan, the erection of a dwelling on the appeal site, in this countryside location, would clearly be in direct conflict with the Development Plan. Character and Appearance 66. I saw that this part of Glen Road is characterised by a sporadic, loose-knit pattern of development which, on the western side of the road particularly, has a spacious rural setting that does not have the characteristics of a village or other settlement location. The appeal site forms part of a wide gap on the western side of the road, between the dwellinghouse to the south (Scrondall) and Carmodil West to the north. 67. The site is currently grassed and although it is well-treed there are, even with the trees in leaf, views through to the landscape and scenic beauty of the countryside beyond. Being devoid of built development,5 the site has an open rural nature that makes a positive contribution to the verdant character and appearance of the area, rather than being seen as lying within an otherwise built-up frontage. As such, contrary to the view of the appellant, the site does not represent an infill plot.6 Rather, it is experienced as an integral part of the countryside through which Glen Road passes, with the site having an obviously greater affinity to its rural setting than to other

5 The small substation lies adjacent to the site and is well screened by the existing conifers. 6 Defined in the glossary to the Strategic Plan as ‘Building on a small site in between two existing dwellings.’

==== PAGE 11 ====

Appeal Ref: AP25/0020 Application No: 24/00859/B __ Page 11 of 17

buildings in the locality. Given that context, the introduction of a dwelling on the plot would have an urbanising effect that would markedly erode the spacious rural character of the area, even allowing for the new planting proposed. 68. Moving on to the planting, it is proposed that the large conifers within the appeal site around the northern and eastern boundaries of the adjacent substation plot would be removed. Notwithstanding that they are a non- native species and are not in good condition, they still have some amenity value, making an albeit modest contribution to the verdant feel of the area. That said, DEFA Arboriculture raises no objection to their removal. It seems to me, that appropriate new planting could serve to screen the substation in due course and I take no issue on this point. 69. There are outstanding concerns however in relation to the removal of a large silver birch on the site to facilitate the proposed dwelling. The appellant, who disputes the Category B designation suggested by DEFA Arboriculture, maintains that the tree is in poor condition. However, that is not supported by a proper Arboricultural Report. Absent such a report, there can be no certainty about its health and longevity. Taking a precautionary approach therefore, and being mindful that the appeal site lies within an area identified as private woodland and parkland in the 1982 Development Plan (although I recognise that that designation is not taken forward in the emerging Plan), I consider that for now at least, it continues to make a meaningful contribution to visual amenity. Its unjustified removal would therefore harm the sylvan character and appearance of the area, bringing it into conflict with Environment Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan. 70. Other concerns relate to potential pressure from future occupiers to lop, top of fell trees on adjacent land. However, future occupiers would be aware of the trees which, in any event are situated, for the most part, on the far side of the river (the riverbank trees that were within the site were felled by MUA) - the dwelling proposed is sited adjacent to the northeastern site boundary, a sufficient distance away from the riverbank and the opposite trees. I find no harm in this regard. 71. In support of the appeal, the appellant draws attention to other permissions. It would seem, however, that the Carmodil West property, immediately to the north of the appeal site, replaced an existing workshop/store (07/00958/A) as opposed to comprising a new dwelling on a greenfield site. Reference is also made to Carmodil Beg, a residential property on the opposite side of the road to the appeal site, which has been extended to more than twice its original size. I do not know the details of the permissions relating to that property, but the appellant confirms that it was not a new dwelling. Different policies apply to the extension of existing dwellings compared with those relating to the erection of new dwellings in the countryside. 72. In the Port Soderick decision referred to (23/00267/A) I understand that the Inspector did have regard to Section 8 of the Strategic Plan. Notwithstanding that the hamlet within which the site was located was not identified in any plan as a rural group of dwellings, he found, on the site-specific circumstances of that case, that the site could be considered as an infill plot

==== PAGE 12 ====

Appeal Ref: AP25/0020 Application No: 24/00859/B __ Page 12 of 17

that did not comprise a green space of any particular value. That is in clear contrast to the current scheme, where the gap between existing buildings is not small such that this cannot be properly considered as an infill plot, with the land playing an integral part in the sylvan character and appearance of the area. I therefore find nothing in the developments referred to, to be directly comparable with the development before me, which I have considered on its own merits. 73. To conclude on this issue, the site-specific context of the appeal site means that it is not seen as an infill plot. Rather, its undeveloped sylvan nature makes a positive contribution to the rural character and appearance of the area, as opposed to it being seen as a gap in a built-up frontage. In that context, I consider that the dwelling proposed would comprise an unjustified encroachment into the countryside, with consequential material harm to the established rural character and appearance of the area. Whilst not objecting to the removal of the conifers within the site, removal of the mature silver birch without appropriate justification would exacerbate that harm. There would be conflict in this regard, with Environment Policies 1, 2 and 3 and General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan, and with Planning Circular 3/91, which together and among other things seek to protect such interests. Other Matters 74. In terms of any benefits of the scheme, the DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team is content that whilst the amended plans mitigate some ecological impacts, necessary additional mitigation can be secured by conditions. There may be scope, in this regard, not only to mitigate but enhance the biodiversity of the site. I find no conflict in principle therefore, with the Island’s Biodiversity Strategy. Inasmuch as there may be some benefit, that is a consideration I afford limited weight in the absence of any detailed assessment or proposals. 75. I also understand that the appellant grew up along Glen Road and has lived in various properties along the road over the years. I am also advised that close family members still live in some surrounding properties, including running a nearby farm. Whilst I appreciate those family connections with the area, personal circumstances rarely outweigh general planning matters, because the effect of the development would remain long after any personal circumstances ceased to exist. That is particularly important in the context of the countryside, where development is permitted only in exceptional circumstances, none of which apply in this instance. As such, this is a consideration to which I afford very limited weight. OVERALL CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 76. The development plan does not have primacy on the Isle of Man, as it does in the UK. Nevertheless, it provides a starting point for the consideration of planning proposals such as this. The appeal site is not located within the settlement boundary for Ballaugh as currently defined, and is not zoned for development. As such, it lies in the open countryside for the purposes of planning policy. The proposal does not meet any of the exceptions for development in the countryside allowed for by the relevant policies of the Strategic Plan.

==== PAGE 13 ====

Appeal Ref: AP25/0020 Application No: 24/00859/B __ Page 13 of 17

77. In the absence of any substantiated justification, even with the potential for a high quality landscaping scheme, I consider that the introduction of a dwelling on the plot represents an unwarranted intrusion into the countryside with a materially harmful impact on the established character and appearance of the area, contrary to the relevant policies. I have had regard to the other developments referred to by the appellant, but none is directly comparable to the site-specific circumstances that prevail here. I have, therefore, considered the scheme on its own particular planning merits.
78. Whilst Section 8.8 of the Strategic Plan suggests some support for new dwellings in countryside groups outwith defined settlement boundaries, paragraph 8.8.3 makes it very clear that the way to achieve that is through the Development Plan process, not through ad hoc planning decisions such as this. Notwithstanding that the Draft Area Plan for the North and East carries no material weight at this stage (since its policies could still change), I am mindful that it does not include reference to such areas. Whilst the appellant takes issue on this point, that is a matter for the Area Plan process and is not a matter for me as part of this planning appeal.
79. Overall, I conclude on balance that any benefits of the scheme, such as they are, are not sufficient to overcome the objection in principle to the development proposed and the actual harm that would be caused to the established character an appearance of the area. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed and that the decision OF DEFA Planning to refuse planning permission be upheld. Reason: The appeal site lies in the open countryside for planning purposes, outwith any defined settlement boundary, and is not zoned for development. The proposal does not meet any of the exceptions for development in the countryside allowed for by Environment Policy 1, Strategic Policy 2, Housing Policy 4 or General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan. Even taking account of the potential for a high quality landscaping scheme, the introduction of a dwelling on the plot would have a significant and materially harmful impact on the established character and appearance of the area, contrary to Environment Policies 1, 2 and 3 and General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan, and to Planning Circular 3/91, which seek to protect such interests. None of the other developments cited by the appellant is directly comparable to the site-specific circumstances that prevail here and the scheme has been considered the scheme on its own particular planning merits.
80. Should the Minister disagree and grant planning permission, suggested conditions, and the reasons for them, are attached at Annex B below. They are based on those suggested in the Authority’s Statement of Case.
81. One of the suggested conditions requires the submission of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA). However, AIAs are used to inform a development proposal. Once a detailed scheme has been approved, impacts on trees are deemed to have been taken into account. On that basis, imposing the suggested condition would serve no useful purpose and I have not included it in the schedule of recommended conditions below. It is important, however,

==== PAGE 14 ====

Appeal Ref: AP25/0020 Application No: 24/00859/B __ Page 14 of 17

to protect those trees shown on the plans as being retained. Another of the suggested conditions deals with that and I have included it in the recommended schedule, albeit amended to include an implementation clause. 82. Another suggested condition included reference to the provision and retention of visibility splays. However, the splays shown on the submitted plans lie outwith the redline application site boundary, on land over which the appellant does not appear to have control. As such, a positively worded condition to secure the splays would be ultra vires. I have therefore deleted reference to the splays in my recommended wording. I am mindful, in this regard, that access to the site from the road would be via an existing access point, with there being no suggestion from the highway authority that the junction is deficient in terms of available visibility. 83. DEFA Fisheries had no objection subject to a condition securing precautions to prevent harmful materials from entering the water course during the construction period. Whilst I have included possible wording for such a condition, it would need discussing with the parties before including on any permission. 84. It is proposed to fence the site boundaries, although no details of exactly what that might look like are shown on the plans. In my view, a condition requiring details of the fencing, including the height restriction along the southern site boundary (as recommended by DoI Highways) is necessary in the interests of both visual amenity and highway safety. I have included possible wording, but again it would need discussing with the parties before including on any permission. 85. Most of the site is not prone to flood risk, although, based on the DoI flood mapping that part of the site proposed for the new dwelling is identified as having a low and medium likelihood of flood risk. However, DoI Flood Risk Management raises no objection, recommending only that appropriate freeboard be incorporated into the design. I have included possible wording for such a condition, but again it would need mooting with the parties before being imposed on any permission.

Jennifer A Vyse Independent Inspector

1 November 2025

==== PAGE 15 ====

Appeal Ref: AP25/0020 Application No: 24/00859/B __ Page 15 of 17

ANNEX A List of plans on which my recommendation is based

Location Plan (1:1250)

Site Plan (1:500)

Existing Site

20158-PL03 Proposed Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations

20158-PL04 Rev1 (Nov 24) Tree and River Plan Sections

20158-PL05 Rev1 (Nov 24) Highways Plan and Concept Visuals 20158-PL06 Rev1 (Nov 24)

==== PAGE 16 ====

Appeal Ref: AP25/0020 Application No: 24/00859/B __ Page 16 of 17

ANNEX B Schedule of recommended conditions

C1. The development hereby approved shall begin before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision.

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 above-ground development shall commence until a detailed schedule of all external materials for the roof, walls, windows, doors, and rainwater goods, has been submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

C3. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, no development shall commence until an updated soft landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. All planting, seeding and turfing shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following completion of the building, in full accordance with the approved landscaping scheme, and shall be retained thereafter. The scheme to be submitted shall include:

i) a planting plan incorporating native species suitable for hedgerow and structural planting, including (but not limited to) blackthorn, hawthorn, burnet rose, dog rose, hazel, and crab apple; ii) a detailed layout showing planting locations, species, sizes, and proposed numbers/densities; and, iii) site levels and existing trees and hedges to be retained.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and protect and enhance biodiversity in accordance with Environment Policy 4, Environment Policy 3, and General Policy 2(c) and (f) of the Strategic Plan.

C4: No external lighting shall be installed on the site other than in accordance with details that have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. The scheme shall be designed in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the BCT and ILP Guidance Note 8 Bats and Artificial Lighting (12th September 2018) and should avoid direct exterior lighting onto the river. The lighting details shall include detailed drawings of the proposed lighting columns and fittings, information about the levels of luminance and daily duration and any measures for mitigating the effects of light pollution.

Reason: In order to mitigate impacts on wildlife in accordance with Environment Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

C5: The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied unless integrated bat and bird bricks have been installed in accordance with a scheme detailing the number, type, and location of bricks that has previously been submitted to and approved in writing by DFEFA Planning.

==== PAGE 17 ====

Appeal Ref: AP25/0020 Application No: 24/00859/B __ Page 17 of 17

Reason: To mitigate the loss of nesting and roosting habitat and ensure biodiversity enhancement in accordance with Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.

C6: No development, including any works of site or ground preparation, shall commence until a Tree Protection Plan (TPP), prepared in accordance with BS5837:2012, or any superseding British Standard, has been submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved TPP, which shall include: i) Root Protection Areas and Construction Exclusion Zones; ii) Protective fencing and ground protection measures; iii) A method statement for tree protection during construction; and iv) A timetable for implementation

Within the Construction Exclusion Zones, no materials shall be stored, no ground levels altered, no excavations made, no fires lit, and no mixing of cement or other contaminating substances shall occur.

Reason: To safeguard retained trees during construction in the interest of visual amenity pursuant to Environment Policy 3 and General Policy 2(f) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

C7: The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until access and parking areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. The spaces shall be retained thereafter for their intended purpose.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking in the interests of highway safety.

Possible additional Conditions

C8: Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme setting out measures to prevent harmful materials such as concrete and washings from entering the adjacent watercourse during the construction period shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved measures.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the adjacent watercourse.

C9: Prior to the commencement of development, details of all boundary fencing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. The details to be submitted shall include materials, appearance and overall height. In terms of the southern site boundary, adjacent to the access track, the fencing shall not exceed a height of 1.05m above ground level. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and highway safety.

C10: No development shall commence until finished ground floor levels for the dwelling hereby permitted have been submitted to and agreed in writing with DEFA Planning. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to protect future occupiers from the risks of flooding.

--End of Schedule--