DEFA Planning Officer Appeal Statement

Please reply to the signatory

Tel: (01624) 685913 Fax: (01624) 686443 Email: [email protected]

Our Ref: 24/00859/B

Paul Visigah

Lorna Milestone, Planning Appeals Administrator, Cabinet Office, Government Offices, Buck’s Road, Douglas, IM1 3PN. Senior Planning Officer 16 July 2025. PA No: 24/00859/B Proposal: Erection of single-storey dwelling. Address: Plot Of Land North of Scrondall, Glen Road, Ballaugh, Isle Of Man Please find a statement that sets out the position of the Department in respect of the above planning application.

The application was determined by the Planning Committee on 19th May 2025. This statement relies upon the Planning Officer’s original report which is online and forms part of the planning file, and the minutes from the Planning Committee meeting which is provided at the end of this statement.

The enclosed statement comprises the following parts:

• 1. A Statement of Case (Appendix 1).
• 2. Minute extract of the Planning Committee meeting (Appendix 2).

In the event that the appointed Planning Inspector is minded to recommend that the application be approved, then the four-year expiration condition should be attached along with consideration to any potential conditions included at 4.0 of the Statement of Case.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Visigah, B.Tech (Hons), MSc, RTP, MRTPI Senior Planning Officer

Appendix 1

STATEMENT OF THE

Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Planning & Building Control Directorate

Planning statement on behalf of the Department relative to:

Erection of single-storey dwelling Plot Of Land North of Scrondall, Glen Road, Ballaugh, Isle Of Man PA Reference: 24/00859/B Prepared on behalf of the Planning Department by Senior Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah, B.Tech (Hons), MSc, RTP, MRTPI

• 1.0 Appeal against refusal for PA 24/00859/B The reasons for refusal were:

• 1. The proposed development is situated outside the settlement boundary of Ballaugh and within the countryside, where residential development is restricted by Strategic Policy 2, Housing Policy 4, and General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). The proposal fails to meet the criteria for exceptional circumstances that justify housing in this location, and no 'other material considerations' have been identified to outweigh these policies, which have been informed by public consultation and adoption by Tynwald.
• 2. Whilst many of the trees are of low amenity value, their removal still contributes to a fundamental shift in the site's rural and scenic character, affecting its visual integration within the countryside. Although individually these trees may not hold significant aesthetic or conservation importance, their collective presence maintains the character and landscape continuity of the area. The introduction of a domestic built form, combined with the loss of natural features, diminishes the site's ability to align with countryside preservation policies. As a result, the proposal fails to respect the rural setting, conflicting with Environment Policy 2 (EP2) and General Policy 2(b & c) (GP2) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016), which prioritize the protection of Areas of High Landscape and Scenic Significance.
• 3. The proposal involves the removal of T2, a category B silver birch identified as holding landscape significance, which directly conflicts with General Policy 2(f) and Environment Policy 3 (EP3) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). As the tree is highly visible from various locations it is considered to provide high amenity value to the area. The loss of the birch tree has not been justified in agricultural terms and its removal would have a detrimental impact on amenity and its loss to provide a dwelling on an unallocated site in the countryside is not considered to outweigh the loss of the amenity that would result from the removal of the tree. In addition, it is considered that the proposed mitigation measures do not sufficiently compensate for the loss of this key landscape feature, failing to align with policy requirements for woodland preservation and site integration. Given the non-zoned status of the site, T2's removal cannot be justified against existing policy protections, reinforcing the conflict with EP3 and GP2(f).

• 2.0 Legal and Policy Position

In accordance with S10 of the Town Country Planning Act the application has been considered;

S(4) In dealing with an application for planning approval or an application under subsection (3), the Department shall have regard to —

• (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application; (ab) any relevant national policy directive under section 2A;
• (b) any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3;
• (c) such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and
• (d) all other material considerations.

There is a statutory duty to take into account the above, and while it is recognised that weight to be given is a matter for the decision maker.

That being said, it shall be noted that the Development Plan and other Adopted Policies do not have primacy as they do in the UK. The Isle of Man is also different from the UK as there is no presumption in favour of development as set out in the NPPF, and there is no 5-year land supply requirement.

In this application, the most weight has been given to the Strategic Plan 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.

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.

• 3.0 Response to Reasons for Appeal This report addresses those issues directly which were highlighted as the basis for the appeal. For a full assessment of the initial application please refer to the original Officer’s Report which would have been supplied with the initial documentation.

• 3.1 There appears to be four main issues raised by the appellants. The issues include:

• 1. Policy Alignment and Material Considerations

• a. Lack of consideration has been given to the strong material considerations to the site in question and how it can align with the nearby Ballaugh village and main points within the IOM Strategic Plan 2016, namely section 8.8. This section allows for development where Groups of Houses are located within the countryside. Ballaugh Road is very much one of those locations.
• b. Pre-application advice by the Department supplied a similar application that was overturned at appeal on section 8.8. This is a strong material consideration that outweighs policy.

• 2. Landscape and Countryside Character

• a. The whole idea is via the proposed mitigation to create a site that will be covered in new native species of trees, hedgerows and wildflowers, all of which will improve biodiversity to the area and as such meets Environmental Policy 2 and General Policy 2 (b & c) of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016.
• b. The carefully considered positioning of the dwelling and also the actual site itself being visibly a specific plot and not open countryside allows it to meet Countryside preservation policies.
• c. Multiple trees have been either removed or lopped back by MUA during this application process due to the power they have surrounding the nearby Substation. There are barely any trees remaining to the immediate treeline on the opposite side of the river which has been noted as important by the Officer.

• 3. Tree Removal and Amenity Value (General)

• a. The trees in question are predominantly Leylandii which for the most part are weeds and certainly an invasive species.
• b. This application was undertaken via the trees being removed on this proposal and not via a separate felling licence. This works along the information in Section 4 and Section 5 of the Tree Preservation Act 1993.
• c. How can trees noted as low amenity value and trees that were confirmed by the Forestry Department as no issue to remove be a valid reason for refusal?

• 4. Silver Birch (T2) and Arboricultural Assessment

• a. The tree in question is merely assumed to be category B. Throughout this entire application it has been noted that the tree would have a survey undertaken nearer to the development stage. Typically, a planning approval requires development to commence within four years. If a survey is undertaken, prior to determination of the application, and the development were not to commence

• until next year or one of the two years later, the survey would be almost meaningless when it comes to the arboriculture impact of the development on the tree in question.
• b. As such, the requirement for a full survey within a near time period prior to actual commencement of any works would provide arguably greater protection.
• c. Mitigation proposed was created following a visit and liaising with the Forestry Department. Unfortunately, this Department was very busy throughout this process, and it was a struggle to gain any real support on the proposal. However, the mitigation proposed factors in multiple native species to the site that when matured will offer a far more respectful and beneficial landscape to the area than what is present.
• d. It is confusing as to the Officer’s point of the loss of said tree not being justified in agricultural terms. The site and tree do not have any alignment with Agriculture?
• e. It is completely argued that the tree holds much amenity value in the area given the tree in question is in a poor state and going by the Officers report, the entire area is tree lined.
• f. It is felt EP3 is not a valid policy relating to this application as the site is clearly not woodland or semi woodland area. There are no surrounding registered trees or areas of trees, and this is also on the most recent Government Documents. Surely these areas if holding conservation value or amenity value to the level described by the officer, would be noted specifically on the Draft Area Plan for the North and West and supporting written documents.

• 3.2 FOLLOWING SECTION ADDRESSES THOSE ISSUES DIRECTLY

• 3.2.1 This section addresses the four principal grounds of appeal raised by the appellant, with reference to the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the 1982 Development Plan, and relevant legislation and guidance.

3.3 POLICY ALIGNMENT, SPATIAL CONTEXT AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Appellant’s Argument

• 3.3.1 The appellant contends that the proposed development aligns with Section 8.8 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (the “Strategic Plan”), which permits development in the countryside where it is within or adjacent to a clearly identifiable group of houses. It is argued that the site at Ballaugh Road forms part of such a group and that this constitutes a strong material consideration in favour of the proposal.

• 3.3.2 The appellant further asserts that pre-application advice and a previous appeal decision, where development was permitted under Section 8.8, should be given significant weight as material considerations that outweigh policy.

3.3.2 Response:Strategic Plan Policy Context

• 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.

• 3.3.2.2 The appeal site lies outside the defined settlement boundary of Ballaugh, as shown on the 1982 Development Plan, and depicted on Map 13 of the Draft Area Plan for the North and West. It is not identified in the 1982 Development Plan or the Strategic Plan as part of a recognised grouping or settlement cluster. As such, the proposal must be assessed against the countryside protection policies of the Strategic Plan, particularly Environment Policy 1, which states that development in the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an overriding national need and no reasonable alternative.
• 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.
• 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.

3.3.3 Response:Absence of Spatial Groupings in the Draft Area Plan

• 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.
• 3.3.3.2 The Draft Plan does not adopt a spatially integrated approach to rural development through the use of functional groupings or sub-regional clusters. Instead, the Draft Plan treats each village as a discrete unit, with no attempt to define shared infrastructure, economic linkages, or service interdependencies between settlements. This is despite the Draft Plan’s own recognition (para. 1.4.1) that “adjoining Parishes… cannot be completely set apart in terms of geography, infrastructure, landscape and economic context.”
• 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.
• 3.3.4 Implications for Policy Interpretation

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.

• 3.3.4.2 The relevant policies for assessing development in the countryside are those set out in the Strategic Plan. These include Strategic Policy 1, which promotes the efficient use of land and infrastructure; Strategic Policy 2, which directs new development to existing towns and villages; Environment Policy 1, which protects the countryside for its own sake; General Policy 3, which sets out the limited circumstances in which development in the countryside may be permitted; and Spatial Policy

5, which states that new development will be located within the defined settlements, and that development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3.

• 3.3.4.3 As confirmed in the Officer’s Report (section 7.2), the appeal site lies outside the defined settlement boundary of Ballaugh and does not meet any of the exceptions set out in General Policy 3 or Housing Policy 4. While the appellant refers to the presence of nearby dwellings, this does not in itself

establish a policy-compliant grouping, nor does it override the presumption against development in the countryside.

• 3.3.4.4 Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to the Island’s spatial strategy and fails to comply with the relevant policies of the Strategic Plan. The absence of spatial groupings in the Draft Plan does not assist the appellant’s case and does not provide a basis for departing from the established policy framework.
• 3.3.5 Conclusion

• 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.

• 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.
• 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.
• 3.3.5.4 Accordingly, the proposal does not align with the Strategic Plan and fails to demonstrate sufficient material considerations to justify a departure from policy.

• 3.4 LANDSCAPE AND COUNTRYSIDE CHARACTER

3.4.1 Appellant’s Argument

• 3.4.1.1 The appellant argues that the proposed development would enhance the local landscape and biodiversity through the introduction of native tree species, hedgerows, and wildflowers. It is claimed that this aligns with Environmental Policy 2 and General Policy 2(b) and (c) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

• 3.4.1.2 The appellant further contends that the site is not part of open countryside but is a visibly distinct plot, and that the positioning of the proposed dwelling has been carefully considered to minimise visual impact. This, it is argued, supports compliance with countryside preservation policies.

• 3.4.1.3 Additionally, the appellant notes that multiple trees have been removed by Manx Utilities (MUA) during the application process, particularly around the nearby substation. It is suggested that this has diminished the tree cover and visual screening in the area, including the treeline opposite the river, which was referenced in the Officer’s Report.

3.4.2 Response:Strategic Plan Policy Context

• 3.4.2.1 Environment Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan provides that the existing system of landscape classification, specifically Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLVs), will continue to form the basis for development control until superseded by a new classification system. Within these designated areas, the protection of landscape character is the primary consideration, and development will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that (a) the proposal would not harm the character and quality of the landscape, or (c) the location is essential for the development. General Policy 2(b) further requires that development respects the character of the area, while 2(d) supports proposals that protect or enhance biodiversity.
• 3.4.2.2 These policies are intended to ensure that development proposals do not harm the intrinsic character of the countryside, particularly within Areas of High Landscape or Scenic Significance (AHLVs), where the protection of landscape character is the primary consideration. Any proposed enhancements must be proportionate, context-sensitive, and secondary to the overarching requirement to preserve the quality and integrity of the landscape.
• 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.

3.4.3 Response:Landscape Character and Site Context

• 3.4.3.1 The appeal site lies outside the defined settlement boundary of Ballaugh and is located within open countryside, as designated in the 1982 Development Plan. This remains the operative basis for landscape classification under Environment Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan. The site is not within a defined settlement or recognised grouping and is visually and functionally part of the wider rural landscape.

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

• 3.4.4 Response: Visual Impact and Countryside Preservation

• 3.4.4.1 The Strategic Plan places strong emphasis on preserving the character and openness of the countryside. Environment Policy 1 protects the countryside for its own sake, while Environment Policy 2 prioritises the protection of Areas of High Landscape or Scenic Significance. Development is only acceptable where it would not harm the character and quality of the landscape, or where the location is essential.
• 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.
• 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).

3.4.5 Conclusion

• 3.4.5.1 The Strategic Plan supports enhancements to biodiversity and landscape character, but only where the principle of development is acceptable under policy. Such enhancements cannot be used to justify otherwise inappropriate development.

• 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.

• 3.4.5.3 Accordingly, the proposal does not comply with Environment Policy 2 or General Policy 2(b) and (c), nor does it demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required to justify a departure from the statutory development plan.

• 3.5 TREE REMOVAL AND AMENITY VALUE

• 3.5.1 Appellant’s Argument

• 3.5.1.1 The appellant argues that the trees removed from the site were predominantly Leylandii, which are considered invasive and of low amenity value. It is suggested that these trees should not be afforded protection under planning policy.
• 3.5.1.2 The appellant further contends that the removal of these trees was undertaken lawfully as part of the development proposal and not under a separate felling licence. Reference is made to Sections 4 and 5 of the Tree Preservation Act 1993 to support the claim that the removal was compliant with relevant legislation.
• 3.5.1.3 It is also argued that the Forestry Division confirmed there was no objection to the removal of the trees, and that this should negate any reason for refusal based on tree loss. The appellant questions how trees deemed to have low amenity value can be cited as a valid reason for refusal.

3.5.2 Response:Policy and Legal Context

• 3.5.1.1 The appellant argues that the trees removed from the site were predominantly Leylandii, which are considered invasive and of low amenity value. It is suggested that these trees should not be afforded protection under planning policy.
• 3.5.1.2 The appellant further contends that the removal of these trees was undertaken lawfully as part of the development proposal and not under a separate felling licence. Reference is made to Sections 4 and 5 of the Tree Preservation Act 1993 to support the claim that the removal was compliant with relevant legislation.
• 3.5.1.3 It is also argued that the Forestry Division confirmed there was no objection to the removal of the trees, and that this should negate any reason for refusal based on tree loss. The appellant questions how trees deemed to have low amenity value can be cited as a valid reason for refusal.

• 3.5.2 Response: Policy and Legal Context

• 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 non-native species in determining whether trees are worthy of protection.
• 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.
• 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.
• 3.5.2.4 DEFA Arboriculture has explicitly objected to the application due to the proposed removal of a large, mature birch tree (T2), which is considered to be at least a category B tree under BS5837:2012 and therefore worthy of retention.

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

3.5.3 Conclusion

• 3.5.3.1 The removal of trees, even those of limited individual value, can have a cumulative impact on landscape character, biodiversity, and amenity. The planning authority is entitled, and required, under Environment Policy 3 to consider this impact in the context of the wider site and its setting.
• 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.
• 3.5.3.3 While ecological impacts can now be mitigated through planning conditions, the arboricultural objection remains valid. The removal of T2, a mature category B tree, without an AIA or verified mitigation, is contrary to EP3 and GP2(f), particularly given the site’s non-zoned status.
• 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.

• 3.6 Silver Birch (T2) and Arboricultural Assessment

• 3.6.1 Appellant’s Argument

• 3.6.1.1 The appellant challenges the requirement for a full arboricultural survey of the Silver Birch tree (T2) at the planning stage. It is argued that such a survey would be more appropriate closer to the commencement of development, given that planning permission typically allows for a four-year implementation period.

• 3.6.1.2 The appellant suggests that a survey undertaken now may be outdated by the time development begins and that a later survey would provide more accurate protection for the tree.

• 3.6.1.3 It is further argued that mitigation planting has been proposed following consultation with the Forestry Division, and that this would result in a more beneficial landscape outcome than retaining the existing tree.

• 3.6.1.4 The appellant also disputes the Officer’s reference to the tree’s loss not being justified in agricultural terms, stating that the site has no agricultural function. Additionally, it is argued that the tree is in poor condition and does not hold significant amenity value, particularly given the wider treelined character of the area.

• 3.6.1.5 Finally, the appellant contends that Environmental Policy 3 (EP3) is not applicable, as the site is not woodland or semi-woodland and is not identified as such in the Draft Area Plan or supporting documents.
• 3.6.2 Response: Arboricultural Best Practice and Policy

• 3.6.2.1 The requirement for an arboricultural assessment at the planning stage is consistent with best practice, including British Standard BS5837:2012 (Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction). This standard requires that the impact of development on trees be assessed early in the design process to inform layout, access, and construction methods.
• 3.6.2.2 Delaying the survey until after planning permission is granted risks undermining the ability to protect trees during the design and construction phases. It may also result in avoidable harm to trees that could otherwise be retained through informed design.

• 3.6.2.3 The proposed mitigation planting is welcomed in principle, but it does not replace the need to assess the value and condition of existing trees. Replacement planting may take years to establish and cannot immediately replicate the amenity or ecological value of a mature tree.
• 3.6.2.4 The reference to “agricultural justification” in the third reason for refusal was made in error and does not reflect the basis upon which the application was assessed. There is no indication that the removal of Tree T2 was ever considered in relation to agricultural land use, productivity, or rural land management practices. Rather, the correct and intended context is arboricultural. The key issue is whether the proposed removal of Tree T2, a mature silver birch considered to be at least Category B under BS5837:2012, is justified in arboricultural and planning terms. This includes an assessment of the tree’s contribution to local amenity, landscape character, and biodiversity. These considerations are central to the Department’s evaluation and are clearly articulated in the updated Officer Report, which informed the Planning Committee’s decision.
• 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.
• 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.

3.6.3 Conclusion

• 3.6.3.1 The requirement for an arboricultural assessment at the planning stage is consistent with policy and best practice. It ensures that trees are properly considered in the design and layout of development and that appropriate mitigation or retention strategies are identified early.

• 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.
• 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.
• 3.6.3.4 Furthermore, the proposed development fails to meet any of the exceptions permitted under General Policy 3, which restricts development in the countryside to specific, justified circumstances such as essential agricultural housing, conversion of redundant rural buildings, or development of overriding national need. This position is reinforced by Housing Policy 4, which limits new housing in the countryside to specific exceptions, none of which are applicable to the current proposal.
• 3.6.3.5 The proposal also conflicts with Strategic Policy 2, which promotes sustainable development aligned with the spatial strategy, and with Spatial Policies 4 and 5, which seek to maintain the character of rural settlements and direct new development to defined settlement boundaries. The site lies outside such boundaries and does not meet the criteria for countryside development.
• 3.6.3.6 Accordingly, the loss of the Silver Birch (T2) without adequate justification or assessment remains a valid reason for refusal under the Strategic Plan. The absence of policy support for the development further weakens any justification for tree removal.
• 3.7 CONCLUSION This statement seeks to address the initial reasons for appeal articulated in the appellant’s Appeal Request. Additional statement(s) would be provided further to the appellant’s providing additional statement(s) on the issues highlighted in their appeal request, should they raise issues not already addressed in the Officer Report and appeal statement.

4.0 Potential Conditions

4.1 In the event that the Inspector is minded to recommend approval it is recommended that the following condition(s) be applied:

• C 1: Standard 4 years 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: Updated Soft Landscaping Plan No development shall commence until an updated soft landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The scheme shall include:

• 1. A revised planting plan incorporating native species suitable for hedgerow and structural planting, including (but not limited to) blackthorn, hawthorn, burnet rose, dog rose, hazel, and crab apple;
• 2. A detailed layout showing planting locations, species, sizes, and proposed numbers/densities;
• 3. Site levels and identification of existing trees and hedges to be retained;
• 4. A programme for the implementation and completion of the proposed landscaping.

All planting, seeding, or turfing shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the completion of the development, in full accordance with the approved landscaping scheme, and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To protect and enhance biodiversity and ensure appropriate landscape integration in accordance with Environment Policy 4, Environment Policy 3, and General Policy 2(c) and (f) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

• C 3: External Lighting Prior to the installation of external lighting at the site, a detailed external low level lighting scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The lighting of the site will be designed in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the BCT and ILP Guidance Note 8 Bats and Artificial Lighting (12th September 2018).

The lighting details shall include detailed drawings of the proposed lighting columns and fittings, information about the levels of luminance and daily duration and any measures for mitigating the effects of light pollution.

The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved plan.

Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the ecological species existing on the site.

• C 4: Bat and Bird Bricks No development shall commence until a scheme for the installation of integrated bat and bird bricks within the new dwelling has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The scheme shall include the number, type, and location of bricks. The development shall not be occupied until the approved bricks have been installed.

Reason: To mitigate the loss of nesting and roosting habitat and ensure biodiversity enhancement in accordance with Environment Policy 4 and General Policy 2(c) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

• C 5: Arboricultural Impact Assessment No development shall commence until an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA), prepared by a qualified Arboriculturalist, in accordance with BS5837:2012, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department.

The AIA shall assess the impact of the development on all retained trees, including those to the west and north of the site, and shall include any necessary engineering solutions to protect trees during and after construction.

Reason: To ensure the development does not result in the loss or degradation of trees of amenity and conservation value, in accordance with Environment Policy 3 and General Policy 2(f) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

• C 6: Tree Protection Plan No development shall commence until a Tree Protection Plan (TPP), prepared in accordance with BS5837:2012, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The TPP shall include:

• o Root Protection Areas and Construction Exclusion Zones;
• o Protective fencing and ground protection measures;
• o A method statement for tree protection during construction.

Within the Construction Exclusion Zones, no materials shall be stored, no ground levels altered, no excavations made, no fires lit, and no mixing of cement or other contaminating substances shall occur.

Reason: To safeguard retained trees during construction in accordance with Environment Policy 3 and General Policy 2(f) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

• C7: Access, Parking and Turning Areas The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until all access arrangements, including visibility splays, vehicular and pedestrian areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than for purposes associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking in the interests of highway safety.

• C8: Materials - Details No above-ground development shall commence until a schedule of all external materials, including manufacturer details, specifications, and colours for the roof, walls, windows, doors, and rainwater goods, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department.

The development shall not be occupied or brought into use until the external finishes have been completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out to the highest standards of materials, in the interests of the appearance of the development and the visual amenities of the area.

Appendix 2

Minutes of Planning Committee Meetings, 19th May 2025

Item 5.4 Plot Of Land North Of Scrondall Glen Road Ballaugh Isle Of Man<br><br>PA 24/00859/B	Erection of single-storey dwelling<br><br>Applicant: Mrs H M Radcliffe Case Officer: Paul Visigah Recommendation: Refused

The Case Officer summarised the key issues as set out in the report and with reference to the visual presentation. This application is before the Planning Committee as it was deferred due to the omission of consultations submitted before the report's conclusion, which meant the assessments within the report were not reflective of the most current and comprehensive information available at the time. The reassessment has ensured that all relevant consultations and expert evaluations are properly considered, providing a more accurate basis for decision making. Additionally, further correspondence from DEFA Forestry regarding these submissions prompted a reassessment. As a result, several elements of the report have been updated, with an addendum included to reflect these changes. Two original reasons for refusal have been removed, leaving three remaining. Of those, two have been revised to better align with the new assessments.

The Highway Services representative confirmed there was nothing further to add to their report.

The Agent (Mr D Reid) argued the following points:

• o The planning application meets requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act and
• o Strategic Plan
• o There are other existing dwellings in the area
• o The development will bring positive changes to rural and scenic character.
• o Natural screening will be improved, and more trees and flowers will be planted
• o This area of countryside no longer woodland and wide-open areas will not be impacted Additional conditions would be acceptable.

The Case Officer responded by noting that although the site sits among a group of dwellings, the application fails to meet core policies, making the proposed changes to the site, including the proposed tree removals unacceptable. He further highlighted that the site sits at a significant distance from the settlement boundary and that there is no zoning that favours it.

The members in discussing the scheme noted that the updated flood risk maps meant that the site would be at increased risk from flooding.

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

• o The number of reasons for refusal (confirmed 3)
• o The impact of floods on highways
• o The close proximity to overhead power lines
• o The loss of trees

Decision

The Committee unanimously accepted the recommendation of the Case Officer, and the application was refused for the following reasons.

R 1. The proposed development is situated outside the settlement boundary of Ballaugh and within the countryside, where residential development is restricted by Strategic Policy 2, Housing Policy 4, and General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). The proposal fails to meet the criteria for exceptional circumstances that justify housing in this location, and no 'other material considerations' have been identified to outweigh these policies, which have been informed by public consultation and adoption by Tynwald.

Amendments to Reasons for Refusal:

• R2: Whilst many of the trees are of low amenity value, their removal still contributes to a fundamental shift in the site's rural and scenic character, affecting its visual integration within the countryside. Although individually these trees may not hold significant aesthetic or conservation importance, their collective presence maintains the character and landscape continuity of the area. The introduction of a domestic built form, combined with the loss of natural features, diminishes the site's ability to align with countryside preservation policies. As a result, the proposal fails to respect the rural setting, conflicting with Environment Policy 2 (EP2) and General Policy 2(b & c) (GP2) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016), which prioritize the protection of Areas of High Landscape and Scenic Significance.
• R3: The proposal involves the removal of T2, a category B silver birch identified as holding landscape significance, which directly conflicts with General Policy 2(f) and Environment Policy 3 (EP3) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). As the tree is highly visible from various locations it is considered to provide high amenity value to the area. The loss of the birch tree has not been justified in arboricultural terms and its removal would have a detrimental impact on amenity and its loss to provide a dwelling on an unallocated site in the countryside is not considered to outweigh the loss of the amenity that would result from the removal of the tree. In addition, it is considered that the proposed mitigation measures do not sufficiently compensate for the loss of this key landscape feature, failing to align with policy requirements for woodland preservation and site integration. Given the non-zoned status of the site, T2's removal cannot be justified against existing policy protections, reinforcing the conflict with EP3 and GP2(D.

Interested Person Status It was decided that the following have made material planning comments and so should be afforded Interested Person Status (IPS) under Article 4(1)(c) of the Development Procedure Order 2019 (DPO):

It was decided that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:

• o DOI Flood Risk Management
• o MUA Electricity

It was decided that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

o Mill Bank Cottage, Glen Road, Ballaugh, as they are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy.