Loading document...
Application No.: 25/10147/AIR Applicant: Jurby Paddocks Limited Proposal: Information in relation to Condition 4 of 23/00876/B detailing landscape scheme Site Address: Land At The Paddocks Jurby Industrial Estate Jurby Isle Of Man Recommending Officer: Peiran Shen Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 27.02.2026 Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal R . In this instance of the submitted documents and after consultation with Ecosystem Policy Officer, who is not satisfied with the level of detail, it is deemed insufficient to achieve the desired outcome and would be considered unsatisfactory for the planning conditions 4 of application 23/00876/B. The proposal contradicts with the Preliminary Ecological Assessment in the original approval and also contain elements not granted within 23/00876/B.
1.1 Planning Application 23/00876/B was APPROVED on 09.10.2025 for:
Construction of light industrial (Class 2.1) general industrial (Class 2.2) and storage and/or distribution (Class 2.3) to units 3 to 8 and Approval in Principle for units 1, 2 and 9 to 19 for light industrial (Class 2.1) general industrial (Class 2.2) and storage and/or distribution (Class 2.3)
1.2 This approval is subjected to 12 conditions, some of which require the submission of additional information prior to the commencement of works.
1.3 This report is specific to conditions No. 4, which the applicants are seeking to satisfy. The specific wording of the condition is as follows:
Notwithstanding the details that have been submitted, the development hereby approved shall not commence until a detailed landscaping scheme in association with units 3 to 8, has first been submitted to the Department in writing to be agreed.
The scheme shall include a detailed landscaping layout, details of planting including plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities, site levels, as well as a programme for the implementation.
All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of any unit, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which die or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.
Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development, in the interests of enhancing the biodiversity of the environment.
2.1 The applicant's agent has submitted an application form on 02.12.2025 along with:
3.1 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Officer for the approved application was consulted for advice. Their advice was received on 11.12.2025. They concluded that, after reviewing the submitted documents, this submission does not satisfy the relevant clauses.
3.2 The comment from Ecosystem Policy Officer highlights species-rich grassland was found as part of the application but the Landscaping Scheme Details states grassland would be cut between spring and autumn, which would prevent species from being present. There is also no need for wildflower seed as native seed stock is already available in the soil.
3.3 The comment end point out that the Preliminary Ecological Assessment (PEA) has recommended no trees or shrubs to be planted at the entrance, to allow for the retention of species-rich grassland while the plan is showing the opposite. The comment then this contradiction may be more acceptable if the proposed grassland are for long-term retention.
4.1 The information only satisfy Condition 4 when it both sets a proper landscape setting while protecting biodiversity. Given the proposal contradicts section 6.1 (e) of the PEA, it is considered to fail protecting the biodiversity identified in the PEA and therefore does not satisfy the conditions.
4.2 The proposal also includes planting in areas which are covered by other planning applications, which cannot be determined within 23/00876/B.
5.0 Recommendation 4.1 In this instance of the submitted documents and after consultation with Ecosystem Policy Officer, which is not satisfied with the level of detail, it is deemed insufficient to achieve the desired outcome and would be considered unsatisfactory for the planning conditions 4 of application 23/00876/B.
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
Decision Made : Refused Date : 04.03.2026 Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown