Fraser Reid Design Reubttal Statement on Behalf of the Appellant

Ref: 24/00859/B

Planning Appeals Administrator Cabinet Office Government Offices, Bucks Road Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 3PN

PA24/00859/B ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY DWELLING PLOT OF LAND NORTH OF SCRONDALL, GLEN ROAD, BALLAUGH, ISLE OF MAN REBUTTAL TO PLANNING DEPARTMENTS APPEAL STATEMENT DTATED 16TH JULY 2025 ON BEHALF OF: MRS H M RADCLIFFE, APPLICANT/APPELLANT

Please find below a statement that sets out direct responses to the Planning Departments Appeal Statement dated 16th July 2025. The Planning Department Statement points for clarity will be shown in italic. 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.

1.1We completely understand that the decision maker decides on the weight given to the above. However, this is where we strongly feel this has not been undertaken, especially in regards to (c) and (d). This will be elaborated on in the following responses.

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 and the 1982 Development Plan, as they have been through a statutory process, which includes evidence base and public consultation process, and are adopted by Tynwald.

• 1.2 It is statutory duty to take the various aspects of an application into account. This application has been formulated from this basis, Strategic Plan information and pre application assistance from the Planning Department and other relevant Authorities.
• 1.3 Whilst we appreciate that the 1982 Development Plan is still in effect, it is a strong and important consideration that it is now 43 years old. This is clearly out of date for what the Isle of Man and the Government are trying to achieve for the island as a whole, its residents and visitors.
• 1.4 This raises the point that other documentation such as the draft Area Plan for the North and West should be given consideration and basis. This plan should have been implemented already and it seems that ongoing delays mean that potential applicants are hindered by out-of-date information whilst knowing new information that is in the public domain paints a different picture.

Other material considerations referred to in the officer report include Planning Circular 3/91– Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside, and Residential Design Guide (RDG) which followed targeted consultation and adoption by the Minister and has therefore been afforded greater weight, along with the IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025; and the Manual for Manx Roads: Movement and Place Practitioner's Guide.

The Biodiversity Strategy 2015-2025

This Strategy sets out a vision for the future health of our biodiversity, and maps out the framework for action to conserve and enhance our natural richness for the health, enjoyment and economic well-being of all the people of Isle of Man.

• 1.5 The above exert from the Minister’s forward sums this strategy up nicely and also shows how this application meets these points. Meeting points in another formal Government Document.
• 1.6 The existing site does not have any ecological benefit as formally acknowledged by the Ecological Department.
• 1.7 The proposal sees the enhanced implementation of a variety of native trees, hedging, planting and wildflowers. All of this is not only safeguarding the ecosystem but is enhancing it and allowing for genetic diversity to the area.
• 1.8 The strategy outlines that biodiversity is important to our quality of life. The proposal as has clearly been outlined would not only improve the quality of life of the applicant but of the entire surroundings and community.
• 1.9 The proposal is creating habitat not removing it.
• 1.10 Unfortunately it should be noted it is felt that the aims of the biodiversity strategy have not been fully successful. If the 2025 objective that everyone would have access

to reliable up to date data, then the ongoing difficulty in getting assistance from the relevant departments would not have happened.

• 3.3.2.1 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 remains the statutory development plan for the purposes of determining planning applications. The Plan establishes a spatial strategy based on a hierarchy of settlements, Service Centres, Service Villages, and Villages, intended to guide sustainable development. This is implemented through Spatial Policies 2 to 5, which direct development to defined settlements and restrict development in the countryside to exceptional circumstances, as set out in General Policy 3.

• 1.11 The IOM Strategic Plan is intrinsically linked throughout with policies linking to other policies and parts of the document. The Spatial part of the document clearly notes that the Strategic Objectives and the Strategic and General Policies include aspects of spatial policy.
• 1.12 They are clearly linked to GP3 and subsequently the Housing Policies section. This section has an intrinsic part namely section 8.8 that has been outlined throughout this application and is still felt to be a strong consideration for this application.

• 3.3.2.3 The appellant has not demonstrated that the site forms part of a clearly identifiable group of houses in either physical or functional terms. While the concept of a “group of houses” is referenced in Section 8 of the Strategic Plan, this is not applicable to the appeal site, as it relates to specific exceptions for countryside development, which are not engaged in this case.

• 1.13 The draft area plan for the North and West does not seem to have covered what is outlined in point 8.8.3 of the IOM Strategic Plan. The Department have not assessed these potential areas that meet the groups of houses in the countryside.
• 1.14 This application has noted how this site is clearly within a cluster of properties to Glen Road and would not be detrimental to the surroundings and would blend in seamlessly. It would in no sense be ad hoc or in isolation.

• 3.3.2.4 The appellant refers to a previous appeal decision as a material consideration. However, each application must be assessed on its own merits. For a precedent to carry significant weight, the site context, landscape setting, and policy interpretation must be directly comparable. In this instance, no such equivalence has been demonstrated.

• 1.15 Pre application advice was sought for this application and the appeal decision referred to was put forward as a point of reference for review prior to submitting this application. If it doesn’t have any strong comparison or importance for giving weight for assessing this application, why was it put forward by the Planning Department in the first instance? That raises the concern of pre application offering and its benefit to any potential applicant.

1.16 That being said, it is felt that there is a strong comparison between this applicationand the referred to appeal decision at multiple levels. Family bonds, cluster locality,lack of negative impact to name but a few.

• 3.3.3.1 Although the Draft Area Plan for the North and West is not yet adopted and carries no statutory weight, it provides useful context. As confirmed in paragraph 3.4.1 of the Officer’s Report, the 1982 Development Plan remains the operative land use designation, and no material weight can be given to the Draft Plan at this stage.

1.17 The draft area plan is from the outside, way behind schedule and in turn is having asignificant detrimental impact for any development on the IOM. The draft plan waspublished in 2022 with a call for sites and consultations only being held in 2024. This isleading to a plan that won’t become live for more years. This does not work alongsideother Government aims and strategies. Having to lean on a 43 year old developmentplan does not work.

• 3.3.3.3 As a result, the Draft Plan does not provide a framework for identifying or assessing whether a site forms part of a wider spatial grouping. This is directly relevant to the appellant’s case, which relies on the existence of such a grouping to justify development outside a defined settlement. In the absence of any mapped or policy-defined groupings in the Draft Plan, there is no evidential basis to support the appellant’s interpretation. The relevant policies for assessing development in the countryside, General Policy 3, Strategic Policy 2, and Spatial Policy 5, do not support the proposal.

1.18 As above, this is a negative for any potential application. A draft plan which we appreciate is not fully live, has not had an in depth review of this area of potential development which going by the IOM Strategic Plan, it should have.

• 3.3.4.1 As established in section 3.3.3, the Draft Area Plan does not define spatial groupings or identify the appeal site as part of a wider settlement cluster. The appellant’s reliance on the Draft Plan to support the existence of a group of houses is therefore misplaced. In the absence of such a framework, there is no policy basis within the Draft Plan to support the proposal.

1.19 The appellant relies on real life research to conclude this site being within an existing cluster. This was clearly shown on the infill map created and supplied as part of this application on multiple occasions to assist and most recently on the Appellant Statement of Case.

• 3.3.5.1 The Strategic Plan remains the statutory development plan and the primary basis for determining planning applications. The appeal site lies outside a defined settlement boundary and is not demonstrably part of a group of houses or a recognised spatial cluster.

1.20 It is felt that it has clearly been demonstrated and clearly visible to anyone whoviews a map, the supplied documents or visits the site, that it is within a spatial cluster

and group of houses. It is immediately surrounded on two sides by other dwellings and on a third side by a large dwelling to the opposite side of the Highway.

• 3.3.5.2 The Draft Area Plan, while useful for context, carries no material weight and does not support the appellant’s claim that the site forms part of a recognised grouping.

1.21 How can a Government Document that has been through public consultation and inquiries to get to the point it is currently at not a strong material consideration? There surely should be an overlap where it is a strong consideration alongside the older documents until it becomes fully up and running?

• 3.3.5.3 The previous appeal decision cited by the appellant does not override the statutory development plan. Moreover, the appellant has not provided any specific details of the referenced appeal decision to enable a meaningful comparison or to demonstrate its relevance to the current proposal.

• 1.22 It was clearly noted within the planning application that the similarities to the appeal decision noted were relating to Section 8.8 Groups of Houses in the Countryside of the IOM Strategic Plan. As has been outlined within the current appellants statement of case, this application procedure has been poor. This includes what feels like a rushed final process by the officer to get the application off their desk whilst not taking the time to review thoroughly even with the assistance given by the Agent/ Applicant to bring them up to speed following the changing of officers.
• 1.23 This was very clear with the initial report that had to be revised due to key omission from the report that directly related to reasons for refusal.

• 3.4.2.3 While the appellant’s proposed landscaping measures are acknowledged as positive, they do not in themselves justify development in the countryside. Environment Policy 2 makes clear that development within designated landscape areas is only acceptable where it would not harm the character and quality of the landscape, or where the location is essential. The Strategic Plan requires that the principle of development be established first, and enhancements to biodiversity or landscape must be considered within that framework, not as overriding or compensatory factors.

• 1.25 The proposal would not harm the character of the landscape.
• 1.26 It would improve the quality of the landscape.
• 1.27 The location ties in with Section 8.8 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016.
• 1.28 There would be significant enhancements to the site biodiversity and also further afield due to the mitigation proposed and it naturally once established spreading to the surroundings in a positive way.

• 3.4.3.2 While the Draft Area Plan for the North and West identifies the area as part of the “Incised Slopes” landscape character type, this carries no material weight. The 1982 Development Plan remains the statutory reference, and under its framework, the site

contributes to the openness and rural character of the area. The introduction of built form would represent a significant departure from this character.

• 1.29 The site does not contribute to the openness and character of the area. It is an area of non descript scrub land. The rising fields and hills to the West are the main character of the area and the proposal would not impact that.
• 1.30 The fact the draft area plan is changing the sites description from private woodland speaks volumes and should be a strong material consideration.

• 3.4.3.3 The appellant’s assertion that the site is not part of open countryside is not supported by either the Strategic Plan or the 1982 Development Plan. The site lacks any spatial or physical relationship with a defined settlement or policy-recognised cluster and is clearly part of the open rural landscape.

• 1.31 It has been noted by the Officer that there is a mature tree line behind the site. It cannot be open rural landscape with such a backdrop.
• 1.32 The fields to the West over the river are the open rural landscape. 1.33 The site has clear relationship to the settlement in question. It is immediately surrounded on two sides by other dwellings and on a third side by a large dwelling to the opposite side of the Highway. It is an infill plot.

• 3.4.3.4 The removal of trees by the Manx Utilities Authority (MUA), while noted, does not alter the fundamental landscape character of the area. The planning authority must assess the proposal based on the prevailing and intended landscape context, not on temporary or incidental changes. The loss of mature vegetation, combined with the introduction of domestic built form, would result in a lasting and adverse change to the site’s rural character.

• 1.34 If the applicant was to remove the trees which was initially raised as a concern, even though they are invasive, this would be met with complete negativity. How can MUA removing them be different and stated as not altering the fundamental landscape character of the area?
• 1.35 None of the changes made by MUA are temporary or incidental as noted by the officer.
• 1.36 The proposal sees a significant amount of mitigation being implemented to the site. All of which would be native and lasting and undertaken in a way that MUA would not need to alter.
• 1.37 The site would significantly improve from a biodiverse side and marry in with the surrounding landscape context far more than what exists.

• 3.4.4.2 The appellant’s proposal introduces built form into an undeveloped rural plot. While mitigation measures are proposed, they do not overcome the fundamental policy presumption

against development in the countryside. The site does not meet the criteria for a recognised group of houses under Section 8.8 of the Strategic Plan, and no compelling justification has been provided.

• 1.38 The site is sheltered by trees and is next to a site that up until several years ago was an old blacksmiths. Both these are clear in Section 8.8.1.
• 1.39 The site is in a location that has a sense of place and community as outlined in

• Section 8.8.1.

1.40 The site and proposal would allow for maintaining social and family associations and reduce pressure for purely sporadic and isolated development. This is clear in

• Section 8.8.2.

1.41 The proposal has been sensitively designed to relate to the existing settlement pattern and landscape. This is clear in Section 8.8.2.

• 3.4.4.3 The positioning of the dwelling and proposed landscaping may reduce visual impact to some extent, but they do not negate the requirement to demonstrate compliance with the Strategic Plan. The proposal would still result in a domestication of the site and a fragmentation of the rural landscape, contrary to the objectives of Environment Policy 2 and General Policy 2(b) and (c).

• 1.42 Through careful consideration and liaising with relevant Authorities, the design has been created that respects the site and marries in with the surroundings. At no point would it fragment the rural landscape. Again, surely the mitigation proposed and once established would do the opposite?

• 3.4.5.2 The appeal site lies within open countryside and does not meet the criteria for development under the Strategic Plan. The proposed enhancements, such as replacement tree planting, while positive in isolation, do not override the policy presumption against development in such locations. Moreover, the removal of existing vegetation and disruption of an established ecological network cannot be considered an enhancement where it is not essential or justified on policy grounds. In such cases, mitigation does not equate to compliance.

• 1.43 The site is not within open countryside. This is completely visible when visiting the site. It is an infill area of scrub land not linked to the open countryside due to the surrounding properties, river and treeline.
• 1.44 The Ecological Department came back stating no issue with the proposal and also did not note any established ecological network to the site. If they did, they would have stuck by their objection following on from their site visit.

• 1.45 Planting of native trees in place of invasive tree species that hold no ecological benefit surely creates something far more beneficial to the area and is a strong material consideration.

3.5.2.1 Environment Policy 3 (EP3) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 provides for the protection of trees, woodlands, and hedgerows where they contribute to the character, biodiversity, or amenity of an area. The policy does not distinguish between native and nonnative species in determining whether trees are worthy of protection.

• 1.46 The policies do not distinguish and that’s why input is sought from other relevant Departments.

• 3.5.2.2 While Leylandii are non-native and may be considered of limited ecological value, their contribution to visual screening, landscape structure, and local amenity must still be assessed in context. The removal of a species deemed “invasive” does not automatically exempt it from consideration under EP3. However, DEFA Arboriculture has confirmed that the group of Cupressus sp. (T1–T20) is of low amenity value and their removal is not considered a material constraint.

• 1.47 Surely there is a point whereby an open minded approach is required and has to come to the forefront when reviewing things so that an application can be based on its own merits.
• 1.48 The application should be viewed in a manner of what it will look like once completed and established, not what it will remove even though as noted multiple times is not worthy of retention.

• 3.5.2.3 The Tree Preservation Act 1993 provides a legal framework for the protection of trees, including those not formally registered, where they contribute to amenity or landscape value. The absence of a felling licence requirement does not preclude the planning authority from considering the impact of tree removal as part of a development proposal.

• 1.49 Given the response by DEFA Arboriculture, it is clear a licence could be obtained to remove 95% of the trees due to their low amenity value and invasive nature.
• 1.50 The route was gone down to include the trees upon the planning application and not a separate licence application. The Planning Department should acknowledge the DEFA Arboriculture response to the majority of trees to the site when formulating their report which would then be in line with the Tree Preservation Act 1993. This does not seem to have happened.

• 3.5.2.5 The application lacks an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) and Tree Protection Plan (TPP), both of which are essential for assessing the impact of development on existing trees. This omission is a significant shortcoming, particularly given the uncertainty surrounding

the classification of other trees (e.g. T21 and T22) and the absence of engineering solutions to protect retained trees.

• 1.51 The trees noted here were removed by MUA during their site works as noted to the Arboriculture Department and Planning Officer.
• 1.52 There are many engineering solutions that can be undertaken when building in close proximity to trees. These would typically be undertaken via specialists at the detailed design stage and any solution could be supplied via a condition to the planning department for sign off. Given the issues to date with the entire application process, why would an applicant have something specially designed without as surety of approval?

• 3.5.2.6 DEFA also raised concerns about the potential future pressure to remove, or prune retained trees to the west and north of the site, especially where these are outside the applicant’s ownership. While these trees are not directly impacted and are not considered a constraint within this application, GP2 requires consideration of broader landscape features. Without clear mitigation or design responses, the development risks undermining the long-term retention of these trees.

• 1.53 This is a completely redundant point. These trees are outside the scope of the ownership and site. They cannot be altered by the applicant and wouldn’t be.
• 1.54 As per the above, if required a condition could be noted stating a design response could be supplied at the detailed design stage that had to be signed off.

• 3.5.2.7 In addition to the factors highlighted above, the site is designated as Private Woodland and Parkland under the 1982 Development Plan, reinforcing the need for careful evaluation under EP3 and GP2. The removal of trees within such areas must be fully justified, and the proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with the woodland protection principles set out in the Strategic Plan.

• 1.55 This has been outlined numerous times already by the applicant. Whilst noted as private woodland and parkland on the 1982 Development Plan, this is changing on the new Area Plan for North and West.
• 1.56 This is the epitome of strong material consideration when the Government are changing the description of the site and also are not having any register trees or areas on the site or nearby.

• 3.5.3.2 The appellant’s argument that the trees were of low value and lawfully removed does not negate the planning policy requirement to assess their contribution to the site and surrounding area, particularly as their removal is to facilitate the current development. The absence of a comprehensive arboricultural assessment further limits the ability to evaluate the full impact of the proposal.

• 1.57 The Forestry Department confirmed in their report following a site visit that these trees were unsuited to the landscape and in poor condition.
• 1.58 Does this not clearly outline that these trees do not contribute to the site or surrounding area?

• 3.5.3.4 Accordingly, the loss of trees, specifically T2, and the failure to provide adequate arboricultural evidence remain valid planning considerations and legitimate reasons for refusal under the Strategic Plan.

• 1.59 Over 90% of the existing trees on site are invasive and/or hold no quality to contribute to the site or surroundings.
• 1.60 The proposal sees the reinstatement of 7 native trees to the site which are in line with site visit had with the Forestry Department.
• 1.61 Outside of this, 30+ metres of native hedging is proposed including multiple species for biodiversity and a wildflower area of approximately 55m2.

• 3.6.2.5 The assertion that the tree is in poor condition is not supported by a formal arboricultural assessment. In the absence of such evidence, the planning authority is entitled to take a precautionary approach, particularly where the tree is considered to be at least a category B specimen under BS5837:2012.

• 1.62 Why would an applicant go to such lengths on a point that can be comfortably dealt with via a condition. This is especially the case given the failings to date with the planning process and difficulty in gaining any assistance from some other Government Departments.

• 3.6.2.6 Environmental Policy 3 applies broadly to trees, woodlands and hedgerows, and is not confined to formally designated woodland areas. The policy supports the protection of individual trees where they contribute to the character or amenity of the area. In this context, the site’s designation as Private Woodland and Parkland under the 1982 Development Plan, which remains the statutory framework for landscape classification, reinforces the need for careful arboricultural assessment and strengthens the policy basis for retaining Tree T2. While the Draft Area Plan does not include a formal designation for the site (as the site is not designated for any particular purpose on the draft area plan and as such sits in the countryside), this is not a determining factor, as the draft document is not yet an extant planning instrument.

• 1.63 It is a strong material consideration.

• 3.6.3.2 The proposed mitigation planting is not a substitute for the loss of a potentially valuable tree, particularly in the absence of evidence regarding its condition or amenity value. The long-

term benefits of new planting do not outweigh the immediate loss of a mature tree with ecological and visual significance

• 1.64 The tree in question does not hold any visual significance to the area. The mature tree lines behind and to the other surroundings hold the significance.
• 1.65 The mitigation runs on line with Government Documents aims and objectives which are felt to be strong considerations and factors over the removal of one tree.

• 3.6.3.3 Environmental Policy 3 is applicable and supports the protection of trees that contribute to the character of the area, regardless of whether the site is formally designated as woodland. The site's designation as Private Woodland and Parkland further reinforces this position.

• 1.66 The designation is being removed so it is felt this cannot reinforce the point.
• 1.67 The tree as above holds no significance and as such does not contribute to the area. If it did, it would surely be noted on the draft plans as worthy of retention? Conclusion

These responses are to be taken alongside the already supplied statement of case and original planning application documents.

The applicant’s aim is to be able to build a small respectful dwelling in a sustainable location near close family that will not be detrimental to the surroundings, significantly improves the existing site and creates a habitat that will assist in the islands biodiversity aims.