Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90941/B
Page 1 of 10
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90941/B Applicant : Manx Telecom Proposal : Installation of 13 telegraph poles to provide fibre optic connectivity to 1-80 Greenlands Avenue Site Address : Greenlands Avenue Ramsey IM8 2PR
Senior Planning Officer: Jason Singleton Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 02.02.2026 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposed installation of the wooden telegraph poles and their associated cabling amongst the street scene of predominantly bungalows with some chalet bungalows, would, due to their height, size and scale, result in a negative visual impact which would adversely affect the character of the street scene to an unacceptable degree. As such, the proposed development would be contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2b,c,g which seeks to protect the character of the street scene.
R 2. The proposed installation of wooden telegraph poles would introduce visually intrusive infrastructure into a sensitive residential setting, adversely affecting the character and visual amenity of the area. The application also fails to demonstrate a strategic national need or adequately justify why alternative options have not been pursued. As such, the proposal is contrary to Infrastructure Policy 3, which seeks to balance the need for communications infrastructure with its environmental impact. __
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: Highways Services - No Objection
It is recommended that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal on the basis that they have submitted a relevant objection: Ramsey Town Commissioners
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90941/B
Page 2 of 10
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given the Right to Appeal as they have submitted an objection that meets the specified criteria: No's;
7, 10, 11, 12, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32, 36, 37, 39, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 56, 57, 61, 63, 65, 68, 87, 131, Greenlands Avenue, Ramsey
10, Gardeners Lane, Ramsey
17, Lezayre Park, Ramsey __
Officer’s Report
THE SITE 1.1 The application site is identified in red is concerned to the pavements of part Greenlands Avenue, Ramsey. The site sits within a wider residential estate and is broadly accessed from the junction of Gardeners Lane to the west of the site. To the north of the site is the more recent residential development of Auldyn Meadow and to the South is an older residential development of Lezayre Park. All these developments are access via Gardeneers Lane and leads onto the Main Highway of Lezayre Road to the south. This site is broadly located to the south of Ramsey toward the western edge of the Ramsey Town plan boundary. 1.2 The dwelling here are a mixture of traditional bungalows and some chalet bungalows with accommodation in the roof space via velux windows or dormer roof conversion giving a slightly higher ridge height. Many of the properties feature an flat roofed garages biased towards the rear of the dwelling allowing for tandem parking for two cars off the highway. Properties here essentially face onto the highway and are generally set back from the edge of the pavement with the front apron to the properties being used for car parking and/ or landscaped front gardens laid to lawn with some soft and hard landscaping leading to the pavement edge with no fences or walls to the front. 1.3 The pavements here (both sides of the road) vary in width and connect all the properties in the wider estate and finished with tarmacadam with dropped kerbs to each residential property. Within the rear of the pavements are sporadic metal columns for street lighting with lanterns atop. 1.4 Properties to the north of the Greenlands Avenue are numbers in odds and to the south are evens. Greenlands avenue leads onto two cul-de-sacs of Greenlands View and Greenlands park to the east of the site.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning permission is being sought for the installation of Thirteen x 9m tall wooden telegraph poles with associated overhead network cables for the provision of fibre broadband internet. Off each of these poles would be a series of network cables that would criss-cross out to the respective properties. The timber poles would measure a diameter ranging from 250mm-300mm and would project between 7m-7.5m above the ground level with 1.5-2m below ground. The posts are installed via an auger at a width of 400mm-600mm. 2.2 The poles would be located within the public footpath adjacent to the boundary and on the divide between the following properties;
Pole 1 OS No 10 Gardeners Lane Pole 2 OS No 8 & 10 Greenlands Avenue Pole 3 OS No 16 & 18 Greenlands Avenue Pole 4 OS No 24 & 26 Greenlands Avenue Pole 5 OS No 30 Greenlands Avenue Pole 6 OS No 37 & 39 Greenlands Avenue Pole 7 OS No 49 & 51 Greenlands Avenue Pole 8 OS No 57 & 59 Greenlands Avenue
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90941/B
Page 3 of 10
Pole 9 OS No 64 & 66 Greenlands Avenue Pole 10 OS No 56 & 58 Greenlands Avenue Pole 11 OS No 65 Greenlands Avenue Pole 12 OS No 78 & 80 Greenlands Avenue Pole 13 OS No 7 & 9 Greenlands Avenue
2.3 Premises eligible to be connected (75 properties) to the new telegraph pole are properties referenced in sequence; No's 1-68; 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80 Greenlands Avenue and No.10 Gardeners Lane. 2.4 As part of the application the applicant notes; "In parallel to submitting the application, we will write to and inform the following parties: Greenlands Avenue Residents - Information letter outlining the planning application been submitted; Ramsey Commissioners - Letter informing of application.
PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The application site (pavements and roadway) have not been subject to any relevant planning history that is considered pertinent in this instance. 3.2 Of note are similar applications that have been approved referenced; o 23/01236/B - 1-29 Ballamillagyhn Estate Mount Rule Douglas.
o 24/00258/B - 22 - 28 Riverbank Road Ramsey. o 24/00445/B - 2-8 Ballasteen Drive, Andreas 3.3 The following applications within Ramsey, have all been refused by the planning committee because; "The proposed installation of wooden telegraph poles and their associated cabling amongst the streetscene of bungalows due to the height, size and scale of the proposals would have a negative visual impact that adversely affects the character of the streetscene and would be contrary to General Policy 2 (b & c) of the Strategic Plan". o 24/00259/B - Thornhill Park Ramsey. o 24/00234/B - Fairways Drive, Ramsey o 24/00227/B - Claughbane Estate, Ramsey o 24/00257/B - Marlborough Crescent, Ramsey 3.4 The following application 25/90376/B and 25/90377/B by Manx Telecom for; Installation of telegraph poles to supply fibre communications to Tromode Douglas, were initially refused by the Planning committee (30/06/25) and following an appeal were both subsequently recommended for refusal by the planning inspector and upheld on behalf of the Minister of DEFA (07/11/25).
"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". 3.5 A similar application ref; "25/90937/B - Installation of 2 telegraph poles to provide fibre optic connectivity to 12, 14, 15, 16 and 18 Barrule Park" - located 100m to the south of this application site was refused under delegated authority on 15.12.2025.
PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The application site is mainly within an area recognised as being an area of "Predominantly Residential Use" under the (Ramsey Local Plan) Order 1998, Map No.2 South. Within the written statement accompanying the plan, the statement is silent on telecoms and their inherent infrastructure.
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90941/B
Page 4 of 10
4.2 The site is not within a designated Conservation Area or within an area identified as being at floor risk from tidal or surface water flooding. There are no registered trees / tree areas identified on / adjacent to the application site. 4.3 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this application;
Strategic Policy 1 Development should make the best use of resources (c) 4 Protection of the landscape and biodiversity (b) Spatial Policy 2 Named service centre (Ramsey) General Policy 2 General Development Considerations (b,c,g,i,m) Environment Policy 22 (iii) Safeguarding the environment and/or the amenities of surrounding properties Infrastructure Policy 3 Need for communications infrastructure versus environmental impacts
4.4 Permitted Development Order 2012, Schedule 1, Part 1 Statutory Undertakings; Class 10 - Electric Supply (a) electric line - which includes the supporting poles. Class 12 - Street furniture (a-i) Varying items that are considered street furniture. 4.5 Town and Country Planning (Telecommunications) Development Order 2019 (in part). Schedule 1, General Conditions, paragraph 6; Development on or adjacent to a pavement must not take place- (a) if the existing width between the up-stand of the kerb or any existing street furniture is 1500mm or less; or (b) in any other case, if doing so would reduce that width to less than 1500mm. Schedule 2, Part 2 Telecommunication Structures - Table 2; Class 2 Telecommunications Structures on Land - Conditions or limitations; 1 No part of the development may be within a conservation area. 2 No part of the development may be within 9 metres of a designated watercourse. 3 No part of the development may be within 20 metres of a primary window unless it would be behind the elevation that contains the window. 