Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
Appeal Ref: AP25/0024 Planning Application No: 25/90376/B __ Page | 1
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: AP25/0024 Planning Application No: 25/90376/B Application Site: Eary Veg and Cronk Liauyr, Tromode, Douglas IM2 5LZ The appeal is made by Manx Telecom against the decision of DEFA Planning to refuse planning permission for the installation of four telegraph poles to supply fibre communications to Nos 77-87 Eary Veg and 88, 97, 98 and 99 Cronk Liauyr, Tromode.
INTRODUCTION
1 Application No 25/90377/B Appeal Ref AP25/0025 2 Officer’s report paragraph 6.19
==== PAGE 2 ====
Appeal Ref: AP25/0024 Planning Application No: 25/90376/B __ Page | 2
3 Height above ground level. The supporting material refers to the poles as being 9 metres in height. However, as shown on plan No 2023P-0-0, 1.5-2 metres of that overall height would be below ground, leaving 7-7.5m above ground.
==== PAGE 3 ====
Appeal Ref: AP25/0024 Planning Application No: 25/90376/B __ Page | 3
National Telecoms Infrastructure Committee Report (2017) 17. The Report concludes that "If the Island is to stay ahead of the curve and become a world leader in telecoms, we will need appropriate sustained investment, an efficient shared infrastructure and the innovation and confidence to challenge barriers to deploying new technology. The importance of increasing the speed of broadband as a priority across the Island is clear" National Telecommunications Strategy (2018) 18. The Isle of Man Government makes it clear that enhanced telecoms infrastructure is a top priority, and fully supports the development of a telecoms infrastructure that meets the needs of both business and the public, now and into the future. Pursuant to that, the Strategy sets a direction of travel by which the Island’s telecom infrastructure can be recognised as being world class, including a National Broadband Plan. 19. The National Broadband Plan outlined in the Strategy, seeks to achieve
99% ultrafast broadband coverage, to enable over 40,000 premises (residential and commercial) to have 'access' to the fibre network. Our Island Plan (updated March 2025)
==== PAGE 4 ====
Appeal Ref: AP25/0024 Planning Application No: 25/90376/B __ Page | 4
ducting to use and it is uneconomical to provide new underground ducting in the footpath or carriageway. Property owners would also have additional cost to extend ducting across their land to reach the property. Accordingly, the installation of four telegraph poles is required to make fibre available to this part oof the estate. Design and Placement Considerations 25. The proposed poles have been carefully sited to minimise intrusion into pedestrian pathways and to ensure compliance with accessibility standards. Their placement has been selected to avoid obstructing movement and to maintain the functional width of footways. Although the existing footways do not meet the current highway standards, Highways Services did not object to this application, commenting that the proposal would have “no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as at least 1.2m footway width is maintained around the poles.” 26. The design for this scheme has been informed by the Telecommunications Poles Working Group Best Practice Recommendations. We also took on board the advice in the Cabinet Siting and Pole Siting, Code of Practice, Issue 2; November 2016. (UK Guidance for best practice). To that end, the proposed poles have, where possible, been positioned close to the boundaries between properties. Visual Integration and Character 27. Wooden telegraph poles are a longstanding and familiar feature of residential infrastructure across the Island. Manx Telecom currently utilises 2,487 of its own telegraph poles and attaches to approximately 2,500 poles from Manx Utilities’ estate Island-wide. 28. The scale and height of the poles are proportionate to their function, meeting current standard of clearance height across the carriageway. They are not excessive when compared to other street furniture such as lighting columns. This approach reflects established practice across the Island and supports the continued rollout of high-speed connectivity in line with national infrastructure goals. 29. The proposal aligns with the relevant clauses of General Policy 2. In relation to part b), the development respects the character and appearance of the surrounding area by using materials and forms that are sympathetic to the existing built environment. In relation to part c), the installation would not result in unacceptable harm to the amenity of the area, and any visual impact is mitigated through careful siting and design. As for part h), the infrastructure supports essential utility services, contributing to the Island’s connectivity and resilience, which is a key objective of sustainable development. Previous Planning Applications: 30. The appealed application received a recommendation for approval from the Planning Officer. Manx Telecom has also previously submitted applications and received approvals for poles on the Ballamillaghyn Estate, Mount Rule (23/01236/B), Riverbank Road, Ramsey (24/00258/B) and Ballasteen Drive, Andreas (24/00445/B). All of these were approved by the Planning
==== PAGE 5 ====
Appeal Ref: AP25/0024 Planning Application No: 25/90376/B __ Page | 5
