20 September 2016 · Planning Committee
Proposed Apartments And Offices At, Arragon House, 321 Arragon Road, Arragon, Santon, Isle Of Man, IM4 1hh
The site is an empty, sloping grassed plot within a cluster of properties near Arragon House, visible from a public road and footpath, in an area designated as open space of high landscape value.
Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.
See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.
The officer assessed whether the proposal qualified under exceptions in General Policy 3 or if other material considerations justified approval in open countryside, concluding it did not as the site i…
General Policy 3
Presumption against development in open countryside unless exceptions apply. Proposal does not fall within any listed exceptions; no material considerations override due to lack of robust economic evidence or site necessity.
Environment Policy 1
Protects areas of high landscape value/scenic significance. Building's size/mass harms character; screening planting itself out of character in open-frontage area.
Environment Policy 2
Protects open space. New building conflicts as site is designated open space; visual impact on public footpath route unacceptable.
Housing Policy 4
Restricts housing in countryside. Staff apartments represent new housing without justification in non-designated area.
Do not oppose the application
Santon Commissioners objected to the application due to its location, size, appearance, and impact on neighbours in the countryside; Highways Division did not oppose; Johnston Press expressed interest in decision notices but no substantive comment.
Key concern: new large building in the countryside out of keeping with the area and impacting neighbours
Johnston Press plc
No CommentPlease can you include us as having expressed an interest so we receive decision notices for the following plans
Santon Commissioners
ObjectionWith reference to the above captioned application, the Commissioners wish to object for the following reasons:; 1. This is a new building in the countryside. 2. Not only is it a new building, it is a very large building. 3. The appearance is out of keeping with the countryside. 4. There is likely to be an undesirable impact upon the neighbouring properties not under the ownership of the applicant.
Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division
No ObjectionDo not oppose; DNO on 8.3.16
Santon Commissioners
ObjectionI am instructed by the Commissioners to reiterate their original objections to this amended application as follows:; 1. This is a new building in the countryside. 2. Not only is it a new building, it is a very large building. 3. The appearance and massing is out of keeping with the countryside. 4. There is likely to be an undesirable impact upon the neighbouring properties not under the ownership of the applicant.; Furthermore, the Commissioners wish to endorse the views, observations and objections in correspondence submitted by neighbours Mr. & Mrs. Green of Seafield House and Mr. & Mrs. Kinrade of Arragon Cottage.
The original application (16/00258/B) for erection of a building with three staff flats and office accommodation at Arragon House was refused, though specific refusal reasons are not detailed in the report. Appellants argued the site is not open countryside, the design is sympathetic, no amenity harm, and economic benefits from their property business outweigh policy conflicts per dPPS. The Council defended refusal citing AHLV policies (GP3, EP1-2), visual dominance despite design, and lack of robust economic evidence. The inspector found conflict with Strategic Plan policies protecting AHLV, sympathetic but dominant design harming landscape character, neutral amenity impact, and inadequate evidence of economic need or DED support to override harm under dPPS. The appeal was recommended dismissed.
Precedent Value
Demonstrates dPPS requires quantitative evidence of economic benefits, business needs, and site necessity to override AHLV protections; future applicants must pre-consult DED robustly and document alternatives rejected.
Inspector: Brian J Sims
