**Document:** APL Planning Statement
**Application:** 24/00154/B — The addition of a fifth container and widened walkway (retrospective) and the variation of Conditions 2 and 4 of PA 22/00757/B, to retain elements of spectator facility on site and in situ
**Decision:** Refused
**Decision Date:** 2024-11-26
**Parish:** German
**Document Type:** report / planning_statement
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/32084-german-glen-moar-mill-condition-variation-retrospective/documents/1056897

---

# APL Planning Statement

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE) ORDER 2019 1612-4.2.3.2 V1.0 JANUARY 2024

### Planning Statement

APPLICATION REFERENCE: TBC (DSFX1701954018772)

PROPOSAL:

THE ADDITION OF A FIFTH CONTAINER AND WIDENED WALKWAY, AND THE VARIATION OF CONDITIONS 2 AND 4 OF P.A. 22/00757/B, TO RETAIN ELEMENTS OF SPECTATOR FACILITY ON SITE AND IN SITU.

ADDRESS: FIELD 315139, ADJACENT TO GLEN MOAR MILL, GLEN HELEN ROAD, LAUREL BANK, ST JOHNS, ISLE OF MAN IM4 3NN

AUTHOR: EUAN P. H. CRAINE, B.Arch, M.Arch, ADPPA, ARB, RIBA

HAVEN HOMES LIMITED THE OLD CHAPEL 32-34 MALEW STREET CASTLETOWN ISLE OF MAN IM9 1AF PHONE 01624 835222 EMAIL HAVEN@HAVEN.IM WEB WWW.HAVEN.IM

#### Contents

- 0.0 Introduction 2
- 1.0 Planning History 3
- 2.0 The Site 4
- 3.0 The Proposal 5
- 4.0 Access and Parking 7
- 5.0 Flooding and Drainage 7
- 6.0 Environmental Impact 7
- 7.0.0 Planning Policy 8

- 7.1.0 General Provisions 8
- 7.2.0 Visual Impact and Landscape Character 9
- 7.3.0 Overriding National Interest 11

- 8.0 Summary 12

##### Appendices:

A Schedule of Drawings and Supporting Documentation

- 0.0 INTRODUCTION
- 0.1 This Statement has been prepared by Haven Homes Limited (the Agent) on behalf of Rockfell Limited (the Applicant) and is intended to be read and considered together with all associated submissions in the application bundle.
- 0.2 The Application is made for full consent for the Proposal pursuant to the Act1, DPO2, IMSP3 and 1982 Plan4.
- 0.3 The Events referred to are the Isle of Man TT (the “IOMTT”) and Isle of Man Festival of Motorcycling (the “IOMFOM”, also comprising the Manx Grand Prix and Classic TT events).
- 0.4 The Proposal is as described in this Statement and represented in the drawings scheduled at Appx A. It may be summarised as the addition of a fifth container and widened walkway, and the variation of Conditions 2 and 4 of PA 22/00757/B (the “Extant Approval”) to retain elements of the spectator facilities on site.
- 0.5 The Site is as delineated, edged red, on the Location Plan and Site Plan. The Applicant’s additional ownership of surrounding land is as delineated, edged blue, on the Location Plan and Site Plan. The Applicant is the freehold landowner of the Site, which comprises part of the parcel registered under Title 31-02047.

- 1 Town and Country Planning Act 1999
- 2 Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019
- 3 Town and Country Planning (Isle of Man Strategic Plan) Order 2016 and its Written Statement
- 4 Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982, its Written Statement and Map

- 1.0 PLANNING HISTORY
- 1.1 PA 21/01316/B (the “Initial Application”) had been submitted some 6 months prior to the planned implementation of spectator facilities. A month prior to IOMTT 2022, the Department gave three reasons it considered the facilities to be inimical to the environment, citing the IMSP:—

- a) EP7 regarding the nature of imported fill;
- b) EP10 regarding flood risk; and
- c) EP1 and EP2 regarding the facilities’ permanency.

- 1.2 The Applicant, anxious that the application’s determination would otherwise be delayed beyond the Events’ post-pandemic recommencement, had little choice but to accede to restrictions imposed at short notice by condition to the Initial Approval:—

- a) The fill, initially proposed to provide a level support for the containers, was eliminated (hence EP7 became inapplicable);
- b) contrary to their earlier position, the Department eventually conceded the proposed facilities did not, in fact, present any risk of flooding (hence EP10 became inapplicable); and
- c) the Department cited a perceived effect upon the countryside’s character (with reference to EP1 and EP2) as grounds to require the semiannual removal and reinstatement of the facilities.

- 1.3 The Committee’s sentiments, regarding the spectator facilities’ permanency and visual impact, were subsequently minuted:—

“The Members thanked the applicant for taking on board advice and making the requested changes in order to make the application more suitable for approval. One member could see no reason why the structures could not stay between race periods to help improve the viability. Another member expressed that there may be a potential that once the structures have been in place for a number of years, the applicant may feel it worthwhile to submit a further application to retain the structures between race periods.”

- 1.4 The Extant Approval varied Condition 2 of the Intial Approval, so that facilities could be retained during the summer (but otherwise still requiring their annual removal and reinstatement). The Department acknowledged that this variation would, in itself, improve highway safety by halving traffic flow disruptions.
- 1.5 The application history of the wider site remains unchanged since permanent marshals’ facilities were approved in July 2023. The Inspector’s recommendation in that case was, in short, that the Department fully acknowledgement and give due weight to the Visitor Strategy5 adopted by Tynwald “as a response to an overriding national need and investment in the future of the TT as an Island event“ — which recommendation the Minister accepted.
- 1.6 With prior urgency having passed, and with the Extant Approval in hand, the Applicant is now able to fully address those restrictions imposed at short notice under the Initial Approval.

- 5 GD/2022/0036, “Our Island, Our Future” Isle of Man Visitor Economy Strategy 2022-2032

- 2.0 THE SITE
- 2.1 The Site consists of the parcel described in the Extant Approval.
- 2.2 The evidence base for the draft Area Plan6 comprises documents already treated as a material consideration under §10(4) of the Act. Amongst these is the Isle of Man Landscape Character Assessment 2008, which describes the Site’s surroundings:—

“[Glen Mooar]7, north of Doran’s Bend, consists of a V-shaped valley with dense mixed deciduous woodland and coniferous plantations such as the Vaaish and Eairy Beg Plantations alongside the small river and on the steep valley sides. Irregular fields of rough pasture divided by sod hedges with some mature hedgerow trees and gorse form a gradual transition into the surrounding upland area on the upper valley sides. Mature Oak, Ash, Beech and Sycamore overhang and enclose the road corridor along which TT Race paraphernalia is scattered in the form of Marshal’s stations, road markings and signage. The road is edged by a stone wall and pavement that at times runs along the western side of the River Neb passing an converted Mill until the Glen Helen Hotel car park is reached […]”

- 2.3 Independent Inspectors’ reports have also been treated as a material consideration under §10(4) of the Act. In the report concerning PA 22/00186/B, the Inspector considers, at §74:—

“[…], The A3 twists and turns through the deeply cut valley, following the course of the River Neb. The heavily wooded steep sides of the valley creates a dominant sense of enclosure and forward views are restricted by the topography and roadside walls and vegetation. […]”

- 2.4 The highway’s characterisation as an enclosed road corridor is appropriate. The Site is surrounded by tall topographical features. The public realm is confined to the highway extents. The Site cannot reasonably be characterised as open countryside.
- 2.5 The Site’s levels are a product of the highway’s construction and the mill’s infrastructure. Land is terraced higher to the east of the mill than to the west, at one time providing the head of water required for the erstwhile waterwheel’s operation. The highway is hewn from the bedrock of Ballavaish (farm of the steepsided hill), and otherwise filled and retained above lower-lying ground to the south, to establish the road’s smooth gradient.
- 2.6 In short — the highway, where it runs adjacent to the Site, is retained above land excavated in the old mill’s development. This produces an appreciable level difference. With the mill’s original purpose exhausted, the Site fell redundant. The Proposal was first conceived to turn these particular circumstances into an advantage; the containers’ negligible visual intrusion within what is (in any case) historically modified topography, would permit their retention in situ and avoid ongoing disruptions. This was made quite clear in application for the Initial Approval.

- 6 Draft Area Plan for the North and West (June 2022)
- 7 n.b. The s tudy uses “Lower Glen Helen” as an apparent misnomer

- 3.0 THE PROPOSAL
- 3.1 Having successfully implemented the facilities, the Applicant has gained improved knowledge of their operational constraints. There is, for example, a limited range of appropriate equipment available on-island for (re)positioning the containers. This must be craned from the highway, in turn requiring its closure by traffic order (to Highway Services’ satisfaction). In addition to the equipment’s hire, closures would attract considerable cost to the Applicant twice a year, whilst inconveniencing the public.
- 3.2 Condition 2 requires the Site to be cleared in a condition suitable for agriculture. The Site is not designated any particular use, and there is no evidence (in the 1982 plan or otherwise) to show the Site having been used for any purpose other than in conjuction with the historic mill. The IMSP defines previously developed land as including the curtilage of the developed land. Certainly, there is no evidence that the land has previously been used within the meaning of ‘agriculture’ provided in the Act, at §45(1):—

“‘agriculture’ includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land), the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, market gardens and nursery grounds, and the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes, and ‘agricultural’ shall be construed accordingly.”

- 3.3 In EP1’s preamble, IMSP §7.2.3 notes strategically important facilities may require rural locations, including transport, leisure, agricultural or tourism uses. The Site’s very small area, modified topography and isolation precludes the advantages of modern, mechanised agriculture and economies of scale. The tall topography surrounding the historically excavated land of the Site also significantly reduces the amount of annual sunlight it receives. It is therefore incapable of sustaining agriculture.
- 3.4 Similarly limited land parcels in the Site’s proximity have, for similar underlying reasons, had structures erected upon them to facilitate uses other than agricultural (without any apparent scrutiny). Moreover, containers have been approved within an AHLV8 for leisure purposes — on the Department’s own land.
- 3.5 With a container’s appearance remaining constant regardless of its use, the Department has not articulated pragmatic grounds under Condition 2 for advancing a certain use over another. Notwithstanding that the Site has served no agricultural purpose (or that a tourism use has been approved), the Applicant could, for example, seek to retain the containers ostensibly for agricultural purposes, with the same result on visual impact.
- 3.6 Measured against the character assessment, the proposal’s visual impact can only reasonably be considered minimal. Condition 2 currently requires the containers’ repeated removal and reinstatement, despite the greater detriment that would clearly be caused to the AHLV. As the Department concluded, this paradoxical requirement would also affect highway safety and energy expenditure (contrary to well-established policy).

- 8 Area of High Landscape Value

- 3.7 The Events’ national importance is proven, weighing in favour of development where such requirement exists. There is a clear and unequivocal requirement for spectator facilities to be located immediately adjacent to the TT course, for which there is no reasonable alternative. In the report concerning PA 22/00186/B the Inspector considers, at §90:—

“The size of the large grandstand before the Black Dub buildings illustrates the importance and entertainment value of this section of the course. I take the view that the appeal proposal responds to a national need to secure the TT event into the future. The [Visitor Strategy] sets out as one of its core principles the international recognition of the Island as the home of the TT. It recognises the strategy is not about quick wins. It is about recognising the need of both Government and the private sector to invest in building a visitor destination over time.”

- 3.8 We hold that the Inspector’s conclusions extend to the marshals’ facilities equally as they do to the spectators’ (if not more so); rather than the repeated and wasteful disrupution that would otherwise occur, there is a pragmatic and economic advantage in allowing the Proposal to assimilate into the Site over time.
- 3.9 Within the wider context of the Site, the Department has expressly approved tourism uses for the historic mill and its three cottages. The Site is inextricably linked to these buildings which, together with the marshal and spectator facilities, are envisaged by the Applicant as a single, cohesive establishment. This would, however, require the full implementation of each individual element to successfully support their operation as a whole. If one element were unreasonably affected, this may fundamentally undermine the viability of the remaining parts including the regeneration of the mill building itself.
- 3.10 Several other course-side locations that were previously enjoyed by spectators have been prohibited in an effort to improve the Events’ safety. The limited number of spectator sites that do remain must be operated at optimal efficiency to fulfil Visitor Strategy objectives. Any unreasonable limitations imposed on these sites will undermine their economic viability, thereby diminishing visitors’ experience (again, contrary to policy).
- 3.11 The Site consists of previously developed and under-used land and, as such, SP1 requires the Proposal be operated optimally and efficiently. An area below the access walkway provides an opportunity for further enhancement, with the provision of a fifth container (occupying otherwise redundant space).
- 3.12 This fifth container will contain additional storage space for use in conjunction with the previously approved bar area. Above, the space will accommodate further capacity for spectators.
- 3.13 Construction costs remain significantly elevated above prepandemic levels. Scaffolding has become increasingly costly, to the point that erecting and dismantling the access to the bleacher seating will likely become prohibitively expensive.

- 3.14 The fifth container will, in part, obviate the need for scaffolding and provide a wider walkway. Extending this access across the front of the bleacher seating will close the distance to the sod bank. This will improve accessibility and increase the options available for wheelchair users, whilst eliminating the need for a handrail, thereby reducing visual impact from the highway and improving spectators’ views (save for the usual crash and safety barriers required by officials to maintain the Events’ safety).
- 3.15 In short, it is submitted that Conditions 2 is inherently illfounded, placing impracticable requirements upon the Applicant. Whilst the Site’s tourism use is established, its agricultural use is not, nor is it designated for (or capable of accommodating) an agricultural use. The containers’ visual impact on the open countryside is negligible, being sited on (and concealed by) land excavated in the mill’s historical development. The containers will be retained outside of the Events, even if the bleacher seating must be stored elsewhere on the Site, out of public view, and it is proposed that Conditions 2 and 4 be varied accordingly. A fifth container will fully optimise the Site’s efficient use and full potential as one of a limited number of remaining spectator locations, securing its viability in the face of increasing costs all in accordance with the IMSP and Visitor Strategy.

- 4.0 ACCESS AND PARKING
- 4.1 It is considered that the variation of Conditions 2 and 4 will have no bearing on matters already considered with regards to access and parking. Vehicle accesses, egresses and parking both on and off season will remain unchanged.
- 4.2 Disposing of the requirement to manoeuvre the containers on an annual basis will avoid the effects that would otherwise be caused on traffic flow and highway safety and should, therefore, be weighed significantly in the Application’s favour.

- 5.0 FLOODING AND DRAINAGE
- 5.1 It is considered that the variation of Condition 2 and 4 will have no bearing on matters already considered with regards to drainage or flooding. The Department has previously conceded that the Extant Approval does not result in any risk of flooding to (or from) the watercourse.

- 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
- 6.1 The Proposal was amended prior to the Initial Approval in response to concerns raised regarding the nature of imported fill. None of the conditions to the Extant Approval relate to such, nevertheless the Applicant remains content not to import fill for the purpose of levelling the containers.
- 6.2 If a requirement to manoeuvre the containers persists, there will be ongoing potential for surface water run-off from disturbed soil to enter the adjacent watercourse, reintroducing the same hazards avoided by not using importing fill. We therefore urge the Department to implement the variation sought, thereby avoiding the hazardous effects that will otherwise be caused.

- 7.0.0 PLANNING POLICY
- 7.1.0 — GENERAL PROVISIONS —

- 7.1.1 IMSP §1.3.1 states (with our emphasis):“A strategic plan comprises a written statement formulating the Department’s general policies in respect of the development and other use of land in the Island, together with a reasoned justification of those policies and such diagrams, illustrations, or other explanatory matter as the Department thinks fit.”
- 7.1.2 IMSP §1.7.2 states (with our emphasis):“The Aim, Objectives, Policies and Spatial Strategy must be looked at as a whole. They are intended to inter-relate and should not be read in isolation.[…]”
- 7.1.3 IMSP §1.4.2 states:—

“[…] those parts of the Island which are not the subject of approved Local Plans are covered by the land-use zones on the 1982 Development Plan.”

- 7.1.4 IMSP §1.4.3 states:—

“Existing Local Plans will remain in effect until they are replaced by new Area Plans. The 1982 Development Plan, as amended by the various Local Plans, will have effect as an Area Plan. New Area Plans will be in general conformity with the Strategic Plan.”

The Site remains the subject of the 1982 Plan, in which the Site is designated an AHLV — but is not designated for agriculture.

- 7.1.5 IMSP §1.4.4 states:—

“In the case of any inconsistency between the provisions of the Strategic Plan and the provisions of an Area Plan, whichever came into force later will prevail.”

The IMSP was adopted in 2016 and therefore prevails in the case of any inconsistency with the 1982 Plan.

- 7.1.6 In assessing the application that gave rise to the Extant Approval, the Planning Authority directed itself to:—

- • General Policy 2;
- • General Policy 3;
- • Strategic Policy 1;
- • Strategic Policy 2;
- • Strategic Policy 4;
- • Strategic Policy 5;
- • Environment Policy 1;
- • Environment Policy 2;
- • Environment Policy 4;
- • Environment Policy 7;
- • Environment Policy 10;
- • Transport Policy 4;
- • Transport Policy 7;
- • Business Policy 11;

- 7.2.0 — VISUAL IMPACT AND LANDSCAPE CHARACTER—

- 7.2.1 IMSP Strategic Policy 4 states:—

“Proposals for development must: […]

(b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; […]

SP4 makes no particular distinction regarding AHLVs, with such areas being specifically provided for under EP2. The Proposal is to avoid continuing disturbances that will otherwise be caused by repeatedly manoeuvring the containers, and instead allow them to assimilate into a concealed position.

- 7.2.2 IMSP Strategic Policy 5 states:—

“New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies.”

SP5 is provided in the context of IMSP §§4.3.8—4.3.11 relating to permanent structures. The landscape character assessment establishes that perspective fields of view towards the Site are very narrow, with the containers being situated well below the sight-lines available from the public realm. Where a proposal is concealed, its appearance becomes largely irrelevant, which in this instance should be considered in combination with numerous advantages in supporting Visitor Strategy objectives.

- 7.2.3 IMSP Environment Policy 1 states:—

“The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative.”

It is established that the Proposal’s location is essential, also that Condition 2 would cause greater detriment to the River Neb’s ecology than allowing the containers to remain in situ a foreseeable hazard that the Department itself sought to avoid by requiring that no fill be imported.

- 7.2.4 IMSP Environment Policy 2 states:—

“The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV’s) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:

- (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or
- (b) the location for the development is essential.”

Given the reduced number of course-side locations at which spectators may enjoy the Events due to safety concerns, those locations that remain have become increasingly important in the Events’ success as major component of the Island’s visitor market. Again, the Site’s topography significantly mitigates visual impact from the public realm. The facility cannot be said to be intrusive, especially in comparison to other Events-related installations left over the interim period, or in comparison to nearby structures (including containers) situated above highway level where they are situated in a direct line-of-sight.

- 7.2.5 IMSP Business Policy 11 states:“Tourism development must be in accordance with the sustainable development objectives of this plan; policies and designations which seek to protect the countryside from development will be applied to tourist development with as much weight as they are to other types of development. Within the rural areas there may be situations where existing rural buildings could be used for tourist use and Environment Policy 16 sets out the circumstances where this may be permitted.”

By imposing Condition 2, the Department appears to prioritise the agricultural use of the Site, notwithstanding that:—

- a) there is no evidence of the Site having ever previously been used for agricultural purposes (within the meaning of the Act);
- b) the Site is not designated for such purpose;
- c) the Site’s isolation, limited size and recessed topography essentially precludes its agricultural use; and
- d) the use of the containers for an ostensibly agricultural use would satisfy Condition 2 with the same external appearance.

- 7.3.0 — OVERRIDING NATIONAL NEED —
- 7.3.1 IMSP §6.1.1 states:“The Development Plan will make positive land-use allocations and provision through its policies such as to meet the Island’s foreseen development needs for the period 2001-2016. It will therefore provide the basis on which development control decisions are made during this period.”
- 7.3.2 IMSP Strategic Policy 2 states:“New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3 [General Policy 3].”
- 7.3.3 IMSP General Policy 3 states:“Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: […]

(g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative […] ”

- 7.3.4 Tynwald unanimously adopted the Visitor Strategy in May 2022. Programme 5, entitled “Events Development”, outlines stated national objectives:—

“Strengthen existing events to improve their impact, visitor experience and financial sustainability;[…]”

As discussed at §1.5 and §3.7 of this Statement, the Visitor Strategy establishes a strategy (as a matter of national policy) to expand existing facilities in support of the Events. The Site is one of only a limited number of remaining spectator locations, and there is an established national need to ensure its success.

- 7.3.5 Condition 2 has, however, introduced requirements that fundamentally undermine the facilities’ financial viability; that the Site must (in addition to its established tourism use) also be capable of providing an agricultural use for which it has not served, is not designated, and is incapable of accommodating. The Proposal clearly accords with GP3 and, in these regards, the will of Tynwald Court must be fully acknowledged and given due weight in consideration of the Site’s actual circumstances.

- 8.0 SUMMARY
- 8.1 The Proposal augments an existing use of the Site associated with the most significant tourism events held on the Island, thereby increasing the capacity for their enjoyment at a particularly popular location, in accordance with adopted national policy.
- 8.2 The Site was carefully considered in the generation of the design of the Proposal, taking advantage of the Site’s historically modified topography to best conceal the Proposal’s elements in a manner rarely seen at other course-side facilities (where structures are more usually erected above the highway’s level).
- 8.3 It is considered that, by avoiding repositioning operations as otherwise required by Condition 2, disruption to the highway and harm to the natural environment will also be avoided. Viability would be improved, in accordance with adopted national policy.
- 8.4 The amenity of existing developments in the Site’s vicinity (to which the Department has also previously consented) will be retained without prejudicing the use of those developments.
- 8.5 The Proposal will provide adequate amenity in and of itself, as is considered necessary to support and properly accommodate the existing use of the Site and its supporting activities.
- 8.6 It is considered that the Proposal complies with the planning policies identified in this Statement (being those to which the Department previously directed itself). Where there exists any matter that may impede an application’s approval, it is the public duty of the Department to advise the Applicant or their Agent, so that such matters may be addressed prior to determination.
- 8.7 The Applicant looks forward to help contribute towards the ongoing success of the Events and Visitor Strategy objectives.

## Appendix — A

SCHEDULE OF DRAWINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION

APPLICATION REFERENCE: TBC (DSFX1701954018772)

PROPOSAL:

THE ADDITION OF A FIFTH CONTAINER AND WIDENED WALKWAY, AND THE VARIATION OF CONDITIONS 2 AND 4 OF P.A. 22/00757/B, TO RETAIN ELEMENTS OF SPECTATOR FACILITY ON SITE AND IN SITU.

ADDRESS: FIELD 315139, ADJACENT TO GLEN MOAR MILL, GLEN HELEN ROAD, LAUREL BANK, ST JOHNS, ISLE OF MAN IM4 3NN

#### Appendix A

Schedule of drawings submitted in support of the Application

#### Author Reference Rev. Drawing Title

- Haven Homes 1612-100.00 X Location Plan
- Haven Homes 1612-100.01 X Site Plan as Surveyed
- Haven Homes 1612-100.02 X Site Plan as Proposed
- Haven Homes 1612-100.03 X Visibility Splay: Egress
- Haven Homes 1612-100.04 X Visibility Splay: Access
- Haven Homes 1612-100.05 X Swept Path Analysis Sheet 1 of 2
- Haven Homes 1612-100.06 X Swept Path Analysis Sheet 2 of 2 Haven Homes 1612-100.10 X Plans, Elevations and Section

---

*Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).*
*Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/32084-german-glen-moar-mill-condition-variation-retrospective/documents/1056897*