4 No part of the development may exceed - (a) 15 metres in height; or (b) 0.3 metres in diameter OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.6 The Climate Change Plan 2022-2027 has an overarching series of strategies and policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this application which promotes a more sustainable approach to living and working, one of which is remote / home working and learning. 4.7 National Telecoms Infrastructure committee report, September 2017 which concluded; "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". 4.8 National Telecommunications Strategy, October 2018 which concluded; "The Government has made it clear that enhanced telecoms infrastructure is a top priority... and is determined to support the development of telecoms infrastructure which meets the needs of both businesses and the public now and into the future". 4.9 The National Broadband Plan, outlined in the Isle of Man's National Telecoms Strategy, sets out to deliver Island wide ultrafast fibre broadband to more than 99% of the Island's premises with Manx Telecom as the preferred supplier to enable over 40,000 premises (residential and commercial) to have 'access' to the fibre network. 4.10 Commissions Act 2021 (Schedule 5; Part 11- Power to fly lines)
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90941/B
Page 5 of 10
4.11 Cabinet Siting and Pole Siting, Code of Practice, Issue 2; November 2016. (UK Guidance for best practice). 4.12 Assessment of the Impact of the National Broadband Plan on Telecoms Regulation. Publication Number: 16/20 from Communications Commission. 4.13 The Island Plan 2023; Within the section entitled "Outstanding lifelong learning and development opportunities for all" the plan says; "Ensure that public services are increasingly digitally-enabled, and residents have access to fast, reliable internet via the Island's National Broadband Plan to create enhanced opportunities for learning in the Digital Age." 4.14 The Island Plan was Updated in March 2025 and notes: o Page 32; "Complete the rollout of the National Broadband Plan, driving 99% fibre broadband available Island wide so that all parts of our economy and society can benefit from modern and ultrafast internet capability".
REPRESENTATIONS (this report only contains summaries - full reps can be read online)
STATUTORY CONSULTEES 5.1 Ramsey Town Commissioners Object (21.11.25) "The Board considered the application at their November meeting and they have resolved to object to the application. The proposed installation of wooden telegraph poles would result in a narrowing of the footpaths, both the poles and their associated cabling amongst the street scene due to the height, size and scale of the proposals would have a negative visual impact that adversely affects the character of the street scene and would be contrary to General Policy 2 (b, c, g & h) of the Strategic Plan. The poles also go against Infrastructure Policy 3. A balance must be struck between the need for new, evolving communications systems to satisfy residential and business demand and the impact that the necessary infrastructure will have upon the environment. Measures which may help to achieve a satisfactory balance will include a presumption against visually intrusive masts in sensitive landscapes, the encouragement of mast sharing by different operators, and the removal of redundant infrastructure. Exceptions to this Policy would need to demonstrate a strategic national need, which cannot be otherwise secured by mast sharing or alternative locations. Other less visually intrusive development methods are available as demonstrated by the applicants own publicly available literature." 5.2 DoI: Highways Services do not object (05.11.25) but comment; " Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as a minimum 1.2m width pavement is left at all column pinch points".
