**Document:** Planning Officer - Statement of Case
**Application:** AP25/0024 — Appeal against the refusal for the installation of 4 telegraph poles to supply fibre communications to 77-87 Eary Veg and 88, 97, 98 and 99 Cronk Liauyr Tromode
**Decision:** Appeal dismissed - PA REFUSED
**Decision Date:** 2025-11-07
**Parish:** Braddan
**Document Type:** appeal / appeal_statement
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/88428-braddan-eary-veg-tromode-appeal-against-refusal/documents/1141896

---

# Planning Officer - Statement of Case

## Please reply to the signatory

Our Ref:

Planning Appeals Secretary Cabinet Office Government Offices Buck’s Road Douglas IM1 3PN

Dear Sir/Madam,

Tel: (01624) 685950 Email: Jason.singleton@gov.im

Date 06/08/2025

PA No: 25/ 90376/ B. Proposal: Installation of 4 telegraph poles to supply fibre communications. Address: 77-87 Eary Veg and 88, 97, 98 and 99 Cronk Liauyr Tromode.

Please find a statement that sets out the position of the Department in respect of the above planning application.

The application was determined by the Planning Committee on 30th June 2025.

This statement relies upon the Planning Officer’s original report which is online and forms part of the planning file and the minutes from the Planning Committee meeting which are provided at the end of this statement.

The enclosed statement comprises the following parts:

- 1. Appendix 1 – Statement of Case
- 2. Appendix 2 –Extract of Planning Committee Minutes dated 30/06/25.

In the event that the appointed Planning Inspector is minded to recommend that the application be approved, then consideration to conditions included at 5.0 of the Statement of Case should be assessed accordingly.

Yours sincerely,

Jason Singleton

MSc | MCD | MRTPI | AssocRICS Principal Planning Officer Planning & Building Control Directorate | (DEFA) Murray House • Mount Havelock • Douglas • Isle of Man • IM1 2SF

Appendix 1.

STATEMENT OF THE Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Planning & Building Control Directorate

Planning statement on behalf of the Department relative to:

Installation of 4 telegraph poles to supply fibre communications to 77-87 Eary Veg and 88, 97, 98 and 99 Cronk Liauyr Tromode PA Reference: 25/90376/B

Prepared on behalf of the Planning Department by Jason Singleton Principle Planning Officer

- 1.0 Legal and Policy Position In accordance with S10 of the Town Country Planning Act the application has been considered;

S(4) In dealing with an application for planning approval or an application under subsection

(3), the Department shall have regard to —

- (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application; (ab) any relevant national policy directive under section 2A;
- (b) any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3;
- (c) such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and
- (d) all other material considerations.

There is a statutory duty to take into account the above, and while it is recognised that weight to be given is a matter for the decision maker.

That being said, it shall be noted that the Development Plan and other Adopted Policies do not have primacy as they do in the UK. The Isle of Man is also different from the UK as there is no presumption in favour of development as set out in the NPPF, and there is no 5year land supply requirement.

In this application, the most weight has been given to the Strategic Plan 2016 and the Area Plan for the East 2020 as they have been through a statutory process, which includes evidence base and public consultation process, and are adopted by Tynwald.

It is not considered that the other material considerations outweigh that set out above.

- 2.0 Introduction The Isle of Man Planning system is based on a series of delegations from the Minister, including;

- • A delegation to Planning Committee;
- • Delegations to the Department’s Political Member for Planning, and
- • Delegations to Officers.

The Planning Committee Standing Orders set out the circumstances in which applications must be referred to the Committee, and the Officers’ delegations prevents their determination of an application which should be referred (based on complexity and/or level of public interest). Around a fifth of applications are referred to the Committee, each with an officer recommendation.

The Committee is charged with the duty to determine the planning applications that are referred to them. Section 10(06) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that the decision maker(s) can grant approval, grant approval with conditions or refuse permission. The decision maker(s) shall have regard to the development plan, National Policy Directives or Planning Policy Statements that are relevant, and all other material considerations. When making a decision, the balance and weight attached to policies and material considerations is a matter for the decision maker(s). It is therefore perfectly reasonable for the Planning Committee to overturn officer recommendations.

In such circumstances the role of the Case Officer is to explain the Committee’s position to the Appeal Inspector (and of course help to answer any other questions).

On the basis of the above, this report is an updated version of the officer report originally presented to committee, amended to reflect their views and comments. The original report can be viewed online along with the application details and decision notice.

- 3.0 Planning Committee meeting This application was presented to the Planning Committee on Monday 30th June 2025 given the level of private objections and the application was recommended for approval.

In accordance with the Standing Orders the consideration included: a presentation of the application by the Case Officer; comments from DOI Highway Services; comments from a representative of the objectors (who had registered to speak).

At the committee meeting, this application was heavily attended by residents of the application site and whilst the members deliberated the merits of the proposals, the members were reminded that public opinions is not a material consideration. However, members expressed concerns with the use of timber poles and their potential to create an adverse visual impact within the context of the dwelling houses and character of the streetscape noting how they would appear.

Following further discussion, the Committee unanimously declined the approval recommendation of the Principal Planning Officer and voted to refuse the application for the following reasons;

"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 of detached dwellings 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 & h) of the Strategic Plan".

An extract from the Planning Committee minutes (30th June 2025) is included at Appendix 4. The full Planning Committee minutes can be viewed in the following web link; https://pabc.gov.im/planning/planning-committee/agendas-and-minutes/

- 4.0 Response to Reasons for Appeal This report addresses those refusal issues directly; all planning policies and other material planning considerations are outlined within the Case officer’s original report and have not altered since the Planning Committee’s determination of the application.

There appear to be three issues raised by the committee that resulted in a refusal decision;

- 1. Visual Impact
- 2. Narrowing of the pavement
- 3. Impact on the residential amenity

FOLLOWING SECTION ADDRESSES THOSE ISSUES DIRECTLY

- 4.1 ISSUE 1 (Visual Impact) In terms of assessing visual impact and aligning this to the policy narrative, it is noted that General Policy 2 are general development considerations that are specifically focused on ‘development’. In this case for the erection of the wooden telegraph poles the following are relevant;

- b - respecting the site and surroundings;
- c - any adverse impact on the character of the surrounding area;

At the committee meeting, Members noted that the use of wooden poles for the provision of fibre internet was not evident anywhere else within the wider residential estate. It was noted, the remainder of the estate was likely serviced by an underground network of telecom ductworks which connects to each property. Members were concerned why these few properties could not be served by an engineering solution to have the cables underground like the remainder of the residential estate.

Members noted, the proposed telegraph poles will be visible on this street scene as individual telegraph poles and their cabling above, where at present there are no telegraph poles, and they will be read collectively when entering this part of the street given their placement.

Furthermore, the array of network cabling that would criss-cross out from the poles to the individual properties were considered a backwards step in service delivery and collectively would look out of place.

The height of the poles was raised as a concern and whether they would be dominant on the streetscape because they would be greater in height than the surrounding dwelling houses. Due to their size, it was considered they could have an overbearing impact on the residents given those poles would be within 20m of a primary window to a dwelling house that faces towards the highway and onto the poles.

On balance, the proposals were broadly considered to result in a harmful visual impact that would negatively affect the character of the street scene.

- 4.2 ISSUE 2 (Narrowing of the pavement) Members expressed concerns from the installation of the poles to the back of the pavement would in places create a pinch point where it would restrict the width in places and would compromise the safe and convenient use for pedestrians contrary to GP2h.
- 4.3 ISSUE 3 (Impact on the residential amenity) In addition to the reason for refusal, and noting an appeal considers the application de-novo, it would be pertinent to consider General Policy 2g which specifically deals with the impacts on the residential amenity from the proposals. Where proposals are considered to be visually intrusive, they could also aligned with being overbearing.

Whilst this was not included as a specific reason for refusal, but Gp2g would be reflective of the residents whom objected to the proposals and are against the use of above ground fibre broadband via poles and cables.

Their level of objection was recorded in the attached minutes of the committee meeting and their specific comments were summarised in the officers original report with full comments available on line here;https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=neighbourComments&keyVal=SUE7S1IPKDK00

Consideration could be given to any adverse impact upon the neighbouring amenity and guidance on this is available within the residential design guide at “Section 7.0 - Impact upon Neighbours”. Further consideration could be given to whether there is any;

- o potential loss of light/overshadowing;
- o potential overbearing impact upon outlook; and
- o potential overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy.

With regard to these proposals, consideration could be given to objectively assess where there is any “over –bearing” impact from the physical presence of the poles in the public interest and whether this would feel oppressive because of their installation within the pavements on this quiet estate road.

Should an “over-bearing” impact (be considered to) exist because the development is so close, it would need to be aligned whether this would affect any outlook from within an affected dwelling house, from their gardens and any outside domestic spaces immediately surrounding the house. Further consideration is needed whether this change of outlook would be acceptable or harmful to the occupants living conditions of any residential property when compared to the current situation where the proposals don’t exist in the streetscape.

5.0 Potential Conditions In the event that the Inspector is minded to recommend approval it is recommended that the following conditions (as set out in the original case officers report) are attached;

- Condition 1 –Four years to commence The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
- Condition 2 –Remove if no longer needed Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Department, any telecommunications cabinet, mounted equipment or wooden telegraph poles must be removed from the land on which it is situated, within 6 months of it no longer being required for telecommunications purposes, and such land must be restored to its condition before the development took place, so far as is practicable. Reason: To ensure that any redundant infrastructure is removed and to comply with Strategic Plan Infrastructure Policy 3.

END.

## Appendix 2.

[Table omitted in markdown export]

The Case Officer reported on the matter and summarised the key issues as set out in the report and with reference to the visual presentation.

The Highway Services representative confirmed there was nothing further to add to their report. The Objector [REDACTED] statement is summarised below: PC Minutes 30.06.2025

5

- Eary Veg is a quiet cul-de-sac with street lamps as the existing street furniture. The addition of telegraph poles with drop poles will create "visual harm and deleterious intrusion into the streetscone".
- The tops of the poles will be higher than the ridge tiles on all bungalows, and this will be worse on the West side as the bungalows sit at a lower level than the pavements. Also, many poles are within 20m of primary windows.
- The proposed streetscone images show the dramatic change to the streetscone for Eary Veg and some houses on Cronk Liauyr. Visitors to Ballamillaghyn Estate do not agree with the view that the poles do not detract from the character of the streetscone.
- Telegraph poles and drop cables are not common in this area of Douglas. This type of technology should not be considered due to the very negative visual impact. Cost savings should not be prioritised when other less intrusive technologies are available.

In clarification of the key issues the Members enquired as to:

- The level of demand for fibre connectivity from residents; Mr Butler responded that planning is relevant to the property and the future – so it was less about the stance of the current property owner and more the overall policy direction that properties on Island should have adequate access (so a similar situation to requiring sufficient parking spaces even if the current owner does not have a car)
- The Members reiterated that am alternative was needed due to the looming copper network decommissioning. The Members thanked Manx Telecom for the accurate streetscone representations in the application.
- The Members were surprised at the lack of comment from Douglas Borough Council.
- The Members referenced the views expressed on the previous agenda item (application 25/2590377/B).

### Decision

The Committee unanimously overturned the recommendation of the Case Officer and the application was refused due to the following reason.

### Reason for refusal:

The proposed installation of wooden telegraph poles would result in a narrowing of the footpaths and their associated cabling amongst the street scene of detached dwellings 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 & h) of the Strategic Plan.

### Right to Appeal

It was decided that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: Douglas City Council - No Objection Highways Services - No Objection

It was decided 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:

Eary Veg; No's 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87,
Cronk Liauyr No's; 98, 99,129
Sileau Dhoo; No's;124

---

*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/88428-braddan-eary-veg-tromode-appeal-against-refusal/documents/1141896*