Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90944/B
Page 1 of 13
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90944/B Applicant : Mr Joe Wood Proposal : Erection of two buildings, associated hardstanding and vehicle parking area, formation of earth banks and construction of road linking to public highway for use as an arboricultural service business (retrospective) Site Address : Ballacallum Red Gates The Lhen Andreas Isle Of Man IM7 3EH
Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 02.02.2026 Site Visit : 02.02.2026 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 12.02.2026 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposal represents an unjustified commercial depot in the open countryside, outside any settlement boundary and on land not allocated for development. The applicant has not demonstrated an overriding national need in land-use planning terms, nor shown that reasonable and acceptable alternatives such as established employment locations including Jurby are unavailable. The Strategic Plan identifies Ramsey and Jurby as the Major Employment Areas in the north, and the Employment Land Review 2025 reinforces this direction by confirming that sufficient, deliverable and appropriately located employment land exists within these designated centres. The proposal therefore fails to meet any exception under General Policy 3 and is contrary to Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, Strategic Policy 6, Business Policy 1 and General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 2. The scale, massing and industrial appearance of the buildings, together with extensive engineered bunding and hardstanding, introduce an urbanised and commercial form that is wholly at odds with the rural character of the Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. The development alters natural landform, erodes openness and fails to respond to the Island's heritage landscape identity as set out in Paragraphs 4.3.4-4.3.11 of the Strategic Plan. The proposal does not conserve or enhance landscape quality, nor does it demonstrate the design quality required by Strategic Policy 5. It is therefore contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 2, General Policy 2, Strategic Policy 4 and Strategic Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90944/B
Page 2 of 13
R 3. Significant earthworks and bund creation have been undertaken without any ecological assessment, mitigation or post-construction evaluation. The Department is therefore unable to determine whether protected species, priority habitats or ecological networks have been harmed, including any that may have been present but not previously recorded. The absence of baseline information, coupled with the lack of any reinstatement or biodiversity enhancement measures, fails to meet the requirements of Environment Policies 1, 4 and 5, which seek to protect the countryside and its ecology for their own sake and require disturbance to be minimised and compensated where unavoidable. The proposal is also contrary to Strategic Policy 4, which requires development to protect or enhance nature conservation value.
__
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: o DOI Highways - No objection o Business Agency - Dept For Enterprise - No objection
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: o The owners/occupiers of Ballasalla Farm, Coast Road, Jurby - No objection __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site comprises Field 124817 which measures about 2.58 Acres, and sites to the southeast of the curtilage of Ballacullum Red Gates, the Lhen, Andreas. The site sits north of Coast Road and east of the junction of Coast Road and Kiondroghad Road. 1.2 The land holding extends acres and contains the principal dwellinghouse, a single- storey barn in Manx stone and a large steel framed shed to the east of the dwellinghouse. 1.3 The site is assessed via a long single lane driveway which measures about 476m long and connects the field and the curtilage of Ballacullum Red Gates with the A10. The site level gradually slopes towards the coastline. There are no views to the site from the A10 dues to the presence of sodbanks and mature trees along the northern section of the A10.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Erection of two buildings, associated hardstanding and vehicle parking area, formation of earth banks and construction of road linking to public highway for use as an arboricultural service business (retrospective). 2.2 The proposal comprises the following elements:
2.2.1 Erection of two buildings for operation of business: a. Building 1 (western building): This is a rectangular metal framed structure measuring approximately 15.9m (length) x 8.6m (width). Its mono pitch roof has eaves set at 4.2m to the front and 4.1m at the rear. The external walls are finished in light grey metal sheeting. The lower section of the eastern elevation is finished in a block wall. The building serves storage and maintenance of commercial vehicles and machinery. b. Building 2 (eastern building): This is a larger structure measuring approximately 20.2m (length) x 18.1m (width). This building has a pitched roof with a ridge height of 5.8m and eaves at 4m (front) and 2.6m (rear). This building is also finished in light grey metal sheeting. The structure serves storage of heavy plant, equipment and vehicles associated with the arboricultural business.
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90944/B
Page 3 of 13
2.2.2 Hardstanding and Access Works: The works include concreting of the access lane from the A10 to meet the earlier section completed in 2021 (Paragraph 1.4 of Planning Statement). The application form states no material was imported or exported, though the works have created a continuous engineered surface suitable for heavy vehicles. The existing parking area provides 10 spaces, increasing to 15 spaces under the current proposal.
