24 May 2019 · Delegated - Principal Planner Chris Balmer
Guilcaugh Cottage, St Judes Road, Andreas, Isle Of Man, IM7 3hf
The proposal involved building a new traditionally styled four-bedroom house (266.4m² floor area) with painted render, natural slate roof, and uPVC sliding sash windows, plus a detached double garage with log store, on part of an agricultural field east of the existing Guilcaugh Cottage.
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 determined the proposal unacceptable in principle as it sought to erect a dwelling on a new site within open countryside rather than replacing on the existing footprint, failing Housing Po…
General Policy 3
Prohibits development outside zoned areas except specified exceptions including replacement of rural dwellings (Housing Policies 12,13,14). The proposal failed as it did not qualify under replacement policies due to alternative siting without environmental improvement justification.
Housing Policy 14
Requires replacement dwellings not substantially different in siting/size unless resulting in overall environmental improvement; generally on existing footprint with floor area not >50% larger. Floor area complied (37.6% increase) and design traditional, but relocated siting (63m east), curtilage expansion, and lack of wider environmental benefits (applicant's claims limited to building aesthetics/carbon footprint) meant policy test failed.
Environment Policy 1
Protects countryside/ecology from adverse development unless overriding need. Proposal's domestic proliferation, hedge removal, and new access harmed rural character of agricultural site.
Housing Policy 12
Permits countryside dwelling replacement unless abandoned or of architectural/historic interest capable of renovation. Existing dwelling habitable, not abandoned, no special interest, so replacement in principle allowed but subject to HP14 tests which were not met.
Housing Policy 4
New countryside housing only in exceptional cases including rural dwelling replacements per HP12-14. Proposal invoked this but failed subsequent policy tests.
No Objection (dated 13 March 2019)
No objection to the principle; Would request that the applicants do not remove the small area of sod bank, needed to facilitate access, between the dates of 31st March - 31st August, in order to protect lizards, birds, insects and flowers in the spring/summer season; Also please undertake thorough checks for lizards prior to the removal of the sod bank. (dated 22 March 2019)
DEFA Ecosystem Policy Officer supports the proposal with conditions to protect wildlife during sod bank removal, while Andreas Parish Commissioners have no objections.
Key concern: potential impact on lizards (Schedule 5 Species) from sod bank removal
DEFA Ecosystem Policy Officer
Conditional No ObjectionI think the proposal for the demolition of the existing house and construction of a new property is reasonable.; Lizards are a Schedule 5 Species under the Wildlife Act 1990 and it is an offence to intentionally or recklessly, kill, injure or take them.
Conditions requested: do not remove the small area of sod bank between the dates of 31st March - 31st August; undertake thorough checks for lizards prior to removal of the sod bank
Andreas Parish Commissioners
No ObjectionAndreas Parish Commissioners have now considered the above proposed development, and have no objections thereto.
The original application for erection of a new dwelling with detached garage to replace the existing poorly maintained Guilcaugh Cottage was refused due to lack of 'overall environmental improvement' under HP14 and harm to countryside character under GP3, EP1 and HP14. Appellant argued the new siting avoids vermin-infested dub, dusty track and enables habitat improvements, supported by DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team. Inspector found the existing cottage structurally unsound requiring comprehensive refurbishment, accepted relocation for environmental benefits including habitat corridor and new sod bank, and concluded overall environmental improvement under HP14 despite larger curtilage. Visual harm concerns addressed via conditions restricting curtilage size, landscaping and demolition. Minister accepted Inspector's recommendation to allow appeal on 10 October 2019.
Precedent Value
Demonstrates HP14 flexibility for relocations where poor existing siting (dub proximity, access) enables verifiable wider environmental gains, especially with agency support. Future applicants should secure ecologist input, provide condition/cost evidence and propose curtilage restrictions proactively.
Inspector: Anthony J Wharton BArch RIBA RIAS MRTPI
