**Document:** Planning Officer - Statement of Case
**Application:** AP25/0025 — Appeal against the refusal for the installation of 4 telegraph poles to supply fibre communications to 115-119, 123-125 and 43-51 Slieau Dhoo Tromode
**Decision:** Appeal dismissed - PA REFUSED
**Decision Date:** 2025-11-07
**Parish:** Braddan
**Document Type:** appeal / appeal_statement
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/88427-braddan-slieau-dhoo-tromode-appeal-against-refusal/documents/1141903

---

# 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 04/08/2025

PA No: 25/ 90377/ B. Proposal: Installation of 4 telegraph poles to supply fibre communications. Address: 115-119, 123-125 and 43-51 Slieau Dhoo 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 Slieau Dhoo Tromode Douglas PA Reference: 25/90377/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 5-year 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 statement 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 because of the level of private objections and the application was recommended for approval by the case officer.

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 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 delivery 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.

[Redacted] indicated he knew the Objector, but had had no discussions around planning with him.

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:

- Telegraph poles and cables are a backwards step. Were alternatives such as sharing ducting with Manx Utilities explored? Eight applications for telegraph poles were refused in 2024.
- The proposed telegraph poles would create significant visual harm. The poles would rise above rooftops and be visible from beyond the estate.
- What would be the impact on wildlife?
- The estate is directly in the path of storms coming in from the South-West, and storm damage is common. Overhead cables will be vulnerable and could present safety risks in the case of failures.
- The disadvantages to overhead cables (drooping spans, visible clutter, interference with wildlife and tall vehicles, lower broadband reliability) outweigh the advantages (cost saving).
- Houses 121 and 122 were omitted from the application. What fibre option do these properties have?
- Some poles will be closer to primary windows than 20m.
- Approval could set a precedent allowing for visually harmful infrastructure to spread.

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

- The impact on footpath widths not conforming to Highways standards; the Case Officer responded that pinch points of 1200mm would be created, less than the standard of 1300mm, but Highways had indicated that this was acceptable as it was limited to pinch points.
- Whether the impact on footpaths eliminated Permitted Development; [Redacted] responded that 1500mm wide footpaths would be required for Permitted Development to apply and that the 20m distance from windows is a general guideline for overlooking. It was noted that the distances of the poles from houses primary windows had not been shown on the application.
- The validity of the Objector's kitchen window as a primary window. [Redacted] clarified that kitchen's would only count if they were a kitchen-diner. The Objector responded that the room was used regularly as a family room and had a table within it. The Case Officer noted that the

[Table omitted in markdown export]

pole locations were aligned with property boundaries and at the back of the kerbs in line with best practise.

- The impact of topography on the visual impact; the Objector responded that poles on the uphill side of the road would be more obtrusive, and that taller houses on the downhill slope appear as bungalows. [Redacted] added that the impact on the outlook of houses was relevant to planning and as noted in the case officers report.

- The Members were concerned over non-attendance by Manx Telecom, given the number of objections and the need for an alternative solution and concerns over delays to the copper network decommissioning were voiced. [Redacted] responded that the level of public concern was appreciated but was not material to planning, nor was the lack of Manx Telecom engagement. Previous applications should not be taken as precedents.

### 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:

- Slieau Dhoo; No's; 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 114, 116, 118, 119, 121, 123, 124;
- 70 Cronk Coar;
- 60 Cronk Ny Greiney

---

*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/88427-braddan-slieau-dhoo-tromode-appeal-against-refusal/documents/1141903*