Committee and were therefore deemed to comply with relevant planning policies and align with strategic infrastructure goals. 31. The house type, topography and dwelling density on the Ballamillaghyn Estate is similar to the instant appeal. Some 87% of properties within that estate have now moved on to the new fibre network, notwithstanding that during the planning approval process, some 28% of residents objected to the new telegraph poles. In fact 100% of the objectors have moved on to the new fibre network. 32. However, despite similar infrastructure and planning context, whilst the poles on Riverbank Road were approved, an application for poles elsewhere in Ramsey, on Fairways Drive, was refused. Similarly, whilst the proposed poles at Ballasteen Drive were approved, an application for poles on Larivane Close, also in Andreas, was refused.4 It would seem, therefore, that visual impact assessments are subjective, with no clear threshold for what constitutes a negative impact. There is a lack of uniform criteria for assessing visual impact, with variable interpretation of General Policy 2. Summary 33. Manx Telecom recognises the importance of balancing infrastructure improvements with the preservation of local character and amenity. However, the benefits of delivering enhanced broadband and fibre connectivity - particularly in areas currently not served by fibre today - significantly outweigh the limited and localised visual impact associated with the proposed development. 34. The installation of telegraph poles is a necessary component of expanding our network coverage and delivering reliable, high-speed connectivity to homes and businesses across the Island. These improvements directly support the Isle of Man Government’s strategic objectives as outlined in Our Island Plan, the National Telecommunications Strategy, and the National Broadband Plan. In that context, greater material weight should be given to the long-term public benefit of improved digital infrastructure. 35. The proposed development aligns with national policy priorities and contributes to the Island’s economic resilience, social inclusion, and technological advancement. THE CASE FOR DEFA PLANNING5 The material points are: Visual Impact 36. Members noted that the use of wooden poles for the provision of fibre internet was not evident anywhere else within the wider residential estate. It is likely, in this regard, that the remainder of the estate is serviced by an underground network of telecom ductworks which connects to each property. Members were concerned as to why these few properties could not be served
4 INSPECTOR’S NOTE: Both the refused applications were recommended for approval by the planning officer and both were the subject of appeals which were withdrawn prior to determination. 5 Although recommended for approval by officers, Members voted to refuse permission.
==== PAGE 6 ====
Appeal Ref: AP25/0024 Planning Application No: 25/90376/B __ Page | 6
by an engineering solution that accommodated the cables underground like the remainder of the residential estate. 37. Members noted that the proposed telegraph poles and associated cabling would be visible together within the street scene, a street where at present there are no telegraph poles. The array of cabling that would criss-cross out from the poles to the individual properties was considered a backwards step in service delivery and collectively would look out of place. 38. There was also concern that the height of the poles would be dominant in the streetscape, being materially taller than the surrounding dwellings. Their size, combined with their location within 20 metres of primary windows facing the poles, means that they could have an overbearing impact on residents. On balance, the proposal was broadly considered to result in a harmful visual impact that would negatively affect the character of the street scene. Pedestrian Safety 39. Members were concerned that the siting of the poles would restrict the width of the footway, creating pinch points in places that would compromise the safe and convenient movement of pedestrians, contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2h). Living Conditions 40. Although not reflected in the reason for refusal, the visually intrusive nature of the development means that it could be considered to be overbearing, bringing it into conflict with General Policy 2g), which specifically deals with impacts on residential amenity. That impact is reflected in the level of local opposition to the proposal. 41. Section 7 of the Residential Design Guide requires that regard to be had to impacts of a development on neighbours. Further consideration needs to be given in this regard, to potential overbearing impact on outlook from the physical presence of the poles in the public interest and whether this would feel oppressive because of their installation within the footways on this quiet estate road. Should an overbearing impact exist due to the proximity of the proposed development, it would affect outlook from nearby dwellings. An assessment would then need to be made as to whether this change would be harmful to the living conditions of local residents. OTHER PARTIES 42. Petition signed by 14 residents of Eary Veg and Cronk Liauyr:6 Tromode Park Estate was designed in the mid-1970s such that all services, including gas, water, electricity, sewage and telecommunications are located below ground. Currently, the entire estate remains free from telegraph poles and overhead wires. 43. Eary Veg is a small cul-de-sac of 11 bungalows. The only street furniture is five street lamps. The proposed poles and cabling will look hideous, dwarfing the roof line of the bungalows, particularly those on the west side
6 Submitted by the occupier of 86 Eary Veg.
==== PAGE 7 ====
Appeal Ref: AP25/0024 Planning Application No: 25/90376/B __ Page | 7
which sit below street level. They will destroy the aesthetic view of the close and daintily create visual harm and deleterious intrusion into the street scene. 44. Manx Telecom’s proposals to erect telegraph poles only affects two small areas of the whole estate, Eary Veg and Slieau Dhoo, the with remainder of the estate receiving fibre via underground cables. That would put these two areas at odds with our neighbours. As Eary Veg is such a small area, it must be possible to supply fibre through underground ducting. The environment in this quiet cul-de-sac would be completely destroyed by these poles, visible from every angle and located too close to properties and principal windows. The 20 metre recommendation has been completely ignored in most cases. 45. Manx Telecom compare this estate with one where approval has been given. The estates are fundamentally different. Moreover, that application covered the whole estate, which is not the case here. Furthermore, we contest the assertion by Manx Telecom that this is a hard to reach area. We are in Douglas, the capital of the Island in the middle of a housing estate. 46. Occupier 82 Eary Veg: The development proposed would be detrimental to the visual character of the area, with both Eary Veg and Cronk Liauyr currently benefiting from unobstructed views and a cohesive streetscape. Existing supply conduits and infrastructure should be used to deliver fibre communications, avoiding the need for additional telegraph poles. Not using the existing underground ducting represents a missed opportunity to minimise environmental and visual disruption. The development may diminish the value of neighbouring properties. 47. Occupier 99 Cronk Liauyr: the proposed solution of running an overhead line up a hill to a single-storey bungalow property is undesirable, when compared with the alternative of utilising underground ducting or cabling, which is also more aesthetically pleasing. 48. Occupier 77 Eary Veg: Without doubt, and contrary to the view of Manx Telecom, this proposal will have a severely negative impact on the street scene and will result in the narrowing of the footways in Eary Veg. These proposals create a high level of stress and a large amount of time and energy for those affected. The focus should be on discussion between the appellant, the Department of Enterprise and the Department of Infrastructure. It appears that this has been the case for several previous applications where the appeal has been withdrawn and, in some cases, underground cabling has been installed. OTHER REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED 49. Douglas City Council: no objection. 50. DoI Highway Services: no objection. 51. Thirteen objections from local residents were submitted in response to the planning application, from residents on Eary Veg, Cronk Liauyr and Slieau Dhoo. The objections raised are generally reflected in the residents’ comments set out above.
==== PAGE 8 ====
Appeal Ref: AP25/0024 Planning Application No: 25/90376/B __ Page | 8
ASSESSMENT BY THE INSPECTOR 52. The main issues in this case relate to: • the effect of the development proposed on the character and appearance of the area; • its impact on pedestrian safety; and • its effect on the living conditions of local residents, having particular regard to outlook. Character and Appearance 53. Manx Telecom confirms that distribution of the Island’s ultra-fast fibre broadband network can be deployed both above and below ground. Where there is existing underground or overhead infrastructure, this will be used to install fibre. On occasions where there is no existing underground ducting or existing overhead infrastructure, then new telegraph poles are the preferred delivery method (my emphasis). 54. At present, all utilities, including broadband, are provided throughout the Tromode estate via underground cabling. It would seem however, that the capacity of the existing underground ducting along Eary Veg is not sufficient to accommodate the new network, resulting in this application. 55. The Tromode estate, which occupies an elevated position to the north of Douglas, is characterised in no small part by wide ranging views along the residential estate roads (including Eary Veg and Cronk Liauyr) of the surrounding hills. Those views, and the character of the estate generally, are enhanced by the lack of visual clutter in terms of street furniture, in particular the notable absence of telegraph poles and overhead cabling. 56. Whilst there are lamp posts along the estate roads, they comprise slender columns that are generally unobtrusive in the street scene. In contrast, the proposed poles would be materially higher and with a greater diameter than the slim lamp columns. At some 7-7.5 metres in height above ground level, each with climbing steps the top to within 4.5 metres from the ground the poles would, of themselves, be much more substantial features. Not only would they tower above the generally single storey frontages dwellings here, particularly those on the western side of Eary Veg, which are lower than the road, but each pole would be connected to its neighbour by an overhead cable, with further overhead cables fanning out from each pole to the properties on both sides of the roads. That cabling, together with the poles, would materially reduce the high quality, currently open and uncluttered character and appearance of Eary Veg and Cronk Liauyr. 57. I recognise that telegraph poles are a common feature in many areas on the Island, but every application falls to be determined on its own merits in the light of site-specific circumstances. In this instance, the appeal site is an integral part of an estate that has been purposely designed, it would appear, such that all utility services are below ground. That arrangement facilitates the estate’s particular open character and appearance. In the current, uncluttered street scene, the proposed poles and associated overhead cabling would be seen as particularly prominent and intrusive features. Therefore, even though the site is not within a Conservation Area, or subject to any other design constraints, I consider that the poles and cabling would
==== PAGE 9 ====
Appeal Ref: AP25/0024 Planning Application No: 25/90376/B __ Page | 9
be seen as unduly prominent and intrusive features that would fail to integrate well with the surroundings. As a consequence, there would be significant harm to the established character and appearance of the area, contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2b), c) and g) and Infrastructure Policy 3, which together and among other things seek to ensure that new development respects the site and its surroundings. 58. In support of the appeal, my attention is drawn to the planning approval for poles on the Ballamillaghyn Estate. However, that is a much smaller estate than Tromode, with the application in that case relating to the whole estate, not just one part of it. Moreover, whilst the surrounding hills are seen, I saw that the views along the estate roads there are not as wide ranging as they are on Eary Veg and Cronk Liauyr, in part, because there are not the same changes in ground levels there. Consequently, it is not directly comparable to the appeal scheme and does not provide justification for the current proposal. Pedestrian Safety 59. The Manual for Manx Roads confirms that the width of footways should reflect their likely usage. It advises that whilst a minimum unobstructed width of 2 metres is required for most footways in residential areas, a narrower 1.2 metre width may be permitted over short distances where the speed limit is 30 mph or less. 60. As confirmed by DoI Highway Services, at least 1.2 metres footway width would be maintained between the proposed poles and the kerb, ie over a short distance in each instance. Moreover, this is a short stretch of residential estate road, where traffic speeds would be expected to be around 30 mph or lower. No evidence is before me to indicate that that is not the case. 61. Given that context, I consider that there would be no material harm in terms of pedestrian safety and no conflict with General Policy 2i), which seeks to protect such interests. Living Conditions 62. Three of the proposed poles would be sited within the footway on the boundary between properties on the western side of Eary Veg, with the fourth on the northern side of Cronk Liauyr. They would be sited adjacent to the boundaries between properties. As such, whilst the poles would be seen, they would not generally be sited directly in front of their front facing windows. The properties on the opposite side of Eary Veg are at a slightly higher level. The poles and overhead cabling would be clearly seen from the front facing windows to those properties, intruding into views across the street and over tops of the lower properties opposite. However, it is well established in planning law that there is no right to a private view (unlike public views and the overall character of an area, as discussed above), planning being a means of controlling land in the public, not private interest. 63. Whilst loss of outlook, also referred to by objectors, can be a material planning consideration, that relates to development that might have an overbearing impact resulting in an oppressive environment for residents. In
==== PAGE 10 ====
Appeal Ref: AP25/0024 Planning Application No: 25/90376/B __ Page | 10
this case, even though the poles may be close to and taller than the properties on the western side of Eary Veg, and would be seen from primary, front facing windows to habitable rooms on properties on the opposite side of the cul-de-sac, I am not persuaded that they would be experienced necessarily as an unacceptably overbearing or oppressive form of development that would be materially harmful to outlook. 64. The proposed pole on Cronk Liauyr would be sited on the boundary between Nos 97 and 98 and would not sit directly in front of any primary window to those properties. Moreover, sitting directly opposite the junction with Eary Veg, no properties directly face the proposed pole. I find no harm in terms of outlook in this regard either. 65. All told, I find no harm in terms of living conditions for local residents as a consequence of the development proposed. There would be no conflict with General Policy 2 b), c) and g), which seek to protect such interests. I find no conflict either with the thrust of the Residential Design Guide. Other Matters 66. For the most part, the other matters of concern raised by local residents reported above are dealt with in the Officer’s report. Susceptibility to storm damage is a risk for all overhead utilities. There is no substantiated evidence before me in this regard, to demonstrate that this is a particular problem on the estate, or that it otherwise tells against the proposal. 67. As for potential de-valuation of properties were the appeal to succeed, it is well established that this is not a matter that can properly be taken into account as a material planning consideration within the remit of this appeal. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 68. The appeal scheme aims to deliver a replacement for the Island’s existing copper cable network with a more modern fibre optic cable as part of the expansion of the Island’s ultra fat fibre broadband network. There is strong Government support for the proposal in this regard through, among other things, the National Telecoms Infrastructure Committee Report, the National Telecommunications Strategy, the National Broadband Plan and the Our Island Plan. 69. However, that doesn’t mean any telecoms development anywhere is appropriate. I have found no material harm in terms of living conditions for local residents, or in terms of highway safety. However, the absence of telegraph poles and overhead cabling here is a distinctive designed feature of the whole estate that is integral to its open, uncluttered character. Given that context, I find that the development proposed would have an unacceptable impact on the established character and appearance of the area, bringing it into conflict with the relevant policies. On the evidence before me, the greater costs to the appellant (and indeed local residents) of delivering the service underground (which appears to be an alternative) does not outweigh the significant harm that I have identified. 70. For the reasons set out above, and having considered all other matters raised, I therefore conclude on balance that the appeal should be
==== PAGE 11 ====
Appeal Ref: AP25/0024 Planning Application No: 25/90376/B __ Page | 11
dismissed. If the Minister agrees, this would have the effect of upholding the Authority’s decision to refuse permission. Reason: An attractive and defining characteristic of the Tromode estate is the absence of clutter in the street scene. In that context, the proposed telegraph poles and associated overhead cabling would be seen as incongruous and intrusive additions which would significantly detract from the established character and appearance of the area. That there might be additional costs associated with providing the fibre network below ground is insufficient reason in this instance to outweigh the material harm that I have identified. There would be conflict with General Policy 2b), c) and g) and Infrastructure Policy 3 in this regard, which together and among other things seek to ensure that new development respects the site and its surroundings. 71. Should the Minister disagree and be minded to allow the appeal, recommended conditions are set out at Annex B below. They reflect those suggested by DEFA Planning.
Jennifer A Vyse Independent Inspector
23 October 2025
==== PAGE 12 ====
Appeal Ref: AP25/0024 Planning Application No: 25/90376/B __ Page | 12
ANNEX A List of plans on which my recommendation is based
Wooden Pole Measurements and Furniture 2023P-0-0 Red Line Plan 2025P-1-1 Location Plan 2025P-1-2 Pole 1 Site Plan 2025P-1-3 Aerial photo Pole 1 Location 2025P-1-4 Photomontage Pole 1 2025P-1-5 Pole 2 Site Plan 2025P-1-6 Aerial photo Pole 2 Location 2025P-1-7 Photomontage Pole 2 2025P-1-8 Pole 3 Site Plan 2025P-1-9 Aerial photo Pole 3 Location 2025P-1-10 Photomontage Pole 3 2025P-1-11 Pole 4 Site Plan 2025P-1-12 Aerial photo Pole 4 Location 2025P-1-13 Photomontage Pole 4 2025P-1-14
==== PAGE 13 ====
Appeal Ref: AP25/0024 Planning Application No: 25/90376/B __ Page | 13
ANNEX B 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. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by DEFA Planning, the wooden telegraph poles hereby approved shall be removed within six months of them no longer being required for telecommunications purposes, and the land restored to its condition before the development took place, so far as is practicable. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to comply with Strategic Plan Infrastructure Policy 3. --End of Schedule--
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