NEIGHBOUR REPRESENTATIONS (in brief) 5.4 Thirty Three comments of OBJECTION, have been received from properties in the street scene, namely from residents of; 7, 10, 11, 12, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32, 36, 37, 39, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 56, 57, 61, 63, 65, 68, 87, 131, Greenlands Avenue, Ramsey; 10, Gardeners Lane, Ramsey; 17, Lezayre Park, Ramsey. Who between them raise the following material planning considerations; o Poles will be unsightly nature and give a negative impact on the area o Fibre should be underground not overhead o Installation should be buried underground o Suspended cables would be prone to interruptions given the wind in the area o Streetscape is free of visual clutter o Proposals are a retrograde step o Proposals are in conflict with planning policies o Poles would be in front of people living room windows o Pavement widths would be compromised o Lack of proper engagement and consultation o No evidence of poles and cables in the streets surrounding the area o Impact on property value and use of properties diminished o Low slung cables could catch on tall vehicles o Restricts views
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90941/B
Page 6 of 10
o Proposals not suited to urban areas o Impact on residents amenity and visually intrusive o Previous refusals in Ramsey set a precedent to not allow o Proposals are just a cost cutting exercise o Is not the "preferred method" of installation o Poles will restrict access in and out of peoples driveways o Cheapest solution and no viability has been proposed o False and misleading statements from the applicant o Alternative options of service delivery not fully explored o Narrowing of the pavement will be an issue o Poles will be taller than the low rise bungalows and unsightly o Could have an impact on residents mental health and welfare from unsightliness o Contravenes Article 8 of the ECHR (right to enjoy property) o Used as an access road during TT and cables would be an obstruction for buses o Impact on wildlife and the environment o Would introduce toxic chemical preservatives on the poles
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The pertinent issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are whether there is any adverse impact upon:
PRINCIPLE 6.1 The general principle of development from a land use perspective would comply with SP2 as Ramsey is a named village in the strategic plan and the site is identified on the Ramsey local plan as within the settlement boundary of Ramsey town and zoned as residential. 6.2 Furthermore the proposals would seek to comply with Strategic Policy 1c as the applicants are seeking to expand on existing telecoms infrastructure (located below ground) to facilitate service delivery within in the immediate vicinity. 6.3 As such, the broad principle of development would be supported through compliance with SP2 and Stp1c.
NECESSITY 6.4 This application essentially responds to the Governments strategic direction to expand on the existing ultra-fast fibre broadband network as a replacement for the Island's existing copper cable 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. 6.5 The applicant in their supporting statement highlights the pressing need; "Manx Telecom has set a deadline of 2029 for the complete switch-off of the copper network, after which all services will be delivered through the fibre network. This timeline allows for a managed transition, ensuring all properties across the Island are connected to the fibre network before the copper services are withdrawn. The Copper Switch-Off programme represents the final phase in the Island's digital transformation, creating a more reliable, future-proof telecommunications infrastructure that will support economic growth and improve quality of life for residents". 6.6 In this instance, the overall strategic "need" for the proposal can be substantiated to align with Government's communication goals to increase the provision for newer and faster
==== PAGE 7 ====
25/90941/B
Page 7 of 10
fibre broadband connectivity to residential areas and could be read in accordance with IP3 subject to their being no detrimental visual impact and adequate justification.
DESIGN AND SITING 6.7 The distribution of the existing network to the wider area of Greenlands Avenue would appear to be from a series of below ground ducts and or buried cables. As from the site visit, it was noted that within the estate's pavements the presence of telecom manhole covers and assumed ductwork connectivity between them for the supply of telecommunications/broadband to other properties in the estate. The same can be said for the wider context outside of the site and the surrounding residential areas to this part of Ramsey, (namely Auldyn Meadow and Lezayre Park) where telegraph poles and their suspended cables are not widely utilised as a form of infrastructure provision. 6.8 In terms of siting of the individual poles, it is noted this is done in accordance with the current regulations (noted above) which places them at the rear of the public footpath adjacent to a property boundary, rather than the kerb edge. The document also notes where appropriate they are also sited on the vertical boundary of the two neighbouring properties and perpendicular to the location of the pole. 6.9 Those effected properties to be linked to the broadband network are likely to be supplied from an existing underground cable buried in the ground rather than a series of buried duct work. To directly replace would involve digging up the pavement and roadway to install ducted network amongst other buried services in the areas. It should also be noted in this scenario, from the pavement edge, if the cable is to be buried, this would see the "digging up" of the properties garden/ driveway to install. 6.10 An alternative to this could see the utilisation of no-dig technology to minimise disruption to roads, landscape and existing infrastructure. In terms of alternative options, the applicants have noted: o "Greenlands Avenue does not have sufficient existing underground ducting to use and therefore to make fibre available to the estate, the installation of 13 telegraph poles is required". o "Underground duct/trenching - 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". o "Sharing other infrastructure - Where possible we share infrastructure to reduce the visual impact and avoid the need for new deployments. There is no other infrastructure we can share within the estate that allows Manx Telecom to meet the design requirements". 6.11 In terms of the theoretical design and siting, is clear that best practice has been followed to connect to the remaining properties in the street scene / estate as part of the government's strategic drive. However, it is acknowledged there are no timber poles to the application site or within this wider residential areas as noted.