2.2.3 Earth Banks/Bund Creation: Substantial earth banks have been constructed to the north, south and east of the buildings. The topographical drawings indicate bund heights of approximately 3m, involving cut and fill operations and re profiling of natural ground levels. Semi natural surfaces have been replaced with engineered slopes and compacted material.
2.2.4 Use of the Site: The application seeks approval for the use of the buildings and surrounding hardstanding as an arboricultural services depot, including: a. Storage and maintenance of commercial vehicles and machinery. b. Parking of staff vehicles. c. Turning and manoeuvring areas for large plant and equipment. d. Storage of arisings (logs and timber). e. Associated operational activity linked to the applicant's arboricultural business.
2.2.5 Machinery and Equipment Stored on Site: The Planning Statement lists the following equipment currently stored within the buildings: a. Vehicles: 5 Isuzu tipper trucks; 1 Ford van; 2 cherry pickers. b. Machinery / Plant: 2 tracked cherry pickers; 3 woodchippers; 2 stump grinders; 1 digger; 1 telehandler/tractor; 5 agricultural implements; log splitting equipment; 2 ride-on mowers; and 1 quad bike and trailer.
2.2.6 Employment and Operational Details: a. The business employs nine staff, several of whom travel to the site daily to collect vehicles and equipment, leaving their own vehicles on site. b. Approximately 80% of the business's work is for Government and Manx Utilities, including emergency response, storm damage and power line clearance. c. The applicant states that proximity to his dwelling enables rapid mobilisation during emergency events.
2.2.7 Ecological Information: Despite the scale of earthworks, bund creation and ground disturbance, no ecological survey, baseline assessment or mitigation strategy has been submitted in support of the application.
2.3 The applicants have provided letters of support from the following individuals and public bodies (These are not recorded as consultations/representations as they are not formal submissions): o Sarah Richardson o Owners/Occupiers of Ballacallum Farm, The Lhen, Andreas o Ballalhen Farm, The Lhen, Andreas o DOI Public Housing and Estates Division o DOI Highways and PROW o Manx Utilities
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Site Specific 3.1.1 The site is not designated for development on the 1982 Development Plan but sits within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV), and as such is considered to be part of the countryside. The site is not within a Conservation Area, or
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90944/B
Page 4 of 13
Registered Tree Area, and there are no registered trees on site. The site is also not prone to flood risks, or within an area of nature conservation. The site falls within Class 3 Soils under the Isle of Man Agricultural Land Use Capability Map.
3.2 National: STRATEGIC PLAN 3.2.1 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application; 1. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations 2. General Policy 3 - Exceptions to development in the countryside. 3. Business Policy 1 - The growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island will be encouraged provided that development proposals accord with the policies of this Plan. 4. Strategic Policy 2 - Development focussed in existing towns and villages. 5. Strategic Policy 4 - development proposals must protect or enhance the nature conservation and landscape quality of urban as well as rural areas. 6. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact 7. Strategic Policy 10 - Sustainable transport 8. Spatial Policy 5 - new development will be in defined settlements only or in the countryside only in accordance with GP3. 9. Environment Policy 1 - protection of countryside and its ecology. 10. Environment Policy 2 - Protection of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. 11. Environment Policy 4 - Protects biodiversity (including protected species and designated sites). 12. Environment Policy 5 - Mitigation against damage to or loss of habitats. 13. Environment Policy 14- Soil quality considerations for development that would result in permanent loss of agricultural land. 14. Transport Policy 1 - Proximity to existing public transportation services 15. Transport Policy 4 - Highway Safety 16. Transport Policy 7 - Parking Provisions 17. Energy Policy 5 - Requirement for Energy Impact Assessment for other more than 100 square metres. 18. Section 7.13. Agriculture - provides guidance on developments that impacts agricultural soils. 19. Paragraph 4.4.1: "The Spatial Strategy identifies the Major Employment Areas around the Island. While the majority of business and employment is focused around the Douglas Metropolitan Area, there are other major employment areas at Castletown, the Airport/Freeport, Peel, Ramsey and Jurby. The Department considers the distribution of employment areas provides a spread of employment opportunities around the Island. While recognising the opportunities for small scale local employment within existing centres it is considered new employment should, in the main, be concentrated within existing settlements or those major employment areas referred to in the Island Spatial Strategy and illustrated on the Key Diagram. Existing Local and new Area Plans will provide detailed boundaries for these areas. From time-to-time Government may judge it appropriate to offer financial incentives to encourage economic activity or investment in particular parts of the Island." 20. Section 9.3 on Commerce:
"9.3.3 The Department has supported the location of offices in town and village centres for several reasons: (a) such centres are accessible to all members of the community, staff and visitors alike; (b) the activity and range of services contribute to the vitality and success of the centres; and (c) the investment in property can be used to renew the ageing fabric of our town centre buildings.
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90944/B
Page 5 of 13
9.3.4 There are exceptions to this general approach: (a) Corporate Headquarters which do not attract day to day callers may usually be located on one of the Business Parks; (b) some of our larger buildings of acknowledged historic or architectural interest are unsuited to any but office use, which thus represents the best or possibly only opportunity to secure re- use of the building; and (c) working from home; where this does not result either in staff being employed or in day to day callers, there need be no detriment to the residential area, and there should be less travelling involved; this is also one way of encouraging the formation of new local businesses."
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025 4.1.1 This strategy seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary. Section 21 deals with Habitat loss actions through promoting a policy of 'no net loss' for semi- natural Manx habitats and species and to ensure that unavoidable loss is replaced or effectively compensated for.
4.2 Employment Land Review 2025 4.2.1 This report presents the findings of research and survey work to assess the Island's future employment land requirements. It provides evidence to support the review of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and provides data and useful information by which to measure the implementation of Our Island Plan and Economic Strategy.
4.2.2 Paragraph 2.6.3: "The spatial strategy highlights key areas for development: o Employment Areas: Freeport, Ronaldsway, Ballasalla, Jurby"
4.2.3 Paragraph 2.6.4: Douglas and its surroundings are the main business hubs, with other significant employment areas in Castletown, the Airport/Freeport, Peel, Ramsey, and Jurby.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The application site has been the subject of the following previous planning applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of the current application.
PA 20/01103/B for Erection of an agricultural building at Field 124817, Ballacallum Red Gates, The Lhen, Andreas - Refused. The application was refused for the following reason:
"It is considered the proposed building given the lack of agricultural need, and its size within the countryside would result in a detrimental visual impact and harm to the character and quality of the landscape contrary to General Policy 3; Environment Policy 1,2, & 15 of the IOM Strategic Plan and recommended for refusal."
PA 21/01428/B for Erection of a stable block with associated hard standing and landscaping. This was refused by Officer Delegation and at appeal. The Inspectors report details the following which are considered relevant to the assessment: "45. It was agreed at the Inquiry between the parties that the proposed commercial livery use is not an agricultural use and, therefore, a change of use of land would be required for equestrian use. I accept that this is implied within the terms of the application. However, the land available to the Appellant15 which would be used for grazing and exercising the horses, including the likely creation of an exercise area, which could include jumps and obstacles16, would be insufficient to sustain 8 horses. Supplementary feeding to secure their long-term health and well-being would be required. In these circumstances, confirmed at the Inquiry, it is likely a change of use of the blue edged land would be required in association with the commercial livery business.
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90944/B
Page 6 of 13
46. However, whilst the proposed change of use for livery in conjunction with the erection of the stable building is for consideration, the red lined area relevant to the appeal proposal only relates to the site of the building and associated parking/hardstanding area. It does not include the adjacent fields within the ownership of the Appellant. Therefore, I shall consider the appeal on the basis of the land available within the red lined application site only. 47. The appeal site lies outside of areas zoned for development17, within countryside protected by policy for its own sake and recognised for its character and quality as an AHLV18 where the most important consideration is the protection of the landscape. 48. The keeping of 8 livery horses within the stable building would be an intense use which it is reasonable to classify, in the circumstances of the associated land available, as a large-scale equestrian development. Within IMSP EP20 a presumption against such development, including new buildings, prevails. 49. The proposed building is of a size and design which would present a substantial bulk and mass in the landscape. It would be sited on the edge of the existing group of buildings centred on Ballacullen Red Gates. Whilst it would screen a rather dilapidated existing barn, which would weigh in favour of the proposal, the stable building would extend the built form of the group out into open countryside. The hardsurfaced livery yard, including concrete hardstanding and vehicle parking areas, would also change the character of this open margin on the edge of the existing group of buildings, as well as the wider countryside setting, by reason of the introduction of activities associated with the livery of 8 horses. These would include the comings and goings of clients both in the morning and evening to care for the animals, movement and parking of cars, vans and horse boxes, deliveries of feed, hay and straw and farrier and veterinary visits. All of these activities would serve to emphasize the change in the use of the land. The activity associated with the care of horses in both the proposed stable building itself and within the yard would add to the impact on the character and quality of the open landscape. 50. I do accept that the proposed building would be of a design and size not unfamiliar in the landscape amongst the scattered agricultural farmsteads in the immediate vicinity. However, the proposed commercial livery use is not agriculture and in the circumstances of this appeal would be a highly concentrated use centred on the large new building and livery yard. The combination of the bulk and massing of the building along with the extent of the hardsurfaced area and the resultant activities associated with the livery business would present an obtrusive feature resulting in harm to the character and quality of the countryside landscape resulting in a policy conflict with the terms of IMSP EP20 and EP21. 51. In reaching this conclusion I have considered the proposed landscaping and extension of the sod bank, the intention of which would be to soften the impact of the proposed building and business activities in the wider landscape and ultimately screen the building from view. The landscaping would also have a positive effect on biodiversity which must weigh in favour of the proposal. That said the landscaping would take some considerable time to establish and grow to become an effective screen. The sod bank would, in itself, present a contrived physical feature which would interrupt the open nature of the surrounding fields. 52. I have also considered that in terms of public view points the appeal site is really only viewed from the adjacent farmstead, possibly from nearby residences19. From The Lhen I accept the proposed building and yard would not be visible. However, the terms of IMSP paragraphs 7.4.1 and 4.3.11 clarify that a public view of development is not a requirement for there to be resultant harm from the location of new development, particularly where that development cannot be sensitively and unobtrusively integrated into the landscape. 53. However, other than IMSP EP21 all of the quoted policies offer exceptions to be considered in a balance against identified harms. 54. The appeal proposal as already stated is not an agricultural use and so there would be an in principle conflict with IMSP GP3 as none of the exceptions apply in this instance. 55. IMSP EP1 offers an exception of an over-riding national need in land use terms which outweighs the requirement to protect the countryside. No case has been made of such a national need for livery on the Island. Therefore, the full weight of this planning policy prevails.
==== PAGE 7 ====
25/90944/B
Page 7 of 13
56. IMSP EP2 offers the exception of the location of the development as being essential in the AHLV. No evidence has been provided that the livery business needs to be located within the AHLV over and above any other countryside area outside of the designation. The reasoning for the location of the livery business and building is the wish of the Appellant to use his land for such a purpose. As such I consider the full weight of the policy conflict applies. 57. IMSP EP20 sets out that exceptional circumstances could over-ride the presumption against large scale equestrian developments in the AHLV. 58. The Appellant promotes a case of a wish to utilise the land which immediately surrounds Ballacullen Red Gates for the benefit of his young family as well as responding to the needs of an adjacent farmer who requires additional land to accommodate livery horses. Both matters weigh in favour of the proposal. However, whilst I appreciate these individual aspirations, I do not consider them to be exceptional circumstances in policy terms. Therefore, the presumption set out in this policy applies.
Conclusion 59. Overall, a substantial weight of policy conflict, centred on unacceptable harm to the character and quality of this designated countryside landscape, prevails against the appeal proposal, taking into account, promoted considerations detailed above in favour of the proposed scheme.
Reason 62.Overall, it is considered the proposed building for equestrian use would be of a size, design and location which would result in unacceptable harm to the character and quality of the open countryside in a landscape designated as an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance where the protection of the character of the landscape is the most important consideration. No convincing case of exceptional circumstances in favour of the proposal has been established to outweigh the identified harm. Therefore, the terms of IMSP Policies GP3, EP1, EP2, EP20 and EP21 would be unacceptably compromised."
