11 July 2012 · Deputy Minister for Infrastructure, Mr P Gawne MHK
Ard Na Mara House, Quines Hill, Port Soderick, Isle Of Man, IM4 1ba
The proposal sought retrospective permission for demolishing existing barns and constructing a new two-storey building containing seven self-contained tourist units, plus decking with a swimmer pool and hot tub, at Ard Na Mara House (formerly Southampton Farm) in open countryside.
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 Deputy Minister refused the appeal against the Planning Committee's refusal, stating the proposal is contrary to General Policy 3 and Business Policy 11 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 as i…
General Policy 3
Prohibits development outside zoned areas except specific cases like conversions (HP11). Officer assessed no exceptions apply as this is new build post-demolition, not conversion of intact redundant rural buildings.
Business Policy 11
Tourism must comply with countryside protections; allows rural building reuse per ENV16. Failed as new build, not reuse, in open countryside.
Environment Policy 1
Protects countryside unless overriding national need. No such need demonstrated; harms countryside character.
Environment Policy 2
Protects Areas of High Landscape Value (site designation). Development harms landscape character; not essential location.
Housing Policy 11
Allows rural building conversion if intact, of interest, no major rebuild. Explicitly prohibits replacement buildings; site involved full demolition/rebuild.
Business Policy 14
Rural tourism must comply with GP3/BP11/12. Failed countryside tests despite self-catering intent.
Self-catering tourist lets are valuable additional accommodation with high occupancy and economic benefit. Fits Visitor Economy Strategy for outdoor activities. Four-unit property achieved 4-star rating.
no objection
The original application for demolition of redundant farm barns and erection of seven tourist units was refused as new development in open countryside without justification and failing to enhance visual amenities. The appellant argued the site was previously developed land within a long-standing farmstead enclosure, with prior approvals for partial conversion to tourist use, minimal changes from approved schemes, compliance with landscape character assessments, support from Tourism Division, and economic benefits under draft PPS 'Planning and the Economy'. The inspector found the development conflicted with General Policy 3's presumption against countryside development, as agricultural buildings are excluded from previously developed land, prior approvals lapsed upon demolition, and the new build lacked rural character, making the locality less rural. The Minister accepted the inspector's recommendation to dismiss the appeal, despite acknowledging planning history and tourism benefits, prioritising countryside protection.
Precedent Value
Reinforces strict application of GP3 excluding agricultural buildings from PDL; retrospective new-build replacements in countryside unlikely even with tourism support or minor footprint changes unless clearly policy-compliant conversions. Applicants must secure approval before demolition and demonstrate rural character retention.
Inspector: Alan Larigton
