Officer Report

Application No.: 25/90132/B Applicant: Ballannette Trust Proposal: Reinstatement of and alteration to three existing field accesses Site Address: Fields 610513, 614147, And 614954 Agneash Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7NW Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken: 16.06.2025 Site Visit: 16.06.2025 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 19.08.2025 _________________________________________________________________

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. 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.

• C 2. The field accesses hereby approved shall be used solely for agricultural operations directly associated with the management of Fields 610513, 614147, and 614954. No recreational, residential, or commercial use shall occur at any time.

Reason: To prevent intensification and safeguard highway safety and rural character, in accordance with General Policy 2(h), Strategic Policy 5, and Environment Policy 15.

• C 3. Prior to site clearance or construction works commencing on any of the approved accesses, a single ecological survey covering Fields 610513, 614147, and 614954 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The survey shall identify habitat features, assess the potential presence of protected species, and propose access-specific mitigation and enhancement measures. These may include native planting adjacent to the accesses, timing of works to avoid sensitive ecological periods, and any necessary habitat protection.

Implementation of mitigation measures shall be phased in accordance with the approved recommendations for each access point. All measures required prior to first use shall be completed before the relevant access is brought into operation. Where ongoing or longer-term ecological actions are identified, these shall be implemented in accordance with the approved ecological strategy and maintained for the duration specified therein.

Reason: To safeguard biodiversity and comply with Environment Policies 4 and 5, and General Policy 2(d).

• C 4. The surfacing of the accesses shall be constructed with a bound and consolidated surface for a minimum distance of 6 metres from the adopted highway boundary. The surfaces shall be implemented prior to the first use of each of the accesses and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To ensure a durable and stable surface that prevents loose material from being carried onto the public highway, in the interest of highway safety and in accordance with Transport

• Policy 4 and General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.

• C 5. Access 1 shall be constructed in full accordance with Drawing DWG. 04 Rev 4. Visibility splays shall be provided and maintained at a maximum height of 1.05 metres above ground level over the full extent shown on the approved drawing.

Reason: To ensure the access arrangements meet highway safety standards and maintain the efficiency of the highway network, in compliance with Transport Policy 4 and the Manual for Manx Roads.

• C 6. Access 2 shall be constructed in full accordance with Drawing DWG. 05 Rev 4. Visibility splays shall be provided and maintained at a maximum height of 1.05 metres above ground level over the full extent shown on the approved drawing.

Reason: To ensure the access arrangements meet highway safety standards and maintain the efficiency of the highway network, in compliance with Transport Policy 4 and the Manual for Manx Roads.

• C 7. Access 3 shall be constructed in full accordance with Drawing DWG. 06 Rev 4. Visibility splays shall be provided and maintained at a maximum height of 1.05 metres above ground level over the full extent shown on the approved drawing.

Reason: To ensure the access arrangements meet highway safety standards and maintain the efficiency of the highway network, in compliance with Transport Policy 4 and the Manual for Manx Roads.

• C 8. Prior to first operational use of Access 2, drainage channels shall be installed in full accordance with the approved plans. These shall be maintained thereafter to prevent surface water runoff onto the public highway.

Reason: To prevent debris migration onto the highway and ensure safe and durable access surfacing, in accordance with Transport Policy 4 and General Policy 2(i).

• C 9. Prior to first operational use of Access 3, drainage channels shall be installed in full accordance with the approved plans. These shall be maintained thereafter to prevent surface water runoff onto the public highway.

Reason: To prevent debris migration onto the highway and ensure safe and durable access surfacing, in accordance with Transport Policy 4 and General Policy 2(i).

• C 10. Prior to commencement of works on Access 1, detailed specifications of the gate shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The gate shall be positioned to allow vehicles to enter and exit in forward gear without obstructing the highway. Fencing shall be installed to prevent unauthorised parking and ensure safe, controlled access.

• Reason: To safeguard highway safety and support agricultural operations, in accordance with General Policy 2(h), Transport Policy 4, and Environment Policy 15.
• C 11. Prior to commencement of works on Access 2, detailed specifications of the gate shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The gate shall be positioned to allow vehicles to enter and exit in forward gear without obstructing the highway. Fencing shall be installed to prevent unauthorised parking and ensure safe, controlled access.

Reason: To safeguard highway safety and support agricultural operations, in accordance with General Policy 2(h), Transport Policy 4, and Environment Policy 15.

• C 12. Prior to commencement of works on Access 3, detailed specifications of the gate shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The gate shall be positioned to allow vehicles to enter and exit in forward gear without obstructing the highway. Fencing shall be installed to prevent unauthorised parking and ensure safe, controlled access.

Reason: To safeguard highway safety and support agricultural operations, in accordance with General Policy 2(h), Transport Policy 4, and Environment Policy 15.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.

The proposal is considered acceptable in principle under General Policy 3(f) and (h), which support agricultural operations and countryside interpretation where justified and sensitively implemented. The development aligns with Environment Policy 15 by facilitating essential land management while respecting landscape character. Strategic Policy 4(b) and General Policy 2(b, f) are satisfied through the use of traditional materials and integration with the rural setting. Highway safety concerns have been addressed through revised access designs, and ecological impacts can be mitigated via condition, consistent with Environment Policies 4 and 5. Subject to conditions securing design, use, and ecological safeguards, the proposal complies with the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and represents a balanced form of rural development that supports agricultural viability without unacceptable harm.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This decision relates to the following documents and plans Documents

• 1. Schedule Of Drawings - Amended Plans
• 2. Planning Statement
• 3. Schedule Of Drawings
• 4. 07 - Letter 01 - Letter Detailing Historic Existence Of Site
• 5. 08 - Letter 02 - Letter From Tenant Farmer
• 6. 09 - Letter 03 - Emergency Access Use During 2016 Gorse Fire Incident Drawings

• 1. DWG. 06 Rev 4 Field Openings Field 641954 Gate
• 2. DWG. 05 Rev 4 Field Openings Field 614147 Gate
• 3. DWG. 04 Rev 4 Field Openings Field 610513
• 4. DWG. 02 Site Plan
• 5. DWG. 01 Location Plan
• 6. DWG. 03 Field 614147 Gate 1997

_________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal

It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:

• o DOI Highways - No objection

• o Garff Commissioners - No objection

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should NOT be given the Right to Appeal because:

• 1. Ballacowle, Agneash, Laxey - No objection
• 2. Lady Isabella House, Agneash Road, Agneash - No objection
• 3. Ballacowle Cottage, Agneash, Laxey - No objection
• 4. 32 Julian Road, Douglas - No objection
• 5. 23 Ballahane Close, Port Erin - No objection
• 6. Cornbury, 9 Princes Road, Douglas - No objection
• 7. 4 Pinehurst Avenue, Douglas - No objection
• 8. White House Cottage, Main Road, Foxdale - No objection
• 9. The Nook, The Crescent, Baldrine - No objection
• 10. 10 Hailwood Avenue, Douglas - No objection
• 11. 5 Banks Howe, Onchan - No objection
• 12. 6 Marina Close, Onchan - No objection
• 13. The Haven, Fistard Road, Port St Mary - No objection
• 14. 4 Tommy Clucas Avenue, Peel - No objection
• 15. Muirfield, Bradda West Road, Port Erin - No objection
• 16. Lhergy West, Ramsey Road, Laxey - No objection
• 17. Poulton Bank, Chapel Lane, Baldrine - No objection
• 18. Hi-Lo House, Croit E Quill Road, Laxey - No objection
• 19. Baldrine Manor, Ballagawne Road, Baldrine - No objection

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:

• o Millbridge Cottage, Muir Terrace, Glen Road, Laxey Objection does not identify land that is owned or occupied by the objector that would be impacted on (A10(2)(a))

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should NOT be given the Right to Appeal as although they have identified land that is owned or occupied by the

• objector that would be impacted on, but such land is not within 20 metres of the site (and no Environmental Impact Assessment is required) (A10(2)(b)):

• 1. Ballawill, Agneash, Laxey
• 2. Lilac Cottage, Agneash, Laxey
• 3. La Petite Colline, Snaefell Road, Agneash
• 4. 60 Ard Reayrt, Laxey
• 5. Fuchsia Cottage, Agneash, Laxey
• 6. Ballacregga Farm Cottage, Agneash Road, Agneash
• 7. Thie-Glionney, Agneash, Laxey _________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THERE ARE MORE THAN 4 OBJECTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, BUT THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site comprises three recently reformed access points into agricultural fields located on the west side of a single-track country road that winds uphill from Laxey towards the village of Agneash. The surrounding landscape is upland and open, offering expansive views across Laxey Glen to the Laxey-Snaefell Tramway, north-east towards Snaefell and the Mountain Road, and southwards towards Laxey Village, the Laxey Wheel, and the Irish Sea.

1.2 The application sites form part of a larger agricultural holding, with the subject fields clearly defined on the submitted location plan. The land consists of open pasture, enclosed by hedgerows and occasional tree cover, and is situated within a scenic and elevated rural setting. - 1.3 The three access points serve distinct fields within the holding, each situated at a different site level. The southern access serves Field 614954, located near the lower part of the holding and adjacent to the entrance to Ballacowle Cottage. The central access provides entry to Field 614147, positioned mid-way along the road. The northern access serves Field 610513, located further up the hillside near the approach to Agneash, and closer to the southern boundary of Ballacowle. - 1.4 Due to the steep and varied terrain, there is no direct internal access between these fields, and the provision of separate access points is necessary to ensure safe and functional entry to each area. The topography of the site ranges from approximately 80 to about 120 metres in elevation, contributing to its distinctive character and informing the layout and access strategy for the holding. - 1.5 Nearby dwellings include Ballacowle Cottage, located to the west of the access points, and Ballacowle, a larger property situated north of the northern access point, adjacent to a public footpath and footbridge crossing the river. Other clusters of dwellings within Agneash are located approximately 285 metres further north of the northern field access point. - 1.6 A circular nature walk which has been established by The Ballanette Trust providing hiking links that pass through the three fields, and also provide a link to the North-east side of the Laxey River which runs down the hillside into Laxey village and subsequently into the Irish Sea.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Planning approval is sought for the reinstatement of and alteration to three existing field accesses. The vehicular access points will lead into separate fields, each situated on different topographical levels. - 2.2 The fields in question are: Field No. 614954, the northernmost field, positioned south of the dwelling Ballacowle; Field No. 614147, located to the east of Ballacowle Cottage, which is sited on and accessed from a hairpin bend in the road; and Field No. 610513, located to the south of Ballacowle Cottage. The access points are to be formed between Manx sod banks/hedging on the roadside boundary of the fields and open out into grassed areas. The full planning application is submitted by the Registered Charity, The Ballanette Trust. - 2.3 Access 1 into Field 610513, which is the southern access, would measure 6 metres in width and provide an immediate hardstanding area of approximately 29.36 square metres. The access benefits from defined visibility splays, supporting both emerging and forward visibility in the northwest and southeast directions. Specifically, the northwest direction offers 23.7 metres of emerging visibility and 27.1 metres of forward visibility, while the southeast direction provides 21.5 metres of emerging visibility and a significantly extended 220 metres of forward visibility. - 2.4 Access 2 into Field 614147 (the Middle access) would measure 7.7 metres in width and provide an immediate hardstanding area of approximately 36.9 square metres, which leads directly to a large field gate granting entry into the adjoining field. Visibility splays are illustrated in both northern and southern directions, supporting emerging and forward visibility. In the northern direction, the access provides 15.2 metres of emerging visibility and 25 metres of forward visibility. In the southern direction, visibility improves to 27.9 metres emerging and 31.5 metres forward.

2.5 Access 3 into Field 614954, the northernmost access, measures 3.2 metres wide and includes a hardstanding area of approximately 48.7 square metres, leading directly to a field gate. Visibility splays are provided in both directions: to the north, there is 30 metres of emerging visibility and 45.1 metres of forward visibility; to the south, visibility measures 16.2 metres emerging and 76.7 metres forward. - 2.6 All access points, except the southern one, retain original stone gate pillars, indicating the historic presence of field gates. - 2.7 The applicant has submitted a Planning Statement prepared by Uplift Planning which details the following:

• 1. The application proposes reinstating and improving three field entrances along Mines Road, Agneash. The previous application was refused due to inadequate visibility splays and lack of bound surfacing. The revised proposal includes visibility improvements and 6 metres of bound surfacing at each access to meet highway standards.
• 2. The fields are actively used for grazing and general agricultural management, requiring access around three times per year. Without proper access, farming operations would be impractical, risking underuse or abandonment of the land.
• 3. Separate gateways are necessary to manage livestock effectively and avoid mixing groups.
• 4. Access 1 is minimally altered, used by Ballacowle Cottage residents, and serves as a backup for agricultural access.
• 5. Accesses 2 and 3 are widened and surfaced to accommodate modern agricultural machinery and improve safety.
• 6. Traditional materials and design (sod banks, timber gates, post-and-wire fencing) are used to preserve the rural character and minimise visual impact.
• 7. Drainage channels have been added to Accesses 2 and 3 to prevent surface water runoff onto the highway.
• 8. Gate positioning and fencing prevent unauthorised parking and ensure safe, controlled use.
• 9. The entrances also function as informal passing places, improving safety and usability on the narrow road.
• 10. The gateways support the definition of agriculture under the Town and Country Planning Act 1999.
• 11. The reinstated gateways improve emergency access for future incidents.
• 12. A public footpath has been created across the land, enhancing community access to the countryside. The gateways support public enjoyment of the Snaefell and Agneash Nature Reserve.
• 13. The proposal aligns with Isle of Man Strategic Plan policies on development, transport, and environmental protection.
• 14. The Ballannette Trust has restored the former Laxey rubbish tip into a nature reserve, contributing to environmental and community benefit.
• 15. The planning statement argues the gateways are pre-existing and could have been reinstated under permitted development.

2.8 The applicants have submitted three letters in support of the application: one providing detailed historical information about the site, another from the tenant farmers, and a third from a former firefighter offering additional historical context.

• 2.8.1 Summary of Letter 1:

• o The land at Agneash forms part of the historic quarterland farm of Ballacowle, as shown in Woods' Atlas (1867).
• o The 1869 Ordnance Survey of Lonan details the fields as a mix of arable and pasture, typical of subsistence farming on the Isle of Man.
• o Historic farm tracks and lanes were essential for moving livestock without damaging crops, explaining the prevalence of multiple field accesses.

• o The Customary Laws Act 1577 formalised the 'Right of Way to the King's Highway', requiring access points to be 18 feet wide.
• o A Bench Mark (B.M. 397.7) was recorded at the entrance to Field 614954, indicating its historic use as a gateway.
• o Google Street View (April 2010) shows a visible, though overgrown, gateway at this location.
• o MANNGIS mapping (2001) confirms the location of the gateway and hardstanding into Field 614147, which was excluded from subsidy mapping.
• o The site includes the original crossing point of the overground lade that once fed water to the Great Laxey Wheel.

• 2.8.2 Summary of Letter 2:

• o Sheep have been temporarily removed from the fields at Agneash pending the planning application outcome.
• o The Ballacowle House entrance is unsuitable for farming use due to its size and location.
• o The middle entrance is ideal for safe vehicle and trailer access without obstructing the road.
• o The northernmost entrance is also essential for making the third field usable under modern farming needs.
• o If the historic entrances are closed, they would likely stop grazing the fields due to impractical access.
• o Field access is typically needed about three times a year.
• o Maintaining separate entrances helps prevent mixing livestock groups.
• o Convenient highway access is essential for effective field management on the Isle of Man.

• 2.8.3 Summary of Letter 3:

• o On Tuesday 31st May 2016, the author responded to a gorse fire behind Ballacowle House, Agneash as a retained firefighter from Laxey Station.
• o He accessed the field using an existing gateway, which required removal of a rotted wooden gate and dense gorse using a reciprocating saw.
• o The access was authorised by Sub Officer Mark Taylor.
• o Entry through this gateway was essential for the timely and efficient extinguishing of the fire using a 6-wheel drive Fire Service Pinzgauer.

2.9 Although the application description refers to the 'reinstatement' of field accesses, the planning history and enforcement context require that the scheme be assessed as new development. The Planning Committee previously refused a similar proposal on the basis that the accesses were not proven to be pre-existing and had been created without permission. It is also noted that although there is a suggestion that accesses could be reinstated as Permitted Development, the 2025 Permitted Development Order explicitly states that any development which would, "require or involve the formation, laying out or material widening of a means of access to an existing highway used by vehicular traffic" is not permitted under the order. Accordingly, this report treats the current proposal as a new engineering operation requiring full policy compliance.to be assessed against all material considerations, including the Development Plan.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 Site Specific:

• 3.1.1 The sites lie in an area not zoned for development on the Area Plan for the East, and beyond any recognised settlement boundary, with the nearest settlements being Laxey to the south-east and the small village of Agneash to the north. They are not located within any Conservation Area, or Flood Risk Zone, nor are there any Registered Trees or Registered Buildings on or close to the sites.

3.2 The Character Appraisal within the Area Plan for the East states thus concerning the area - Laxey (D2): Landscape Strategy: "Conserve and enhance:

• a) the character, quality and distinctiveness of this area, with its relatively sparse settlement other than the characteristic settlement of Laxey;
• b) its distinct small-scale field pattern;
• c) its valley bottom woodland along National Glens;
• d) the setting of the various historic and archaeological features within the area. Key Views

• o Dramatic views to an Upland backdrop to the North and West.
• o Channelled views East and West along the corridor of Laxey Glen.
• o Views to the instantly recognisable Lady Isabella water wheel as a landmark within the area.
• o Panoramic views eastwards across the sea from areas of higher land within the character area."

3.3 National: STRATEGIC PLAN (2016)

• 1. General Policy 3 - presumption against development outside areas zoned for development, other than certain exceptions which includes, "building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry".
• 2. General Policy 2 - 'Development Control' considerations.
• 3. Environment Policy 1 - protection of countryside and its ecology.
• 4. Environment Policy 4 - protection of ecology and designated sites/protected species.
• 5. Environment Policy 5 - Mitigation against damage to or loss of habitats.
• 6. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources
• 7. Strategic Policy 2: New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions (2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3.
• 8. Strategic Policy 4 - development proposals must protect or enhance the nature conservation and landscape quality of urban as well as rural areas.
• 9. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact
• 10. Transport Policy 4 - Highway capacity and safety considerations.
• 11. Paragraph 7.4: Landscape Protection: "7.4.1 Development which is permitted in 'Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance' or in important landscape and coastal areas as recognised by any new landscape classification, will be subject to higher design standards than would normally be required. Development must be properly integrated into the landscape in terms of scale, materials, architectural style, engineering works and landscaping. Landscape features such as trees, hedgerows, sod banks or traditional stone walls which are important to landscape character should be retained. In cases where development is not capable of being sensitively and unobtrusively integrated into the landscape, permission will not be granted".

- 3.4 THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999

• 3.4.1 It defines "agriculture" to include 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."

- 4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

- 4.1 IOM BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY 2015 TO 2025

• 4.1.1 The Department's Biodiversity Strategy is capable of being a material consideration. It seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary.

4.2 THE MANUAL FOR MANX ROADS:

4.2.1 Section B4: Access Layouts It states: "B.4.1 The general rule is one access point to and from a property. More than one access point increases the potential for traffic conflict. Applications for two access crossings to a single property or a second access point where one already exists require you to provide strong evidence that it will add significantly to highway safety.

B.4.2 For such applications to be considered, the applicant will need to show:

• o how a second access will add to the safety of the access arrangements
• o why such added safety cannot be achieved from a single access, or by improving or repositioning an existing access.

"B.4.8 You must provide an access of consolidated and bound surfacing material over at least the first 5.0 m (6.0 m for a field access) adjacent to the public highway to minimise the risk of loose material being carried onto the highway".

• 4.1.2 The Manual for Manx Roads also sets out the minimum requirements for vehicular visibility splays from driveways. The guide for achieving the required visibility splays are clearly illustrated in Section B.3 of the Manual. Paragraphs 5.2.37 and 5.2.38 of the manual relates specifically to visibility along the street edge from driveways, while paragraphs 5.2.39 and
• 5.2.40 refer to obstacles to Visibility.

5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The recent planning application under PA 24/00311/B for Reinstatement of existing entrances to fields 610513, 614147 and 641954 is considered to be materially relevant to the current application. This application was refused by the Planning Committee on 02.09.2024 for the following reasons:

• R1: Lack of Visibility Splays The development as carried out to re-instate/create the 3 No. field accesses onto Mines Road between Laxey and Agneash, are unacceptable, particularly in relation to Access 2 (Middle access); and, Access 3 (Agneash Side); on highway safety grounds owing to the access points being provided with insufficient vehicle/vehicle visibility splays contrary to the requirements of the Manual for Manx Roads - Revision 2.00 (21/06/21). This is contrary to the provisions of Policy GEN2 i); and, T4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• R2: Loose Material on Highway The Manual for Manx Roads - Revision 2.00 (21/06/21) requires field accesses to have a bound and consolidated surface material for a minimum of 6m back from the edge of highway, in order to prevent loose material being carried into the highway. In this case, no such material has been provided in respect of any of the access points, and as such the development is considered to be unacceptable. This is contrary to the provisions of Policy GEN2 i); and, T4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

6.0 CONSULTATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS Copies of consultations/representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.

- 6.1 CONSULTATIONS

• 6.1.1 DOI Highways have made the following comments (29 May 2025):

• 1. The applicant has demonstrated that all three accesses are necessary for agricultural operations, and internal field connections are not viable.

• 2. Visibility splays and forward visibility drawings have been submitted for all three accesses, with most meeting or exceeding minimum standards. However, three splays fall short of the 25m requirement for 20mph speeds.
• 3. Reduced visibility is partially mitigated by road geometry, low traffic volumes, and the cautious driving environment on Agneash Road.
• 4. All accesses meet the Manual for Manx Roads minimum standards, including 6m tarmac surfacing and gate setbacks to allow safe vehicle entry.
• 5. Surface water runoff remains an issue; further drainage design may be needed, and consultation with the Highway Services Drainage Team is advised.
• 6. Two non-injury incidents have been reported, but these occurred before the proposed visibility and layout improvements.
• 7. The proposed footpath and nature reserve walk are not part of this application. Any pedestrian access impacts have not been assessed and may require a separate application.
• 8. The accesses provide informal passing places, improving safety on the narrow rural road.
• 9. The accesses are considered pre-existing and could be reopened without planning permission under permitted development rights.
• 10. The proposal improves safety and access compared to the previous condition. No objection is raised, subject to conditions including:

• o Construction in accordance with Drawings 04 Rev 4, 05 Rev 4, and 06 Rev 4.
• o Visibility splays to be provided and maintained at a maximum height of 1.05m.
• o Access use restricted to agricultural purposes only.

• 6.1.2 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team (3 March 2025) have made the following comments:

• 1. They note that there are multiple records of legally protected common lizards in the area, including a juvenile observed basking on a roadside sod hedge.
• 2. They state that if the application were not retrospective, precautionary measures would have been requested during bank removal to protect lizards and nesting birds.
• 3. They state that if the application is refused and the field accesses are reinstated, new sod hedges should be created using Manx native vegetation and designed to support lizard habitats.

• 6.1.3 Garff Commissioners acknowledged the additional information and reports submitted with the application and welcomed the initiative to open up land for public leisure and recreation. However, they chose to reserve further comment and defer all road safety considerations to the Highways and Planning officers (7 March 2025).

- 6.2 REPRESENTATIONS

• 6.2.1 The following properties support the application:

• 1. 32 Julian Road, Douglas (29.04.25)
• 2. 23 Ballahane Close, Port Erin (29.04.25)
• 3. Cornbury, 9 Princes Road, Douglas (23.04.25)
• 4. 4 Pinehurst Avenue, Douglas (22.04.25)
• 5. White House Cottage, Main Road, Foxdale (22.04.25)
• 6. The Nook, The Crescent, Baldrine (22.04.25)
• 7. 10 Hailwood Avenue, Douglas (22.04.25)
• 8. 5 Banks Howe, Onchan (22.04.25)
• 9. 6 Marina Close, Onchan (17.04.25)
• 10. The Haven, Fistard Road, Port St Mary (17.04.25)
• 11. 4 Tommy Clucas Avenue, Peel (17.04.25)
• 12. Muirfield, Bradda West Road, Port Erin (16.04.25)
• 13. Lhergy West, Ramsey Road, Laxey (14.04.25)
• 14. Ballacowle, Agneash, Laxey (19.03.25)
• 15. Lady Isabella House, Agneash Road, Agneash (18.03.25)
• 16. Ballacowle Cottage, Agneash, Laxey (17.03.25)
• 17. Poulton Bank, Chapel Lane, Baldrine (12.03.25)

• 18. Hi-Lo House, Croit E Quill Road, Laxey (12.03.25)
• 19. Baldrine Manor, Ballagawne Road, Baldrine (07.03.25)

• 6.2.2 They support for the following reasons:

• 1. The path provides a safer alternative to walking on the narrow and busy Agneash Road, which lacks pedestrian infrastructure.
• 2. The nature walk is a valued recreational amenity for walkers, dog walkers, and families, enhancing enjoyment of the local area.
• 3. The scheme benefits tourism and the wider community by offering a scenic and accessible walking route appreciated by both residents and visitors.
• 4. The transformation of the old Laxey tip into a natural area has improved biodiversity and created a haven for wildlife.
• 5. The landowner has generously opened private land for public use, offering free access to a peaceful and safe environment.
• 6. The field accesses serve as informal passing places, helping to reduce traffic conflict on the single-track road.
• 7. Restoration of historic access points using traditional Manx stonework and rural gate styles has been positively received.
• 8. The accesses support agricultural use and are consistent with the land's historic function and layout.

• 6.2.3 The following properties object to the application:

• 1. Ballawill, Agneash, Laxey (04.03.25 / 25.02.25 / 26.02.25 / 27.02.25 / 04.06.25 /

05.06.25 / 04.06.25)

• 2. Lilac Cottage, Agneash, Laxey (14.02.25 / 27.02.25 / 03.06.25)
• 3. Millbridge Cottage, Muir Terrace, Glen Road, Laxey (02.06.25)
• 4. La Petite Colline, Snaefell Road, Agneash (02.06.25 / 18.02.25)
• 5. 60 Ard Reayrt, Laxey (02.06.25)
• 6. Fuchsia Cottage, Agneash, Laxey (24.02.25 / 30.05.25)
• 7. Ballacregga Farm Cottage, Agneash Road, Agneash (19.02.25 / 30.05.25 / 18.02.25)
• 8. Thie-Glionney, Agneash, Laxey (24.02.25 / 25.02.25 / 10.03.25 / 12.03.25 / 14.05.25 /

• 20.05.25)

• 6.2.4 They Object for the following reasons:

• 1. Accesses 2 and 3 are considered dangerous due to restricted visibility for vehicles and pedestrians, with reports of near misses and safety concerns.
• 2. The road is narrow, winding, and lacks pedestrian infrastructure, making additional access points a potential hazard.
• 3. Increased water runoff from the fields has led to flooding and ice formation on the road during heavy rain and winter conditions, worsening safety risks.
• 4. The entrances were created without planning permission during the COVID-19 lockdown and are not considered pre-existing by several residents.
• 5. Alternative access to the fields already exists via the land behind the Salmon Centre, which includes parking and gated entry, making the new accesses unnecessary.
• 6. Some residents dispute claims of historic access, stating that certain entrances were not visible or used for decades.
• 7. Benchmarks cited as evidence of historic access are not valid indicators of gateways, as they are used for elevation recording by Ordnance Survey.
• 8. The proposal is seen as disruptive to local biodiversity, with concerns about habitat loss due to hedgerow and shrub removal, and a noticeable decline in species such as bats, hedgehogs, birds, and raptors.
• 9. The nature walk, while appreciated, is viewed by some as improperly implemented and could be accessed more safely from existing routes.
• 10. Concerns have been raised about the potential increase in traffic speed and volume if the road is resurfaced, further compromising safety.

• 11. Passing places along the road are being used as informal parking areas, obstructing traffic flow and reducing safe opportunities for vehicles to pass, especially on a narrow and winding road.
• 12. The current application appears to resubmit previously refused entrances with minimal changes, raising concerns about the planning process and consistency in decision-making.
• 13. Physical damage to hedgerows and roadside structures caused by vehicle manoeuvres

at the entrances.

• 14. Evidence of material failure in entrance design, demonstrated by a wall strike and displacement of a large rock.
• 15. Concerns about lack of enforcement despite ongoing damage and unauthorised activity.
• 16. Procedural inconsistencies have been identified, including unequal registration of objections, failure to link related applications, and late posting of statutory site notices—limiting public awareness and opportunity for comment.
• 17. An objector, a chartered engineer disputes the highways consultation report, citing technical omissions. The objection challenges visibility splays and assumptions that vehicles would slow to 9 mph, referencing observed speeds of 25-30 mph.
• 18. Further commentary by the same chartered engineer disputes the Highways authority's position, citing independently obtained speed data and technical concerns over visibility splays, vehicle tracking, and compliance with the Manual for Manx Roads.
• 19. Public signage at the site suggests the visitor path closure is temporary, contradicting the application and raising concerns about misleading representations by the applicant.
• 20. The applicant has selectively presented imagery in the application documents, omitting clearer views that contradict their claims and misrepresenting site conditions.
• 21. The justification for the entrances has shifted from community use to agricultural use, raising concerns about the applicant's transparency and intent.
• 22. The application lacks essential technical detail, including elevation data, material specifications, drainage plans, and habitat impact assessments.
• 23. The scale and design of the proposed entrances are incongruous with the historic character of Agneash and would result in a permanent alteration to the village's visual and cultural landscape.
• 24. Concerns have been raised about social misuse of the entrances, including overnight parking, antisocial behaviour, and lack of oversight, which pose risks to residents and road users.
• 25. Objectors warn that approving the application would set a precedent for retrospective planning, undermining enforcement and public confidence in the planning system.
• 26. Concerns have been raised about the applicant's use of charitable status to avoid planning fees, placing the financial burden of processing the application on taxpayers.
• 27. An objector has submitted photographic evidence and expert testimony which offer to challenge claims of historic access based on a fire incident. The submission argues that the fire was fought from other locations, not the middle entrance, and that the recollection used to support the application is inaccurate and misleading.

- 7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of the current application are:

• 1. Principle of development (General Policy 3; Strategic Policy 2; Spatial Policy 5; Environment Policy 15);
• 2. Visual and Landscape Impact (General Policy 2(b, c, f); Strategic Policy 4(b); Strategic

Policy 5; Environment Policy 15)

• 3. Highway safety (General Policy 2(h, i); Transport Policy 4; Section 11.3.1; Environment Policy 15)
• 4. Neighbours' amenities (General Policy 2(g, h); Environment Policy 15 and Paragraph

• 4.3.9)
• 5. Impacts on ecology (Environment Policy 1, 4, and 5; General Policy 2(d))
• 6. Other issues;
• 7.2 Principle of Development

• 7.2.1 The application site lies within open countryside, outside any designated settlement boundary or development zone under the Area Plan for the East. As such, the proposal must be assessed against General Policy 3, which sets a presumption against development in the countryside unless it falls within a defined exception.

• 7.2.2 While the applicant has referenced historic gateways and submitted anecdotal evidence of past access, the planning history and enforcement context indicate that the current proposal must be treated as new development. The previous refusal (PA 24/00311/B) explicitly stated: "Generally, without clear evidence that these accesses were pre-existing, I cannot support the proposals in respect of Accesses 2 and 3 on highway safety grounds." This position was upheld by the Planning Committee, who unanimously accepted the officer's recommendation to refuse the application. During the meeting, Members expressed concern about the scale of the accesses, the lack of visibility splays, and the potential for increased traffic. They indicated support only for the lowest access and raised safety concerns about the other two, and the accesses were subsequently closed under enforcement action. Accordingly, the current assessment focuses solely on the present agricultural need and compliance with current policy standards, treating the accesses as new engineering operations requiring full planning scrutiny.

• 7.2.3 The applicant has provided evidence that the fields are actively used for grazing and livestock management, and that this use was interrupted only when the accesses were closed following enforcement action. The steep and varied topography of the land prevents internal connectivity between the fields, thereby necessitating separate access points for safe and functional agricultural operations. This aligns with General Policy 3(f), which permits engineering operations essential for the conduct of agriculture, and with Environment Policy 15, which supports agricultural development where the need is demonstrated and the impact is acceptable.

• 7.2.4 While the proposal facilitates incidental public access via the nature walk, the planning application is solely for agricultural field accesses. Recreational use is not part of the proposal and must not be relied upon in determining its acceptability. The accesses must be assessed strictly in terms of their agricultural function. Any potential for dual use or informal intensification raises concerns regarding safety and policy compliance, particularly where visibility is constrained.

• 7.2.5 Overall, the principle of development is considered acceptable, as the proposal meets the criteria of General Policy 3(f) and (h), and Environment Policy 15. The agricultural need is clearly justified, and while the incidental public benefit through enhanced connectivity is noted, it is not relied upon in determining the acceptability of the proposal. This support for the principle of agricultural development is contingent on the acceptability of the detailed impacts assessed below, and on the implementation of conditions that restrict use to agricultural purposes only.

7.3 Visual and Landscape Impact

• 7.3.1 The application site lies within open countryside of high scenic value, with expansive views and a distinctive upland character. Strategic Policy 4(b) and Paragraph 7.5.1 require that development in such areas protect or enhance landscape quality and rural character, even where no formal designation applies.
• 7.3.2 Building on the agricultural justification outlined above (in 7.2), the proposal also demonstrates sensitivity to the site's visual and landscape context. The proposal incorporates traditional Manx materials, stone gate pillars, sod banks, and traditional field gates, which help integrate the accesses into the landscape. These features align with General Policy 2(b, f), Strategic Policy 4(b), and Strategic Policy 5, which encourage development to respect the site, protect landscape quality, and incorporate existing topography and vernacular features.

• 7.3.3 The proposed accesses are designed in a manner that avoids urbanising the landscape and do not introduce incongruous materials or structures. The use and retention of traditional Manx features such as sod banks, stone gate pillars, and gates is appropriate to the rural context and aligns with General Policy 2(b, f), which encourages development to respect the site and incorporate existing landscape features.
• 7.3.4 While Accesses 1 and 2 are wider than typical agricultural gateways, their scale is justified by the operational need to accommodate modern agricultural machinery and ensure safe turning movements on a narrow and winding road. Access 1, in particular, is located adjacent to a hairpin bend and requires additional width to allow vehicles and trailers to enter and exit in forward gear without obstructing the carriageway. Although the Manual for Manx Roads sets a minimum width of 3.1 metres, wider accesses may be acceptable where sitespecific constraints and agricultural functionality warrant it. The use of vernacular materials and the absence of formal surfacing beyond the highway edge help mitigate visual impact. The hardstanding areas, while modest in extent, are necessary to meet highway safety standards and do not detract from the rural character of the site.
• 7.3.5 In conclusion, the proposal is considered acceptable in visual and landscape terms. The use of traditional materials, modest hardstanding areas, and context-sensitive design ensures that the development integrates appropriately into the upland rural setting. The scheme aligns with Strategic Policy 4(b), Strategic Policy 5, and General Policy 2(b, f), which require that development in areas of high scenic value protect landscape character and contribute positively to the Island's built environment.

7.4 Highway Safety Concerns

• 7.4.1 With regard to potential highway safety concerns, it is noted that the previous application was refused on highway safety grounds due to the absence of bound surfacing and inadequate visibility splays, particularly at Accesses 2 and 3. The current proposal addresses these issues by including 6 metres of bound surfacing at each access and revised visibility splays. Most of these are now considered acceptable by DOI Highways, given site-specific constraints. However, three splays still fall short of the 25-metre requirement for roads with a 20mph design speed, most notably at the middle and northernmost accesses, where road geometry and adjacent land restrict full compliance.
• 7.4.2 DOI Highways has reviewed the revised scheme and no longer objects, citing low traffic volumes, the naturally moderating effect of the road's narrow and winding character, and the improvements made to layout and surfacing. Nonetheless, several objectors, including a chartered engineer, have challenged this position, submitting independent speed data and technical commentary. These suggest that actual vehicle speeds may exceed those assumed, and that the visibility splays may be insufficient for safe egress, especially in poor weather or low light. Additional concerns include potential increases in traffic, informal parking, and obstruction of the carriageway if the accesses are used more intensively than proposed.
• 7.4.3 General Policy 2(h) and Transport Policy 6 require safe and convenient access for all highway users, while General Policy 2(i) and Transport Policy 4 require that development does not unacceptably affect road safety or traffic flows. Paragraph 11.3.1 of the Strategic Plan further emphasises the need for well-designed access points that minimise conflict and accommodate generated traffic. In this case, the proposal is primarily for agricultural use, with access required only around three times per year for grazing and land management. The need for separate gateways is justified by livestock control and the impracticality of internal field connectivity due to the site's steep and varied topography.
• 7.4.4 The access designs include gates and fencing to prevent unauthorised parking and casual use. The layout has been revised to accommodate modern agricultural machinery while maintaining a rural character. The access widths and gate setbacks now provide sufficient space for vehicles to enter, turn, and exit in forward gear, addressing previous concerns about

• manoeuvrability, particularly at Access 2. Although concerns have been raised about potential informal use and intensification, these are not substantiated given the operational limitations and proposed access controls. While Accesses 2 and 3 are larger than typical agricultural gateways, this is justified by the need for safe manoeuvring and livestock management. The proposal is therefore not considered to result in unacceptable highway safety impacts and is deemed compliant with General Policy 2(h, i), Transport Policy 4, and the Manual for Manx Roads.
• 7.4.5 The support of the Highways Division carries significant weight. Their position reflects a site-specific understanding of the road's geometry, traffic volumes, and the nature of the proposed use. While objections have been raised regarding the methodology and data used, including alternative speed data and technical commentary, it is considered that Highways has adequately assessed the operational context and limited agricultural use.
• 7.4.6 Access 1 is considered acceptable in highway safety terms, benefiting from adequate visibility and a favourable road position. Accesses 2 and 3, though larger, are designed for modern agricultural machinery and include physical measures to limit casual use and prevent informal parking. While some visibility splays fall short of ideal standards, they are deemed acceptable by Highways given the road's characteristics and the infrequent nature of use.
• 7.4.7 In conclusion, highway safety is acceptable for Access 1. Accesses 2 and 3 are acceptable subject to conditions limiting their use to agricultural purposes, maintaining visibility splays at a maximum height of 1.05 metres, and preventing intensification through informal parking or recreational use. With these safeguards, the proposal complies with General Policy 2(h, i), Transport Policy 4, and the Manual for Manx Roads, and is considered acceptable in highway safety terms.

7.5 Neighbouring Amenity

• 7.5.1 The proposed accesses do not conflict with residential entrances, but concerns have been raised by local residents regarding the change in character of the area, potential for informal use, and the retrospective nature of the works. General Policy 2(g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 requires that development does not adversely affect the amenity of local residents, and these concerns must be considered in the context of the site's rural setting and the nature of the proposed use.
• 7.5.2 Site observations confirm that the access points, which were created without the benefit of planning approval, have since been closed up and naturally revegetated. This indicates that they were not in active use prior to the current proposal and supports the view that the application represents a new scheme. While this distinction helps address procedural concerns, the amenity implications of creating new accesses remain relevant.
• 7.5.3 The new scheme includes gates, fencing, and drainage channels, with use restricted to agricultural purposes. These measures are intended to prevent informal parking and recreational use, and to mitigate surface water runoff. The applicant has stated that access is required only a few times per year for grazing and land management. Agricultural activity is a typical and accepted use in countryside locations, and the presence of field accesses is consistent with the character of rural communities across the Island, regardless of the number of nearby dwellings.
• 7.5.4 Although the nature walk and associated environmental improvements are appreciated by many, Accesses 2 and 3 have become focal points for concern due to their visibility and highway safety concerns. The limited frequency of agricultural use suggests minimal impact in terms of noise or disruption. Paragraph 4.3.9 of the Strategic Plan (which supports Strategic Policy 5) recognises that the quality and character of development affects the wider community and should be informed by public interest. In this context, the proposal's integration into the

• rural landscape and its alignment with agricultural use reflect a form of development that, with appropriate safeguards, can be considered acceptable in amenity terms.
• 7.5.5 In summary, Access 1 presents no amenity concerns due to its location and limited use. Accesses 2 and 3, although more visually prominent, are considered acceptable provided that their use remains strictly agricultural, with physical measures in place to manage visibility, drainage, and prevent informal or recreational encroachment. Proposed access controls, to be secured via planning conditions, are intended to prevent informal use and intensification. These safeguards, combined with the infrequent nature of agricultural activity and the rural context of the site, ensure that the development does not materially harm the amenity of neighbouring residents. On balance, the proposal aligns with General Policy 2(g), Strategic Policy 5, and the environmental objectives of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, supporting a form of rural development that respects both landscape character and community interests.
• 7.6 Impacts on Ecology

• 7.6.1 The ecological sensitivity of the site is a key consideration in assessing the proposed field accesses. The rural roadside sod hedges and associated banks are likely to provide habitat for protected species, including reptiles and nesting birds. The proposal must therefore be assessed against Environment Policy 4, which seeks to safeguard species and habitats of local importance, and General Policy 2(d), which requires that development does not adversely affect protected wildlife or habitats. While Environment Policy 5 allows for mitigation in exceptional circumstances, such measures must be proportionate and clearly justified. The potential for ecological disturbance, particularly during bank removal, requires careful scrutiny. In this context, the physical extent of sodbank loss is a relevant factor in assessing ecological impact.
• 7.6.2 No ecological information has been submitted, despite the site's rural context and the likelihood of protected species. The sod hedges and banks proposed for removal may provide habitat for common lizards and nesting birds, as confirmed by DEFA's Ecosystem Policy Team. Their comments reference previous works and indicate that precautionary measures would have been required had the application not been retrospective. They also recommend that, if the accesses are refused and the banks reinstated, new sod hedges should be created using native vegetation to support biodiversity. However, the current proposal does not include new sod banks, and the affected areas have already revegetated naturally. As such, DEFA's recommendations cannot be fully implemented, though their species records remain a material consideration.
• 7.6.3 In the absence of ecological survey data or mitigation proposals, the scheme cannot currently be considered compliant with Environment Policies 4 and 5 or General Policy 2(d). However, the proposal could be made acceptable subject to the submission and approval of ecological information prior to commencement of works. This should include a preliminary survey identifying existing habitat features, assessing the potential presence of protected species, and detailing how the works would be carried out without causing adverse impacts. The plan should also propose realistic habitat enhancement measures, such as planting native vegetation adjacent to the reopened accesses, and ensure that works are timed to avoid sensitive ecological periods.
• 7.6.4 The submitted plan indicates that the scheme would result in the loss of approximately 77.6 m² of sodbank vegetation across three access points, comprising 25.4 m² to the north and 8.1 m² to the south at Access 1, 20.4 m² to the west and 5.9 m² to the east at Access 2, and 13.1 m² to the west and 4.6 m² to the east at Access 3. This quantification provides a clearer basis for assessing the scale of intervention and reinforces the need for proportionate ecological safeguards. It is also noted that the sodbanks taper in height towards the road, with no vegetation loss occurring below a retained height of 1.01 metres. This topographical feature reduces the visual and ecological impact, as the lower portions of the banks remain intact.

• 7.6.5 Overall, while some biodiversity loss may occur through the creation of visibility splays, this is considered acceptable given the essential need to ensure safe access for all highway users. The site's topography does not allow level internal access between fields, and the intention is to enable active agricultural use rather than leave the land unmanaged. In this context, the ecological trade-off is proportionate and justified, provided that appropriate safeguards are secured by condition. With these in place, the proposal could be brought into alignment with the relevant environmental policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and the Biodiversity Strategy (2015-2025). The quantified sodbank loss, combined with the natural tapering of bank height, supports the view that ecological impacts are limited and can be mitigated through targeted enhancement measures.

- 7.7 OTHER MATTERS

• 7.7.1 Procedural Concerns Concerns were raised regarding the late posting of statutory site notices, inconsistent registration of objections, and the linking of related applications. However, the application has been publicly available since its submission on 04.02.2025, and all interested parties have had sufficient opportunity to comment. The Planning Committee process also allows for public representation and appeal rights exist for all commentators should they meet the established criteria to appeal. In this context, these procedural matters do not materially affect the planning merits of the proposal. Concerns about public signage and selective imagery have also been raised; however, the submitted documentation is sufficient to enable a full assessment, and neighbours have had the opportunity to provide alternative evidence. These matters do not affect the determination of the application.
• 7.7.2 Charitable Status and Retrospective Applications Issues relating to the use of charitable status to avoid planning fees and the perception that retrospective applications may be regularised without adequate scrutiny have been raised. These matters fall outside the scope of planning assessment. Provided the applicant meets the legal criteria for charitable status, fee exemptions apply under existing legislation. Furthermore, the current proposal is not retrospective, and all parties have had sufficient opportunity to engage with the process.
• 7.7.3 Drainage Issues Initial concerns regarding drainage were noted, particularly in relation to surface water runoff from the access points. However, following review of the revised scheme, DOI Highways raised no objections. Professional advice confirms that the proposed arrangements are acceptable. Conditions will be applied to ensure that the accesses are implemented as proposed, including the incorporation of drainage provisions to manage runoff and maintain highway safety.

- 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 The proposal has been assessed against the relevant policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and associated guidance. The principle of development is considered acceptable, with agricultural justification supported by site-specific constraints and incidental public benefit through improved countryside access. While concerns have been raised regarding highway safety, visual impact, ecology, and neighbouring amenity, the new scheme incorporates appropriate mitigation measures. Subject to conditions securing the proposed design, limiting use to agricultural purposes, and requiring ecological and drainage safeguards, the development is not considered to result in unacceptable harm.

8.2 Procedural and non-material concerns, including charitable status, retrospective perceptions, and public confidence in the planning process, have been acknowledged but do not weigh against the planning merits of the proposal. On balance, the scheme represents a form of rural development that respects landscape character, supports agricultural activity, and can be implemented in a manner that safeguards public and environmental interests. Approval is therefore recommended, subject to the conditions outlined.

- 9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE

9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).

9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:

• o applicant (in all cases).
• o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and
• o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.

9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10.

9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):

• o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant);
• o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure, and the local authority for the area;
• o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and
• o in the case of a petition, a single representative.

9.5 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity, they cannot be given the Right to Appeal.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.

Decision Made: Permitted Date: 15.09.2025 Signed : Mr Paul Visigah Presenting Officer

Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/ customers and archive record.