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only. 6.1 Comments from Consultees: 6.1.1 DOI Highways find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as the internal layout and site access are acceptable for the proposals (9 December 2025). 6.1.2 DEFA Forestry has no objection to the application (21 January 2026). 6.1.3 Business Agency - Dept For Enterprise Has made the following comments on the application (18 December 2025): o They support the application. o The site lies outside a defined settlement and within an area identified at Strategic Plan as of high landscape/coastal value. o Having reviewed the applicant's Planning Statement and supporting correspondence, we note that the proposal seeks retrospective permission for two functional, bundings, a concreted access lane and earth banking to support the storage, parking and maintenance of arboricultural equipment operated from the applicant's residence at Ballacallum Red Gates. The business is an established Island-based arboricultural provider with a specialist fleet, including insulated platforms for work near live power infrastructure, and frequently undertakes emergency response on behalf of Manx Utilities and the Isle of Man Government, as confirmed by the letters of support on file. o The buildings are agricultural in scale and appearance and sit within an existing building group in an agricultural landscape. Their brief visibility from the A 10, combined with earth banking providing screening and weather protection, limits any landscape impact and keeps the development consistent with its rural context. o We are mindful, that the Strategic Plan generally restricts new countryside development except in cases of overriding need with no reasonable alternative. Here, the applicant's
==== PAGE 8 ====
25/90944/B
Page 8 of 13
specialist capability requires secure, weather-protected storage and rapid mobilisation for emergency works that maintain public safety and essential utilities. The Planning Statement demonstrates that no suitable or affordable alternative sites exist and that a split-site arrangement would compromise response times. o Having considered the content of the application, we believe that the applicant has demonstrated a clear Island-critical need and the absence of any viable alternative site and directly supports the Our Island Plan by strengthening emergency response capability, supporting essential public services and sustaining local employment. We recognise that the site is in a sensitive landscape; however, the buildings' limited visibility, agricultural form and effective screening should be considered to minimise visual impact. o We therefore consider that the development would avoid unacceptable landscape harm while aligning with both Strategic Plan and Our Island Plan objectives and should therefore be supported. 6.1.4 The following consultees have not provided any comments, although they were consulted on 1 December 2025: o Andreas Parish Commissioners o MU Drainage o MU Electricity
6.2 Public Representation 6.2.1 The owners/occupiers of Ballasalla Farm, Coast Road, Jurby have made the following comments on the application (12 December 2025): 1. They note that they are writing on behalf of Paul Carey & Sons Ltd to express full support for the planning application. 2. Joe Wood Tree & Garden Services provide essential arboricultural services, including routine work and 24/7 emergency response for dangerous tree removal. 3. Storing equipment near the coastline causes accelerated deterioration due to salt air, especially for machinery with electrical components, creating financial and safety risks. 4. A secure, enclosed storage shed is necessary to protect equipment and maintain safe operational standards. 5. Locating the shed close to the company's existing yard improves security and operational efficiency. 6. Suitable premises for this type of business are rare and difficult to obtain, making the proposed shed a practical solution. 7. Paul Carey & Sons Ltd have faced similar issues and previously sought permission for their own workshop/storage facility. 8. Joe Wood Tree & Garden Services are long established in Andreas, employ around ten staff, and contribute positively to the local economy and community. 9. The company is known for reliability, professionalism, and responsiveness, supporting critical regional services.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of the current application are: 1. The Principle of the proposed development to establish a business at the site; 2. The Visual and Landscape Impacts; and 3. Impacts on Biodiversity 7.2 Principle of Development (STP 2; SP 5 & 6; GP 3; BP 11 & Employment Land Review 2025) 7.2.1 The site lies within open countryside and within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, where the Strategic Plan establishes a clear presumption against new development. The Spatial Strategy directs growth to existing towns, villages and designated employment areas, and Strategic Policy 2 reinforces that new development should be located primarily within settlements unless one of the limited countryside exceptions applies. Spatial Policy 5 echoes this position by permitting countryside development only where it satisfies the strict criteria of General Policy 3. As the proposal is located outside any defined
==== PAGE 9 ====
25/90944/B
Page 9 of 13