VISUAL IMPACT 6.12 The opening sentence of IP3 is helpful when balancing the above need and any visual impact and those principles of GP2 would be relevant. When visiting the area, it's noted the openness and attractiveness of the street scene, the property heights of the bungalows and existing levels of infrastructure in the street scene. There exists sporadic placement of street lighting columns (approx. 4-5m) at the rear of the pavements in the estate. When standing on the site, the proposed telegraph poles will be visible on this street scene and read in this instance, as individual telegraph poles with their cabling above, criss crossing out, where at present there are none. 6.13 The introduction of the poles and cabling would be different, and their use would appear to be utilitarian as too would their appearance from the existing method of underground delivery. It is accepted that this approach can be seen as a retrograde approach and not without its criticisms as noted from the level of objection from affected residents. 6.14 Equally the proposals would be read against the residential context of the street scene where the pole heights would be greater than ridge of the surrounding properties (bungalows) as to would the cabling between the poles and to the property's eaves level.
==== PAGE 8 ====
25/90941/B
Page 8 of 10
6.15 Following the recent appeal decision of application 25/90376/B (see planning history) we can draw parallels from that application, where an important observation is where there is an absence of existing wooden telegraph poles and their inherent overhead cabling within the street scene, their proposed introduction was considered by the planning inspector to; "materially reduce the high quality, current open and uncluttered character and appearance". (para 56.) of the street scene and: "the proposed poles and associated overhead cabling would be seen as particularly prominent and intrusive features that would fail to integrate well with the surroundings". (para57.) 6.16 In concluding on the visual impact upon the character and appearance of the area, the inspector noted in the last paragraph of para 57: "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". 6.17 In essence the inspector has identified that where there is no prior existence of telegraph poles within the street scene or within the wider part of the estate as it was designed, the introduction of this form of infrastructure would be seen to be in conflict with Gp2b,c,g and IP3, as the proposals fail to ensure that new development respects the site and the surroundings. 6.18 It is further noted within the inspectors' conclusion on the application that the balance of material planning issues and the weight given to those with implied emphasis being on the detrimental visual impacts on the character and appearance of the area which outweighs other issues: The inspector noted on this in Paragraph 69 which states:
"However, that doesn't mean any telecoms development anywhere is appropriate...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".
6.19 Therefor consideration has to be given as to whether this level of new infrastructure would integrate sensitively with its surroundings to accord with IP3. Given the recent appeal decisions for the same level of telecom infrastructure which were initially refused by the planning committee and subsequently recommended for refusal by the planning inspector and that decision upheld on behalf of the Minister of DEFA is a strong material consideration and carries significant weight in balancing the competing material considerations, especially given the support to refuse those applications at a political level and from a local authority perspective, with a number of residents to benefit from the proposals whom are objecting to these proposals. 6.20 It is clear that the introduction of 13 poles and overhead cables into this street scene that is currently free of above-ground services would materially alter the character of Greenlands Avenue. The area has a cohesive and uncluttered appearance, and the installation would constitute a noticeable and intrusive feature within the streetscape. 6.21 Balancing the above narrative, the poles and cabling could appear starkly out of scale with the surrounding residential dwellings and any adverse impact here would be exacerbated in this case, given the obvious absence of such infrastructure in neighbouring streets or indeed elsewhere within the estate. The poles would appear unduly dominant as a visually intrusive feature in the immediate street scene, creating a pronounced sense of visual oppression. 6.22 Therefore, it is considered that the overall siting of the poles and their inherent cabling would be seen as an incongruous feature on the streetscape, which in turn would have a detrimental visual impact that adversely affect the character and appearance of this part of the residential estate contrary to GP2b,c. 6.23 The second part of GP2g refers to adversely affecting the character of the locality, essentially streetscape features. Given the wider visual impact as discussed above, there would
==== PAGE 9 ====
25/90941/B
Page 9 of 10
be an impact here contrary to policy with GP2g. As the proposals do not sensitively integrate into the street scene, they would also be in conflict to IP3 where there is a presumption again visually intrusive masts.
IMPACT UPON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
6.24 In terms of the potential impacts upon neighbouring amenities (loss of light, overbearing impact upon outlooks and/or overlooking) the proposed wooden telegraph pole would be located within approximately 20 metres from the principal elevations of nearby residential dwellings. 6.25 In terms of outlook, the poles would be visible from properties with front-facing habitable rooms. However, given its distance and slender vertical form, this level of visual presence is not considered to result in an unacceptable impact on residential amenity. Concerns regarding its appearance have been noted and mostly concerned with view or outlook; nevertheless, the installation outside residential curtilages ensures that there would be no material loss of light, privacy, or overbearing effect on neighbouring properties.
IMPACT UPON HIGHWAY SERVICES 6.26 In terms of the proposals, it will in places limit the width of the pavement but only for a minor amount for the width of the pole (approx. 250-300mm) it is noted Highways services do not oppose the proposals for marginally narrowing the pavement. In most instances of siting the telegraph poles, there would remain a min. clearance of 1200mm wide on the pavement for pedestrian use (as noted in 5.1.4 of Manual for Manx Roads) and where the speed limit is lower than 30mph and this would be over a very short distance. As such this aspect would be acceptable and conform to GP2i.
PUBLIC HEALTH 6.27 This proposal is not seeking to install any radio frequency or electromagnetic field communication or non-ionising devices, as such no consideration has been given to the ICNIRP guidelines. In this instance the proposal poses no risks of harm, injury and nuisance to the public in the community in line with GP2m. Equally the proposals would comply with EP22 as it would not be seen to create any statutory nuisance through vibration, odour, noise or light pollution during its operation.
TREES AND HEDGES 6.28 In terms of whether the proposals will have an impact upon any trees or hedges, given the strategic positioning and the method of installation via an auger with limited excavation needed, it is not considered there to be any adverse impact upon any trees, hedges or their roots system within the locality of any of the telegraph poles placement and the proposals would comply with Stp4(b).
OTHER 6.29 It must be noted that whilst there is PDO specific for telecoms equipment under the 2019 Order, this proposal would not comply with those Schedules 1 & 2 as noted in para 4.13 as the pavement width is compromised in places and the proposals would be within 20m of a primary window in places.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Balancing the above material considerations, it is concluded that the benefits of providing the required improvements in broadband / fibre connectivity to increase network coverage would in comply to those parts of Strategic Policy 1,4b, Spatial Policy 2, General Policy 2(i,m) Environment Policy 22. 7.2 However, the material visual harm from the proposed development is considered to outweigh those above benefits with greater material weight attributed to the open context of the street scene and the absence of infrastructure clutter. 7.3 On this basis, it is considered that the proposed telegraph poles and associated overhead cabling would be seen as incongruous and intrusive additions with a detrimental
==== PAGE 10 ====
25/90941/B Page 10 of 10
visual impact which would adversely affect the character and appearance of this part of the residential estate. The proposals therefor are contrary to GP2 (b,c,g). 7.4 As the proposals do not sensitively integrate into the street scene, they would also be in conflict to IP3 where there is a presumption again visually intrusive mast.
8.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 8.1 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). 8.2 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. 8.3 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. 8.4 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. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management 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 : 05.02.2026
Determining Officer Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal