Loading document...
Please reply to the signatory Our Ref: 24/00859/B Lorna Milestone, Planning Appeals Secretary, Cabinet Office, Government Offices, Buck’s Road, Douglas, IM1 3PN.
Tel: (01624) 685913 Fax: (01624) 686443 Email: [email protected]
Paul Visigah Senior Planning Officer 3 September 2025. Dear Lorna Milestone, PA No: 24/00859/B Proposal: Erection of single-storey dwelling. Address: Plot Of Land North Of Scrondall, Glen Road, Ballaugh, Isle Of Man
This document provides additional comments on behalf of the Department in relation to the appellant’s Statement of Case (SoC) for the above referenced appeal. It addresses newly raised arguments and reinforces previously articulated matters in the officer’s Report and Department’s initial appeal statement.
The subject site remains demonstrably outside the defined settlement boundary of Ballaugh and is located on land unallocated for development within the 1982 Development Plan. The appellant has not adequately justified why residential development should be permitted in this countryside location, particularly given the absence of any exceptional circumstances as required under Housing Policy 4 and General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). The proposal does not meet the criteria for sustainable urban extension, nor does it form part of a policy-recognised grouping or settlement cluster. This remains a significant point of contention, as the harm resulting from the introduction of built form into an undeveloped rural plot cannot be outweighed by the personal or locational arguments advanced.
The following sections directly address the issues raised within the appellant’s Statement of Case that require further clarification and rebuttal:
The site lies outside the defined settlement boundary of Ballaugh and is not zoned for development under the 1982 Development Plan. The appellant’s reliance on paragraph 8.8 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016) is noted; however, this section does not override the spatial strategy
established by Strategic Policy 2, Housing Policy 4, and General Policy 3, which collectively direct new housing to defined settlements or, where appropriate, to sustainable urban extensions identified in adopted Area Plans.
Paragraphs 8.8.1 to 8.8.3 acknowledge that small groups of houses exist in the countryside and that, in principle, some may be suitable for limited development. However, paragraph 8.8.3 makes clear that such development must be controlled through the development plan process, with village envelopes or curtilages identified through formal designation. The appellant’s submission fails to demonstrate that this part of Ballaugh Glen Road has been recognised as such in any adopted or draft plan document. The Draft Area Plan for the North and West does not identify this location as a defined group or settlement cluster, nor does it propose a village envelope for this area. Furthermore, as the document remains unadopted, it carries no statutory weight in the determination of this appeal and cannot be relied upon to justify development outside the established settlement boundary.
As such, the appellant’s interpretation of paragraph 8.8 is not policy-driven and does not reflect the adopted spatial strategy. The proposal does not meet the criteria for countryside development and remains contrary to the Strategic Plan. No overriding need or exceptional circumstance has been identified, and the site does not form part of a policy-recognised grouping. The introduction of residential development in this location would represent an ad hoc decision taken in isolation, precisely the type of development that paragraph 8.8.3 cautions against.
The appellant’s assertion that the site is not open countryside is not supported by the statutory development plan. The site is designated as Private Woodland and Parkland under the 1982 Development Plan and lies within an Area of High Landscape Value. Environment Policy 2 and General Policy 2(b) and (c) require that development respects and preserves the character of such areas.
While mitigation planting is proposed, this does not negate the visual impact of introducing built form into an undeveloped rural plot. The cumulative effect of tree removal, domestication of the site, and loss of openness remains contrary to policy. The proposal fails to demonstrate that the landscape character would be preserved or that the location is essential for development.
The removal of Tree T2, a mature silver birch considered to be at least a category B specimen under BS5837:2012, remains a key concern. The appellant disputes its classification and amenity value, yet no formal Arboricultural Impact Assessment has been submitted to substantiate this claim.
Environment Policy 3 and General Policy 2(f) require the retention of trees that contribute to landscape character and amenity. The proposed mitigation, while acknowledged, does not compensate for the loss of T2, particularly given the site’s non-zoned status and absence of overriding justification. The policy conflict remains unresolved.
The appellant raises concerns regarding the Planning Committee’s reference to flood risk during its deliberations, suggesting that this was based on a misinterpretation of the site’s designation. It is important to clarify that flooding was not a reason for refusal, and the Department did not identify flood risk as a determinative constraint in the final assessment.
As clearly articulated in Section 3.1.1 of the Officer Report, the site is largely not prone to flood risks, although it is acknowledged that part of the site area proposed for the new dwelling, along with the area occupied by the MEA station, is prone to low and medium likelihood of flood risk. This assessment was based on the Department of Infrastructure’s flood mapping and consultee input.
The Department of Infrastructure’s Flood Risk Management team raised no objection, recommending only that appropriate freeboard be incorporated into the design. These comments were duly considered and reflected in the Officer Report. The Planning Committee’s reference to flood risk, while noted, does not alter the Department’s position. The refusal reasons are grounded in policy conflicts relating to principle, landscape impact, and arboricultural harm, and not on floodrelated grounds.
These are procedural matters and fall outside the scope of the appeal process. The appeal must be determined on the basis of planning policy and material considerations relevant to the proposal as submitted.
The appellant’s updated Statement of Case does not introduce new evidence or policy justification that would alter the Department’s position. The proposal remains contrary to:
The Department respectfully maintains its recommendation for refusal and considers the original Officer Report and Appeal Statement to have adequately addressed all relevant matters.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
