Loading document...
Our Ref:
Planning Appeals Secretary Cabinet Office Government Offices Buck’s Road Douglas IM1 3PN
Dear Sir/Madam,
Tel: (01624) 685950 Email: [email protected]
Date 15/10/2025
PA No: 25/90397/B Proposal: Installation of 4 telegraph poles to provide fibre optic connectivity Address: to Creggans Avenue and Corrins Way Peel
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 26th August 2025. This statement relies upon the Planning Officer’s original report which is online and forms part of the planning file and an extract from the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting. The enclosed statement comprises the following parts:
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:
Prepared on behalf of the Planning Department by Jason Singleton Principle Planning Officer
S(4) In dealing with an application for planning approval or an application under subsection
(3), the Department shall have regard to —
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.
In this application, the most weight has been given to the Strategic Plan 2016 and the Area Plan 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.
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 as in this case, 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 references the officers report originally presented to committee but acts as an addendum to reflect the committees views, comments and
ultimately their decision. The original case officers report can be viewed online along with the application details and decision notice.
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 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 and the potential impacts upon the residents.
Following further discussion, the Committee unanimously declined the approval recommendation of the Planning Officer and voted to refuse the application. Members voted 3-3 to reject the Officer recommendation and voted 3-3 to Refuse the application. In both instances, the Chairman used his casting vote to vote against the Officer recommendation and for the refusal of the application. The application was refused for the following reason:
"The proposed installation of FOUR wooden telegraph poles and their associated cabling amongst the streetscene of 2-storey, semi-detached dwellings, would due to the height, size and scale of the telegraph poles, result in a negative visual impact which would adversely affect the character of the streetscene to an unacceptable degree. As such, the proposed development would be contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2 b), c), and h) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.".
An extract from the Planning Committee minutes (26th August 2025) for this application is included at Appendix 2. The full Planning Committee minutes from that day can be viewed in the following web link; https://pabc.gov.im/planning/planning-committee/agendas-andminutes/
This report addresses those refusal reasons 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 a number of issues raised by the planning committee that resulted in a refusal decision;
The following paragraphs seeks to address those issues thematically;
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 against the back drop of residential dwelling houses to this part of the street given their placement. This level of new infrastructure would not integrate sensitively with its surroundings.
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.
Whilst the initial reasons for refusal focused on General Policy 2b,c, a further consideration is the wording from Infrastructure Policy 3 in the Strategic plan and the presumption against “visually intrusive masts”. If the application is being refused on visual impact (GP2b,c) it would also fail to meet the criteria of IP3 and given the lack of national need and alternative service delivery being explored, a further reason for refusal that is separately aligned with IP3 should be included. Suggested wording is included in Section 5.0 of this statement;
on the residential amenity from the proposals. Where proposals are considered to be visually intrusive, they could also be 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 online here; https://pbc.gov.im/onlineapplications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=SURHIEIPKHB00
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;
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 to dwellinghouses, 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.
When assessing such impact, it could be apparent that the proposed installation of a wooden telegraph pole within approximately 20 metres of the principal elevation of a residential dwelling could result in an unduly dominant and visually intrusive feature in the immediate street scene. Due to its height, vertical form, and proximity to habitable rooms, the pole would appear starkly out of scale with the surrounding residential dwellings, creating a pronounced sense of visual oppression.
Furthermore, this overbearing presence could significantly compromise the outlook from principle habitable rooms, diminishing their residential amenity of occupants by imposing an artificial and industrial structure into their immediate visual field on the properties boundary. The proposal fails to respect the established character and spatial quality of the locality and could materially harm the living conditions of nearby residents. Suggested refusal wording for impacts upon residential amenity is included in section 5.0;
At the inspectors discretion having materially balanced the competing planning policies could recommend a refusal of the application to the Minster for three separate reasons as noted below;
7.0 Potential Conditions if recommended for approval. 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;
END.
Appendix 2. Excerpt from the planning committee minutes for this application
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