settlement boundary and is not on land zoned for development, the principle of development must be assessed against the closed list of exceptions in General Policy 3. 7.2.2 General Policy 3 provides only eight narrowly defined circumstances in which development may be acceptable in the countryside. The proposal does not constitute agricultural or forestry development, minerals or utilities infrastructure, conversion of a rural building of architectural or historic interest, redevelopment of significant previously developed land, or interpretation of the countryside. The applicant therefore relies implicitly on GP3(g), which permits development only where there is an overriding national need in land use planning terms and where no reasonable and acceptable alternative exists. The Strategic Plan makes clear that this is intended for essential nationally significant development. The operational importance of the applicant's arboricultural services, while acknowledged, does not amount to a national land use need, and the existence of designated employment land at Jurby, identified in the Spatial Strategy and the Employment Land Review 2025 as one of the two principal employment area in the north (as well as Ramsey), demonstrates that reasonable alternatives do exist. The proposal therefore fails to satisfy GP3(g) and does not meet any of the exceptions that would allow development in this countryside location. 7.2.3 The proposal is an employment generating use involving two large buildings, hardstanding, commercial vehicles, machinery storage and staff movements. Strategic Policy 6 requires such development to be located within existing centres or on land zoned for employment purposes. The Spatial Strategy and the Employment Land Review 2025 identify Jurby as a key Employment Area intended to accommodate operational, industrial and commercial uses of this nature. No structured site search has been provided, and no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that Jurby or any other employment land was explored. The Planning Statement's assertion that no suitable alternatives exist is unsupported and is contradicted by the Island's employment land evidence base. As such, the proposal conflicts with the Strategic Plan's employment and spatial policies. 7.2.4 The applicant's Planning Statement suggests that the business is "home based", but the Strategic Plan's provisions for home working apply only to low impact domestic activities that do not involve staff, day to day callers or operational yards. The proposed use involves nine employees, heavy plant, commercial vehicles, machinery maintenance and engineered hardstanding. This is not a home-based business in Strategic Plan terms and cannot rely on Section 9.3 to justify a commercial depot in the countryside. The proposal therefore conflicts with the Strategic Plan's approach to home working and with the wider Spatial Strategy. 7.2.5 Business Policy 1 encourages employment growth only where proposals accord with the policies of the Strategic Plan. As the proposal conflicts with Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, Strategic Policy 6 and General Policy 3, Business Policy 1 cannot be afforded weight in favour of the development. 7.2.6 Several letters of support have been submitted by neighbouring residents and by officers of Government departments, including DoI Highways, Manx Utilities and DOI Public Housing and Estates Division. These representations highlight the applicant's operational usefulness, emergency response capability and positive working relationships. While these comments are acknowledged, they do not demonstrate overriding national need in land use planning terms, nor do they address the existence of reasonable and acceptable alternatives such as Jurby. Operational convenience, contractor reliability and neighbour acceptance cannot override the Spatial Strategy or justify a commercial depot within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value. The supportive representations therefore carry limited weight and do not overcome the fundamental policy conflict. 7.2.7 Taking all of the above into account, the proposal represents an unjustified commercial development in the open countryside, contrary to the Spatial Strategy and the strict requirements of General Policy 3. It fails to demonstrate overriding national need, fails to demonstrate the absence of reasonable alternatives, and conflicts with the Strategic Plan's settlement, employment and countryside protection policies. The principle of development is therefore not accepted.
7.3 Landscape, Visual and Design Impact (EP1; EP2; GP2; STP 2, 4 and 5; SP 5; Paragraphs 4.3.4-4.3.11)
==== PAGE 10 ====
25/90944/B Page 10 of 13
7.3.1 In terms of landscape and visual impacts, it is considered that the site lies within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, where the Strategic Plan requires the protection of the countryside and its landscape character as a primary consideration. Environment Policy 1 protects the countryside for its own sake, and Environment Policy 2 requires that development within designated landscapes must conserve and enhance their character. The Strategic Plan's wider landscape and heritage provisions at paragraphs 4.3.4 to 4.3.7 emphasise that the Island's rural landscapes, coastline and natural environment form a core component of Manx identity, valued by residents and visitors alike. These sections make clear that the Island's landscape heritage is not simply a visual asset but an inseparable part of "Manxness", shaped by thousands of years of interaction between natural and cultural processes. Further to the above, Strategic Policy 4 requires development to protect or enhance this landscape quality and heritage setting. Against this policy backdrop, the threshold for acceptable development in an AHLV is necessarily high. 7.3.2 The Inspector's findings in the earlier appeal under PA 21/01428/B at this site are directly relevant. Although visibility was limited, the Inspector concluded that the development nevertheless conflicted with the Strategic Plan because the policy test is not one of visibility alone, but of landscape protection, character, and the appropriateness of the use in this location. The Inspector emphasised that the countryside must be protected for its own sake and that development in such locations must be justified by policy, not by operational convenience or personal preference. That reasoning applies with equal, if not greater, force to the current proposal, which is for a larger scheme with greater operational impact that that previously refused. 7.3.3 The submitted plans show that the proposal involves two substantial buildings; Building 02 measuring approximately 348sqm with multiple roller shutters and Building 01 measuring approximately 124sqm with a projecting canopy together with extensive engineered hardstanding and significant earth bunding. The elevations confirm that both buildings are clad in light grey plastisol coated metal sheeting, polycarbonate roof lights, and large industrial scale openings. While it is acknowledged that some agricultural buildings in the countryside utilise metal cladding, these are typically modest in scale, recessive in colour (often green), and directly related to agricultural activity. The Inspector has already confirmed at this site that the acceptability of a building in the countryside is not determined solely by its materials, but by its purpose, scale, massing, landform alteration and relationship to the landscape context. In this case, the proposed buildings are not agricultural in function and their industrial appearance, combined with their scale, engineered bunding and extensive hardstanding, introduces a distinctly commercial character into an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value where the Strategic Plan seeks to maintain an undeveloped rural setting that contributes to the Island's heritage identity. 7.3.4 The bunds shown on the plans are not incidental landscape features, but engineered structures designed to screen and contain commercial activity. Their height and extent are evident on the topographical survey and section drawings, which show raised banks, cut and fill operations and altered landform around the buildings. These works materially change the natural topography of the site and introduce a level of engineered intervention that is inconsistent with the open, coastal landscape. The Strategic Plan at paragraph 4.3.7 requires that heritage landscape value be considered in all planning decisions, with a view to retaining and enhancing this value wherever possible. The engineered bunds and altered landform do the opposite: they impose an artificial, industrialised platform into a sensitive landscape setting. 7.3.5 The two buildings now proposed are materially larger in footprint, height and massing than the structure previously considered unacceptable at appeal. The earlier schemes involved a stable block, and agricultural building uses that are, in principle, more closely aligned with rural character. Despite this, the Inspector concluded that the development was harmful to the landscape and contrary to the Strategic Plan. In contrast, the current proposal comprises purpose built commercial buildings, extensive hardstanding, operational yards, machinery storage and vehicle movements. These are not rural uses and are not characteristic of the landscape. If smaller, more rural type buildings were found unacceptable, it follows that larger, more industrial type buildings with greater engineered intervention cannot reasonably be considered acceptable in the same location.
==== PAGE 11 ====
25/90944/B Page 11 of 13
7.3.6 The elevations further demonstrate that Building 02, in particular, has a distinctly industrial character, with multiple roller shutters, a long-unbroken roof span, and a 20m facade length. Building 01, though smaller, also incorporates metal cladding, a projecting canopy and a compacted stone apron. These features are typical of commercial or industrial estates and are not reflective of the vernacular or agricultural building forms found in this part of the Island. Their combined presence, together with the engineered bunds and hardstanding, results in a visually intrusive and urbanised cluster of structures that erodes the rural qualities of the AHLV and conflicts with the Strategic Plan's emphasis on protecting the Island's heritage landscape identity. 7.3.7 The Strategic Plan's design provisions at paragraphs 4.3.8 to 4.3.11 and Strategic Policy 5 require new development to make a positive contribution to the Island's built environment, taking proper account of context, siting, layout, scale and materials. The Plan explicitly warns against "anywhere architecture" and states that merely arguing that a building cannot be seen in public views is not a justification for relaxing policies relating to the location of new development. The applicant's reliance on limited visibility therefore carries no weight. The design, scale and layout of the buildings do not respond to the landscape context and do not enhance the Island's architectural quality. Instead, they introduce a generic commercial form into a sensitive rural setting, contrary to Strategic Policy 5 and General Policy 2. 7.3.8 The hardstanding areas shown on the plans represent a significant intensification of built form and activity. These engineered surfaces, together with the bunds, create an industrialised platform that is visually and functionally at odds with the surrounding open fields and coastal landscape. The Inspector in the previous appeal noted that the cumulative effect of hardstanding, engineered surfaces and altered landform contributed to the domestication and urbanisation of the site. The current proposal involves a greater extent of such works and therefore results in a greater degree of landscape harm. 7.3.9 The proposal also introduces a level of operational activity, vehicle movements, machinery storage, maintenance operations that is not characteristic of the landscape and would further erode its rural qualities. Even if some of this activity is screened from public viewpoints, the Strategic Plan requires the protection of the countryside for its own sake, not only where visible from public vantage points. For clarity, landscape harm can arise from the introduction of inappropriate uses and engineered landform, irrespective of the degree of visibility. Thus, it must be noted here that visibility to neighbours is not the test under EP1, EP2, Strategic Policy 4 or Strategic Policy 5, and operational convenience cannot justify engineered landform and commercial buildings in an AHLV. 7.3.10 Taking all of the above into account, the proposal results in an unacceptable alteration of landform, an intensification of built development, and the introduction of commercial activity that is fundamentally at odds with the character, heritage identity and design expectations of the Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value. The scheme conflicts with Environment Policy 1, Environment Policy 2, General Policy 2, Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, Strategic Policy 4 and Strategic Policy 5. The landscape, visual and design impacts are therefore considered unacceptable.
7.4 Biodiversity and Ecological Impacts (Environment Policies 1, 4 & 5; Strategic Policy 4; Paragraph 7.5.1) 7.4.1 In assessing the potential impacts on biodiversity, it is noted that the site is not within a formally designated nature conservation area. However, the Strategic Plan makes clear that ecological value is not confined to designated sites. Paragraph 7.5.1 of the Strategic Plan which supports Environment Policy 1, emphasises that all open countryside is generally of high quality and that development must preserve its rural and ecological character. Environment Policy 1 requires the countryside and its ecology to be protected for its own sake, and Strategic Policy 4 requires development to protect or enhance nature conservation value and avoid unacceptable environmental disturbance. These protections apply irrespective of formal designation and are engaged wherever development involves significant ground disturbance. 7.4.2 The submitted plans show extensive earthworks across the site, including the construction of substantial bunds around both buildings. The topographical surveys and section drawings indicate bund heights in the region of 3m, with clear evidence of cut and fill
==== PAGE 12 ====
25/90944/B Page 12 of 13
operations, re profiling of natural ground levels and the replacement of semi natural surfaces with engineered slopes and compacted stone. These works represent a significant level of ground disturbance. As the development is retrospective, the Department has no baseline ecological information to understand what habitats, species or ecological features were present prior to the works, nor any assessment of the impacts arising from excavation, soil movement or vegetation clearance. 7.4.3 Environment Policy 4 prohibits development that would adversely affect species or habitats of international, national or local importance, including Wildlife Sites, priority habitats, ecological corridors and landscape features of value to flora and fauna. The Strategic Plan recognises that many areas of ecological importance are not formally designated, particularly where Area Plans are dated, and that site specific ecological assessments may reveal ecological patterns or sensitivities that are not evident from mapping alone. In this case, no ecological survey was undertaken before the bunds were created, and no post construction assessment has been provided. The Department is therefore unable to determine whether protected species, priority habitats or ecological networks have been affected or displaced. 7.4.4 Environment Policy 5 requires that, where development is permitted that could adversely affect ecological interests, conditions or planning agreements must be used to minimise disturbance, conserve ecological value and provide replacement habitats where damage is unavoidable. No mitigation, ecological management plan or habitat reinstatement strategy has been submitted. There is no evidence of any attempt to minimise ecological harm during the works, nor any proposals to restore or enhance biodiversity following the creation of the bunds and hardstanding. This is inconsistent with the requirements of Environment Policy 5 and Strategic Policy 4. 7.4.5 Further to the above, the wider heritage landscape provisions at paragraphs 4.3.4 to 4.3.7 of the Strategic Plan highlight that the Island's natural environment and biodiversity form an integral part of its heritage identity. These sections emphasise that ecological and landscape qualities must be protected from inappropriate development. The extensive earthworks and landform alteration undertaken at the site do not reflect this expectation and have not been accompanied by any assessment or mitigation to safeguard ecological value. In the absence of any ecological survey or mitigation, the Department cannot conclude that the development complies with Environment Policies 1, 4 or 5. 7.4.6 In summary, the development has resulted in extensive and unquantified ecological disturbance, undertaken without any ecological assessment, mitigation or post construction evaluation. The Department is therefore unable to determine whether protected species, habitats or ecological networks have been harmed, including any that may have been present but not previously recorded. The proposal conflicts with Environment Policy 1, Environment Policy 4, Environment Policy 5, Strategic Policy 4 and the wider ecological and heritage landscape provisions of the Strategic Plan. These concerns are exacerbated by the fact that there is no loopily aligned justification for the proposed development in this part of the countryside. The biodiversity and ecological impacts are therefore considered unacceptable.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 Overall, the proposal represents an unjustified commercial development in the open countryside, failing to meet any exception under General Policy 3 and conflicting with the Spatial Strategy, which directs employment uses to designated centres such as Jurby. The scale, industrial character and engineered bunding introduce an urbanised form that undermines the landscape qualities and heritage identity protected by Strategic Policies 2, 4 and 5 and Environment Policies 1 and 2. Extensive retrospective earthworks have occurred without ecological assessment or mitigation, contrary to Environment Policies 1, 4 and 5. Taken together, the development is unacceptable in principle, harmful in landscape and design terms, and inconsistent with the Strategic Plan's ecological and countryside protection objectives.
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
==== PAGE 13 ====
25/90944/B Page 13 of 13
(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.
__
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: 13.02.2026
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal