371199

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                                 25/90929/B
                                 Page  1  of  10

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 25/90929/B Applicant : Mr Roger Smith Proposal : Creation of vehicular parking area in northwest corner of Field 131559 with associated soft landscaping (retrospective) Site Address : Field 131559 Claddagh Farm Sulby Bridge Sulby Isle Of Man IM7 2EZ

Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken : Site Visit :

Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Refused Date of Recommendation: 12.01.2026 __

Reasons for Refusal

R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons

R 1. The proposal represents development within open countryside, detached from the historic and approved curtilage of Claddagh Farm. The Strategic Plan establishes a strong presumption against such development, permitting exceptions only where overriding national need or essential rural infrastructure is demonstrated. No evidence has been provided to justify the necessity of the car park or to confirm that reasonable alternatives within the existing curtilage have been explored. The proposal therefore conflicts with General Policy 3, Strategic Policy 2, and Environment Policy 1, which collectively seek to protect the countryside for its own sake and prevent incremental development creep.

R 2. The site lies within an Area of High Landscape Value where the Strategic Plan requires development to respect and enhance landscape quality. While public views of the site are limited, visibility alone does not determine acceptability. The introduction of engineered surfacing and enclosure into open pasture materially alters the rural character and erodes openness, creating a domesticated appearance inconsistent with the surrounding agricultural landscape. The proposal therefore conflicts with Environment Policy 2, Strategic Policy 4, and General Policy 2(b, c, f).

R 3. The site comprises Class 2 agricultural land, which is among the most versatile and productive soil categories on the Island. The Strategic Plan affords these areas the highest level of protection and only permits their loss where an overriding need for the development is demonstrated and land of lower quality is not available. No such justification has been provided

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                                 25/90929/B
                                 Page  2  of  10

in this case. The proposal therefore conflicts with Environment Policy 14, which seeks to prevent the permanent loss of important and versatile agricultural land.

__

Right to Appeal

It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: o DOI Highways o Lezayre Parish Commissioners

It is recommended that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal: o DOI Flood Risk Management - No objection subject to condition which has not been applied. __

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site comprises part of Field 135363 associated with Claddagh Farm, located east of Sulby Bridge and Sulby village. The wider holding includes a private access road extending approximately 150 metres from the public highway into the centre of the former farm complex. Within this complex are traditional Manx stone barns arranged in a horseshoe configuration and a modern steel-framed blockwork barn, which now accommodates the principal watchmaking workshop. The workshop building forms the operational core of the applicant's business and sits alongside converted outbuildings and a recently constructed dwelling occupying a defined residential curtilage. 1.2 The farmstead retains extensive hardstanding and apron areas adjacent to the workshop and associated buildings, with existing informal parking already accommodated within the curtilage. Historic mapping from the 1860s confirms that the original farmyard was tightly enclosed, with its curtilage limited to the yard and immediate buildings; the surrounding fields, including the application site, have historically remained in agricultural use, contributing to the open rural setting of the farm. 1.3 The current application relates to a discrete parcel of land within Field 135363, positioned south-west of the farm complex and detached from the modern and historic curtilage. This area has been surfaced and laid out as a car park providing eight spaces, accessed via a new opening in the field boundary hedge. The car park occupies open pasture that previously formed part of the wider agricultural field pattern and is visually and functionally separate from the established farmyard. 1.4 The site is enclosed by mature hedgerows on its southern and western boundaries, with open pasture extending beyond, preserving a predominantly rural backdrop. A field access cuts through the hedge line, providing vehicular entry from the private farm road. Within this enclosure, the application site comprises a levelled and compacted area surfaced in loose gravel, laid out to accommodate eight marked parking spaces. A simple timber post-and-rail fence defines the perimeter, introducing a functional element into an otherwise open agricultural setting.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Creation of vehicular parking area in northwest corner of Field 131559 with associated soft landscaping (retrospective). 2.2 The proposed parking area measures approximately 389sqm and would measure about 26.55m on its longest side and about 13.3m wide, providing 8 parking areas and turning areas. Each of the parking areas would measure 3.2m x 6m. New hedge sections are to be planted on the eastern and southern boundaries of the parking area with a new pedestrian access into the southern part of the field in which it sits. Site photos, however, show that the site can take about 10 cars comfortably.

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                                 25/90929/B
                                 Page  3  of  10

2.3 The applicant has provided additional information in correspondence dated 4 December 2025 which indicates that the parking would provide for eight car parking spaces, and that the applicant has confirmed that the total floor area of the Watchmakers Workshop is 425sqm. 2.4 No details have been provided on current parking for the site. However, the approved plans under PA 21/00538/B for the proposed extension to the existing Watchmakers Workshop, together with erection of replacement outbuildings to provide staff/client garaging and a client accommodation annexe, indicated that the annexe would provide six parking spaces for customers and clients. The Department's aerial imagery from 2021 also shows a significant amount of onsite parking around the complex, sufficient to accommodate between 10 and 12 spaces within the farm forecourt.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Site Specific 3.1.1 The site is not designated for development in the 1982 Development Plan and sits within an AHLV and within a designated Woodland area, although the site is not within a Conservation Area. The Sulby River runs to the northern boundary of the adjoining farm complex (which is within the applicant's ownership), along with a high voltage power cable running along the access road. The entire site is recognised as being at high fluvial flood risk, with the site also prone to medium and high surface water flood risks. Registered Tree Areas: Reference RA1749 sit about 20m south of the site. The soil within the site is recognised as Class 2. 3.2 The Landscape Character Assessment (Final Report, July 2008) positions the site within Area F5 Sulby River where the following apply: 3.2.1 F5 SULBY RIVER: Key Characteristics o Lower reaches of the Sulby River corridor (as it flows across the northern plain towards the sea at Ramsey). o River corridor lined with mature deciduous vegetation, creating a sense of enclosure. o Small and medium-scale irregular fields set along both sides of the river channels. o Fields delineated by a combination of mature, low Manx hedgerows and traditional grey stone walls (which also line the main road corridors). o Scattered settlement pattern, along the river course (relatively isolated farmsteads and houses). o Sulby forms main settlement at western edge (marking point at which river emerged from Sulby Glen), and Ramsey to the east (where the river flows out into the sea). o Dramatic views to the typically wooded slopes of the Northern Uplands to the south. o Relatively strong sense of tranquillity throughout most of the character area. Key Views: o Views along the river corridor generally channelled by vegetation which lines the banks of the river. o Dramatic views to the adjacent southern uplands, which provide a wooded backdrop within views southwards o At bridging points, open views from the river corridor may be obtained across adjacent fields which are set back from the line of the river. o Views to and from the urban edges of Ramsey. Landscape Strategy: o The overall strategy should be to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of this rural area with its scattered settlement pattern, relatively strong field pattern, a network of enclosed minor rural roads and its ecologically valuable aquatic and riparian habitats. 3.3 Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider the following Strategic Policies: 1. General Policy 3 - Exceptions to development in the countryside. 2. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations. 3. Strategic Policy 2 - Priority for new development to identified towns and villages.

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                                 25/90929/B
                                 Page  4  of  10

4. Strategic Policy 4 - development proposals must protect or enhance the nature conservation and landscape quality of urban as well as rural areas. 5. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact. 6. Spatial Policy 2 - identifies Service Centres for development, and Sulby is not one of those settlements. 7. Spatial Policy 5 - new development will be in defined settlements only or in the countryside only in accordance with GP3; 8. Environment Policy 1 - the countryside must be protected for its own sake; 9. Environment Policy 2 - Protection of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. 10. Environment Policy 4 - Protects biodiversity (including protected species and designated sites). 11. Environment Policy 5 - Mitigation against damage to or loss of habitats. 12. Environment Policy 10 - Where development is proposed on a site with potential flood risk, a flood risk assessment and mitigation details must accompany the application (requirements set out in Appendix 4). 13. Environment Policy 13: Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted. 14. Environment Policy 14 - Seeks to prevent the permanent loss of important and versatile agricultural land (Classes 1-2). 15. Section 7.13. Agriculture - provides guidance on developments that impacts agricultural soils. 16. Transport Policy 1 - Proximity to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes important for new development. 17. Transport Policy 4 - safe and appropriate provisions for journeys. 18. Transport Policy 7 - Parking considerations/standards for development.

4.0 OTHER MATERIAL MATTERS 4.1 The Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy (2015 - 2025) 4.1.1 The Department's Biodiversity Strategy is capable of being a material consideration. It seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary. 4.2 Historic UK Case Law: 4.2.1 Court Cases: 1. Dancey & Co v SoS & Lewes DC 1980: In Dancey & Co v SoS & Lewes DC 1980 the basic premise that curtilage definition is essentially a matter of fact and degree was established. In Methuen-Campbell v Walters 1979 a paddock attached to a garden was not considered to be within a curtilage as it was separated by a fence and not therefore intimately associated. The Methuen-Campbell case was quoted in James v SoS & Another 09/10/1990 where a tennis court had been erected some l00 metres distant from a house beyond an area of undergrowth and rough grass and a partial and indistinct line of trees and shrubs. It was held that an inspector had been correct in deciding that curtilages did not have precise limits and that each situation must be considered according to the facts of each particular case.

Barnett v SoS & Another 23/03/2009: In Barnett v SOS 23/3/09, it was established that a 1998 planning permission did not grant permission for new use beyond the residential site. The curtilage as defined by a 1995 site plan associated with an application to change the use of land from agricultural to residential use had not changed. The extent of the land included in the permission was therefore established by the site plan on the original planning permission. When the subsequent application for alteration and extension was made in 1998, a building already existed with a curtilage. Since there had been no application for a change of use, the site plan for the original planning permission still defined the extent of the curtilage, which was not extended merely by putting in a site plan covering a wider area.

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                                 25/90929/B
                                 Page  5  of  10

4.2.2 UK Appeal Decisions: 1. Three Rivers 1/11/2004 DCS No 046-738-226: In Three Rivers, the two appeals concerned enforcement notices for development in the green belt, including a tennis court and storage of builder's plant. The inspector held that curtilage is determined by physical boundaries and planning history, not by previous associations. Although the original dwelling had a more extensive curtilage, its demolition extinguished that use. The replacement dwelling's curtilage was clearly defined by hedgerows and fencing, excluding adjoining grazing land. Consequently, the tennis court and storage area were not incidental to the dwellinghouse, reinforcing that curtilage cannot be extended without explicit approval.

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The wider site has been subject to a number of previous applications relating to the main house and to the establishment of a watch makers studio, and these are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of the current application. They include: 1. PA 14/00623/B - Conversion of existing barns and outbuildings into a watchmakers' workshop. Approved by the Planning Committee on 04.08.2014. The approved plan set out the curtilage associated with the development, including provision for two on-site parking spaces situated east of the subject building. Key Details: a. The approved site plan for PA 14/00623/B clearly delineated the application site as the farmyard and associated buildings only, with two parking spaces positioned immediately east of the converted workshop. b. The officer report reinforces this, noting that while the applicant controlled additional land, including four fields identified as 'blue land', which includes the current application site, these areas were expressly outside the application site and retained in grazing use. c. It further confirms that no change of use for these fields was proposed or approved (see Paragraph 6.3). This establishes that the curtilage fixed by the 2014 permission was confined to the historic and modern yard and did not extend into adjoining agricultural land such as Field 135363, where the current car park is located.

PA 16/00680/B - Conversion and extensions to existing barns and outbuildings to provide a watchmaker's workshop. Approved by the Planning Committee on 08.08.2016. Key Details: a. The approved plans increased the site area beyond that approved in 2014 to accommodate the extensions and link structures, but all development remained within the established farmyard and building group. b. The officer report confirms that while the footprint expanded, the curtilage stayed confined to the yard and did not extend into adjoining agricultural fields (see Paragraphs 6.4 - 6.5). c. This continuity reinforces that the operational curtilage has consistently excluded Field 135363, where the current car park is located.

PA 21/00538/B for Proposed extension to existing Watchmakers Workshop, together with erection of proposed replacement outbuildings to provide staff/client garaging and client accommodation annexe. Approved by Planning Committee on 23.08.2021. Key Details: a. The application placed the red line boundary around the wider holding, but the officer report confirms that the actual development footprint was confined to the existing workshop and barn group within the historic farmyard (Paragraphs 6.13 and 7.1). b. The proposal included a single-storey extension to the northern elevation of the workshop, measuring approximately 8.7 m in width, 11 m in depth, and 5.6 m to ridge height, finished in dark green metal cladding (Paragraph 3.2). It also involved the demolition of the existing stone barns forming a U-shape and their replacement with a new U-shaped building accommodating three double garages and a car workshop bay with a car lift, together with a client accommodation annexe comprising a one-bedroom unit with kitchenette and living area, and a display area for the George Daniels Collection (Paragraph 3.3).

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                                 25/90929/B
                                 Page  6  of  10

c. The Planning Statement and site plan confirm that, while the red line encompassed the wider site, the operational footprint and proposed works were limited to the farmyard enclosure, consistent with previous approvals. d. Conditions were imposed to restrict the use of the garaging and client accommodation to purposes ancillary to the watchmaking business, preventing any broader residential or tourism use (Conditions C2-C3). e. The design intent, as stated in Paragraph 3.4 of the Officer Report, culled from the supporting applicant's statement, was to consolidate garaging within the new building to negate the need for existing external parking and tidy up the site, reducing the visual impact of the workshop on the area. It also sought to incorporate general storage internally to keep items out of view, provide high-quality client accommodation to reduce additional car journeys, and create a dedicated display area for the George Daniels Workshop Collection, freeing space within the main workshop for business expansion.

PA 24/00732/B for Extension to stables to create hay store and erection of a new detached building to create 3No additional stables and an implement store - Approved. This set the new buildings still connected to the approved and historic curtilage. Key Details: a. The application placed the red line boundary around the wider site area, consistent with previous submission (PA 21/00538/B), but this did not imply any extension of curtilage as none was sought. b. The officer report confirms that the development was of modest scale and located adjacent to the existing building and yard (Paragraph 7.3), ensuring continuity with the historic and approved curtilage. c. The approved plan shows the hay store extension and new stable block positioned within the farmyard envelope, physically connected to the established built form. Conditions restrict the use of the new building to equestrian purposes only (Condition C2), reinforcing its ancillary nature. d. The applicant's supporting statement highlights the intent to consolidate stabling and storage in an attractive, functional layout, avoiding piecemeal development and maintaining the visual quality of the site.

A 24/91394/B for Erection of ground mounted solar PV array. This application, which is within the same field as the current application and positioned south of the new parking area, was approved by the Planning Committee on 19.05.2025. Key Details: a. The proposal comprised the installation of 34 solar panels in a ground-mounted frame, measuring approximately 17 m in length, 2.8 m in width, and 2.2 m in height, set 27 m from the access lane to safeguard marshy grassland. b. Conditions require the siting to remain as approved and mandate removal and restoration if the panels cease to be used. c. The officer report emphasizes that the array occupies only a small part of the field, with surrounding land retained for agriculture. d. Strategic Plan paragraph 12.2.8 outlines support for renewable energy proposals but requires balancing against other principles and environment policies to prevent harmful countryside development. e. The site lies in open countryside where there is a presumption against development. Installation of renewable energy is not one of the exceptions in General Policy 3, but part (g) of GP3 and Environment Policy 1 allow development that may affect the countryside only when it is of overriding national need and there is no reasonable alternative. f. The Climate Change Act 2021 is a material consideration that post-dates the development plan, requiring climate change policies to be taken into account, including minimising greenhouse gas emissions and maintaining ecosystems and biodiversity net gain. g. The Climate Change Plan 2022-27 seeks to put the Island on track to net zero by 2050, making carbon-neutral energy essential. On this basis, the principle was accepted and a degree of national need was identified.

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                                 25/90929/B
                                 Page  7  of  10

h. Alternative siting was considered in light of flood risk and topography. The chosen location was justified as minimising flood risk and visual impact, with the framing system selected to avoid interference with floodwater flow and the site screened by existing field boundaries and topography (Paragraph 7.2.5). i. The siting, size, and scale of the panels occupy only a small part of the field, with areas in and around the panels still available for agriculture and so are not considered to undermine or be at odds with Environment Policy 14 (Paragraph 8.2).

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only. 6.1 DOI Highways find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as the site access, internal access roads and internal layout is acceptable for the operation (21 October 2025). 6.2 DOI Flood Risk Management note that the location of the car park lies within a flood risk zone and recommend that users are made aware of the potential for flooding and advised to use alternative parking should this seem likely (20 October 2025). 6.3 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team raise no objection to the proposal and confirm that the use of native species for the proposed hedge is appropriate for the countryside location. They recommend a condition requiring the hedge to be planted as shown on the Site Plan-As Proposed (drawing no. P 20 1443/CP 04) to prevent degradation of the marshy grassland habitat further down in Field 131559 (14 November 2025). 6.4 Lezayre Parish Commissioners have no objection (14 November 2025) 6.5 DEFA Forestry have not made any comments on the application although they were consulted on 17 October 2025. 6.6 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties.

7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of the current application are: 1. Principle of Development (General Policy 3; Spatial Policy 5; Strategic Policy 2; Environment Policy 1); 2. Visual Impact on Countryside and AHLV (Environment Policy 1; Environment Policy 2; General Policy 2(b, c, f); Strategic Policy 4; Strategic Policy 5); 3. Impact on Agricultural Soils (Environment Policy 14 & Section 7.13 of Strategic plan); 4. Flood Risk Impact (Environment Policy 10; Environment Policy 13; General Policy 2(l)); and 5. Impact on Ecology (Environment Policy 4; Environment Policy 5; General Policy 2(d); Strategic Policy 4). 7.2 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT 7.2.1 The application site lies within open countryside and is not designated for development under the 1982 Development Plan. The Strategic Plan (2016) establishes a strong presumption against development in such locations, as articulated in General Policy 3 (GP3) and Spatial Policy 5, which direct new development to towns and villages and permit countryside development only in exceptional circumstances. These include overriding national need or essential rural infrastructure, criteria that are not met in this case. 7.2.2 The proposal seeks to formalize a car park occupying 389 sqm of previously undeveloped agricultural land within Field 135363, detached from the historic and approved curtilage of Claddagh Farm. Historic approvals (PA 14/00623/B, PA 16/00680/B, PA 21/00538/B) confirm that the operational curtilage has consistently remained confined to the farmyard and associated buildings, with aerial imagery showing existing capacity for additional parking within that curtilage. The applicant has not demonstrated an overriding need for additional parking in this location or the absence of reasonable alternatives within the established yard. Curtilage integrity is a matter of fact and degree, and the evidence confirms that the land in question has never formed part of the approved curtilage. 7.2.3 Functional convenience alone does not satisfy the policy requirements for development in the countryside. The Strategic Plan requires clear evidence of spatial constraints and

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                                 25/90929/B
                                 Page  8  of  10

operational necessity to justify any encroachment beyond an established curtilage. In this case, while the applicant refers to business growth and presentation standards, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed car park is essential or that reasonable alternatives within the existing curtilage have been explored or ruled out. The absence of any comparative site analysis or operational justification critically undermines the claim of necessity. Accordingly, the proposal conflicts with General Policy 3, Strategic Policy 2, and Environment Policy 1, which collectively seek to protect the countryside for its own sake and resist incremental development creep. 7.3 VISUAL AND LANDSCAPE IMPACT 7.3.1 The site lies within an Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV) and the Sulby River Landscape Character Area (F5), which is defined by strong rural character, enclosed field patterns, and a sense of tranquillity. The Strategic Plan (Sections 7.2 and 7.6) emphasizes that while landscape change is inevitable, it must be appropriate and balanced against conservation needs. The primary goal is to respect, maintain, and enhance the natural and cultural environment, including landscape quality, and to protect it from inappropriate development. The introduction of engineered surfacing, marked bays, and fencing into open pasture materially alters the spatial character of the field, eroding its rural qualities and creating a domesticated appearance inconsistent with these principles. 7.3.2 Development within AHLV areas is subject to higher design standards and must be properly integrated into the landscape in terms of scale, materials, and layout (Strategic Plan Section 7.4.1). In this case, the proposal fails to achieve such integration. It overrides the soft transition between the farmyard and surrounding fields, introducing a stark and engineered edge that conflicts with the designation's intent to conserve landscape quality. While public visibility may be limited, Environment Policy 1 protects the countryside "for its own sake," and Strategic Policy 4 requires development to protect or enhance landscape quality and nature conservation value. The cumulative effect of surfacing and formal layout also conflicts with General Policy 2(b, c, f), which requires respect for the character and setting of the site. 7.3.3 The Strategic Plan (Section 7.6.1 and Environment Policy 2) confirms that the protection of landscape character is the most important consideration in AHLV areas unless it can be shown that the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape or that the location is essential. Neither test is met in this case. The proposal introduces an urbanized feature into an otherwise coherent agricultural landscape, diminishing openness and rural character. Accordingly, the development is contrary to Environment Policy 1, Environment Policy 2, General Policy 2(b, c, f), and Strategic Policy 4, which collectively seek to protect and enhance the Island's distinctive landscape and prevent inappropriate development in areas of high landscape value. 7.4 IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL SOILS 7.4.1 The application site comprises Class 2 agricultural land, which is among the most versatile and productive soil categories on the Island. The Strategic Plan (Section 7.13) highlights that only 4.87% of agricultural land falls within Classes 1 and 2, and these areas are afforded the highest level of protection from development. Environment Policy 14 establishes a clear presumption against the permanent loss of such land unless an overriding need for the development is demonstrated and land of a lower quality is not available. In this case, no evidence has been provided to justify the selection of this location or to demonstrate that alternatives on lower-grade land have been considered. The proposal therefore conflicts with the Strategic Plan's objective to sustain the agricultural industry by safeguarding its prime resources and preventing the unnecessary loss of high-quality soils. 7.4.2 The Strategic Plan also emphasizes that proposals affecting Class 1 or 2 soils must be assessed with the highest level of protection, given their rarity and importance to the rural economy. The applicant has not addressed this requirement or provided any justification that would outweigh the harm caused by removing land from productive agricultural use. In the absence of such justification, the proposal represents an unjustified loss of agricultural land, contrary to Environment Policy 14, General Policy 3, and Strategic Policy 2, which collectively seek to protect the rural economy and prevent development that undermines the integrity of the Island's agricultural resource.

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                                 25/90929/B
                                 Page  9  of  10

7.5 FLOOD RISK IMPACT 7.5.1 The site lies within an area of high fluvial flood risk and is also prone to surface water flooding. Under Environment Policy 10, proposals in such locations are expected to be supported by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and mitigation details, and Environment Policy 13 prohibits development that would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding either on or off- site. No FRA has been submitted with the application, which represents a departure from the expectation under Policy 10. The Flood Management Division advises that user awareness and provision for alternative parking during flood events would be appropriate and does not oppose the application, which indicates that the scheme as proposed is acceptable from their perspective. 7.5.2 Notwithstanding the support from DOI Flood Risk Management, it is important to highlight that concerns relating to flooding, particularly the potential for off-site impacts, remain. The absence of a formal FRA means that these risks have not been quantified, and while the consultee's advice is noted, this does not remove the policy expectation for robust assessment. In this context, the Department proceeds on the basis of the consultee's professional judgment that the proposed measures are proportionate to the degree of risk and broadly align with the intent of the relevant policies. 7.6 IMPACT ON ECOLOGY 7.6.1 Ecological considerations fall under Environment Policies 4 and 5, which require development to avoid harm to habitats and species and to provide mitigation where appropriate. The site is adjacent to mature hedgerows and a Registered Tree Area (RA1749) and lies within a countryside location where biodiversity protection is a material consideration. In this case, all existing plantings have already been removed prior to any ecological assessment, which is contrary to best practice and limits the ability to confirm baseline conditions. No ecological appraisal has been submitted to demonstrate the absence of impacts on protected species or habitats. 7.6.2 While the Ecosystem Policy Team raises no objection and supports native hedge planting, this position does not remove the policy expectation for evidence-based assessment. The absence of a baseline survey means that potential impacts, particularly on nesting birds, small mammals, or hedgerow biodiversity, remain unquantified. Conditions cannot substitute for baseline evidence where risk is unknown, and this shortcoming weighs against the proposal in the overall planning balance. 7.6.3 Notwithstanding these concerns, it is acknowledged that the majority of vegetation clearance has already occurred, which limits the preventative value of any ecological submission at this stage. It is therefore considered important that the proposed native hedge planting and associated biodiversity enhancements are treated as integral to the scheme and secured by condition to ensure some degree of ecological benefit.

8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposal seeks approval for a formal parking area within open countryside, detached from the historic curtilage of Claddagh Farm. While the scheme would provide structured parking and includes hedge planting that could offer some biodiversity benefit, these considerations are limited in weight. The absence of objections from statutory consultees on highways, flood risk, and ecology is noted, and conditions could secure hedge planting and awareness measures. However, these factors do not amount to a justification for development in this location.

8.2 The proposal conflicts with multiple Strategic Plan policies. It introduces engineered surfacing into an Area of High Landscape Value, eroding rural character, and results in the unjustified loss of Class 2 agricultural land. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate overriding need or the absence of reasonable alternatives within the existing curtilage. The lack of a Flood Risk Assessment and ecological appraisal further compounds policy conflict. In the overall planning balance, the harm to countryside character, landscape quality, and agricultural resource significantly outweighs any limited benefits. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused.

==== PAGE 10 ====

                                                 25/90929/B                                      Page  10  of  10

9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted). 9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to: o applicant (in all cases); o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria. 9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10. 9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required): o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant); o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area; o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and o in the case of a petition, a single representative. 9.5 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given the Right to Appeal.

__

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.

Decision Made : Refused Date: 20.01.2026

Determining Officer Signed : C BALMER

Chris Balmer

Principal Planner

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.