Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90787/B
Page 1 of 10
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90787/B Applicant : Ms Kate Garner Proposal : Erection of detached garden building to provide ancillary (Class 3.3) and tourist (Class 3.6) accommodation Site Address : The Anchorage Mill Road Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1TA
Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 12.11.2025 Site Visit : 12.11.2025 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 21.11.2025 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposal conflicts with Strategic Policy 8 and Section 9.5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, which require tourism development to deliver high-quality, sustainable accommodation that integrates with existing built fabric and enhances the visitor experience. These policies emphasize character-led design and the use of heritage or established structures to support enjoyment of the Island's natural and man-made attractions. The scheme also fails to align with the Visitor Economy Strategy 2022-2032, which sets out the Visitor Accommodation Transformation Programme to secure investment in distinctive, contemporary, and eco-friendly accommodation that attracts new visitor markets, supports off- peak demand, and strengthens the Island's competitive position. By contrast, the proposed unit represents a functional addition of limited scale and quality, lacking the distinctive features, sustainability credentials, and market appeal envisaged by national policy. Accordingly, the strategic benefit is minimal and does not outweigh the identified policy conflicts.
R 2. The proposed development introduces an elevated sleep deck window that creates a material risk of overlooking into the adjoining property, resulting in an unacceptable loss of privacy. This is contrary to General Policy 2(d) and Business Policy 13 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, which require that development does not compromise the amenities of neighbouring residents and that tourist use is only permitted where it safeguards residential amenity.
__
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90787/B
Page 2 of 10
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: o DOI Highway Services - No objection. o Visit Isle of Man Agency (Department for Enterprise) - No formal comment.
It is recommended that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal on the basis that they have submitted a relevant objection: o DOI FRM - No objection subject to condition requiring the display of a flood evacuation plan within the building which has not been applied. __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site comprises the curtilage of The Anchorage, Mill Road, Peel, one of a pair of semi-detached houses located opposite the House of Manannan on the southeastern side of Mill Road. The dwellings were constructed as a replacement for a former showroom/shop under planning approval 14/00928/B.
1.2 The property benefits from a large rear garden arranged over two levels. The lower level consists of a paved patio area enclosed by rendered retaining walls, with a timber gate providing access from the adjacent lane. A central flight of steps leads to the upper garden, which sits approximately 1.4m above the lower patio. The upper garden includes a raised patio extending across its width, positioned about 500mm above the lawn level, and service connections were noted within this patio during the site visit. The garden is partly hard landscaped with gravel and partly laid to lawn, complemented by ornamental shrubs and a small hedge feature.
1.3 The site boundaries are defined by a combination of materials: the north and south sides of the lower patio are enclosed by rendered retaining walls topped with timber fencing. Beyond the southern boundary lies an industrial-style building finished in profiled metal cladding and stone-effect panels, which forms a prominent backdrop. The eastern boundary comprises timber fencing separating the garden from the adjoining garden for Stumbleholme the other semi-detached dwelling, while the eastern boundary is marked by a substantial stone retaining wall supporting the higher ground level beyond, with dense vegetation and ivy growth along the top.
1.4 On the south side of the dwelling, a paved parking area provides two allocated spaces for the property. The area is enclosed by rendered walls and accessed from the adjacent lane. The property also benefits from proximity to public transport, with the House of Manannan bus stop located approximately 47m away.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for erection of a detached garden building to provide ancillary (Class 3.3) and tourist (Class 3.6) accommodation within the curtilage of The Anchorage, Mill Road, Peel. The building will be positioned toward the rear of the garden and designed with a contemporary mono-pitched roof form. It will measure approximately 7.0 m in length by 3.0 m in width, with an overall height of 3.65 m at the front and 3.4 m at the rear. Although single storey in appearance, the structure incorporates a partial mezzanine sleep deck above the sitting area.
2.2 Internally, the accommodation will comprise a sitting area and kitchenette with breakfast space, together with a shower room at ground floor level. Above part of the sitting
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90787/B
Page 3 of 10
area, a sleep deck will be provided, accessed via a compact ladder stair, creating a functional arrangement.
2.3 Externally, the building will have a mono-pitched roof finished in dark grey fibreglass. The walls will be clad in composite timber, and the openings will be fitted with dark grey aluminium frames. Rainwater goods will be in dark-coloured uPVC.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Peel Local Plan of 1990 as Predominantly Industry and just outwith the town's Conservation Area. The dwelling is prone to high fluvial and tidal flood risks, although the garden area sits outside the flood-prone area.
3.2 National: STRATEGIC PLAN 3.2.1 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application: 1. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations. 2. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources. 3. Strategic Policy 2 - Development focussed in existing towns and villages. 4. Strategic Policy 8 - Tourist development proposals will generally be permitted where they make use of existing built fabric of interest and quality, where they do not affect adversely environmental, agricultural, or highway interests and where they enable enjoyment of our natural and man-made attractions. 5. Strategic Policy 10 - Promoting integrated journeys, minimizing car use, and facilitating alternative modes of transport. 6. Business Policy 13 - Allows for the use of private residential properties as tourist accommodation provided the use is not harmful to the amenities of neighbouring residents. 7. Environment Policy 10 and 13 - Development and flood risk. 8. Environment Policy 36 - Where development is proposed outside of, but close to, the boundary of a Conservation Area, this will only be permitted where it will not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area. 9. Transport Policy 1 - Proximity to existing public transportation services. 10. Transport Policy 7 - Parking Provisions 11. Community Policy 7 - Designing out criminal and anti-social behaviour. 12. Paragraphs 9.5.7 and 9.5.8: "Although previous Local Plans have applied a "Tourism" designation to areas with a large number of hotels, such a designation is becoming less appropriate in many towns and villages as the reduced demand for larger Victorian hotels results in conversion to private residential use. It is now more likely that a Tourism designation be given to specific tourist attractions and existing large individual hotel sites, with new tourist accommodation incorporated into areas of mixed or residential use. Wider areas which still include a large tourism element, such as Douglas Promenade, may be designated for "Residential/ Tourism" use (other potential uses may be identified and included in a mixed designation if appropriate).
9.5.8 The use of existing private residential properties as tourist accommodation may be acceptable if it can be demonstrated that it will not compromise the amenities of any neighbouring residents. In Chapter 7, there are described the circumstances in which redundant buildings in the countryside can be converted into dwellings. These policies apply equally to tourist use, except that it may very often be possible to convert to tourist use buildings which are too small to form a satisfactory permanent dwelling."
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Policy on the Development of Non-Serviced Accommodation 2019. 4.1.1 This document is an offshoot of the Isle of Man Non-Serviced Accommodation Futures - Final Report (2017). It sets out governments priorities as it relates to tourism, provides a summary of the Non-serviced study, whilst also outlining the current visitor economy strategy, in addition to articulating the Island Policy towards tourism development.
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90787/B
Page 4 of 10
4.2 Isle of Man Visitor Economy Strategy 2022-2032 4.2.1 The Strategy's headline targets are to grow the annual visitor numbers to 500,000 by 2032 and increase the annual economic contribution of the Island's Visitor Economy to £520m. This will mean attracting an additional 170,500 visitors per year compared to 2019. The aim is to triple the holiday and short break market as well as grow all of the other visitor markets. Combined with an expected increase in average spending per visitor, driven by strong growth in longer staying and higher spending leisure markets, these visitor numbers should result in a more than doubling of annual visitor spending on the Island to £310m, which will support an increase in Visitor Economy jobs to 5,000 and generate an annual Exchequer benefit of £49m.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The site has been the subject of one planning application that is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of the current application.
5.2 Approval was granted under PA 14/00928/B for Demolition of existing building and erection of two terraced dwellings with associated parking, Part Former Peel Gas Works Site and Adjacent Showroom, 15 Mill Road, Peel - Approved. The Case Officer considered that, although the site was designated as Industrial with a small Mixed-Use element and the Peel Local Plan discouraged residential development in the vicinity, an exception was justified. The assessment concluded that the proposal would have negligible impact on residential amenity from industrial operations and would deliver a positive visual contribution to the streetscape opposite the Conservation Area. The dwellings were viewed as improving the transition between residential and industrial uses and providing a better built frontage than standard industrial development. Adequate parking and amenity space were also secured, and the scheme was considered acceptable in principle and design terms.
5.3 Whilst not directly related to the site, the neighbouring semi-detached has been the subject of an application for Additional use of residential property as tourist living accommodation under PA 18/00409/C. this was approved on 25th May 2018. The approval only involved the use of the dwelling for tourist use.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only. 6.1 DOI Highways find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as the site is in a sustainable location in Peel centre (26 August 2025).
6.2 Business Agency - Dept For Enterprise have stated that they no comment to make as they have not visited or been contacted by the applicant according to their records (03 September 2025).
6.3 DOI Flood Risk Management have made the following comments on the application (27 August 2025): They note that the existing dwelling is located within a high fluvial and tidal flood risk zone, although the proposed tourist accommodation would be positioned on a raised garden area. They state that they do not oppose the development subject to a condition that a flood evacuation plan should be prominently displayed within the building.
6.4 Peel Town Commissioners have not made any comments on the application although they were consulted on 18 August 2025.
6.5 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties.
7.0 ASSESSMENT
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90787/B
Page 5 of 10
7.1 The key considerations in the assessment and determination of this application are: 1. The principle of the proposed development, including the erection of a detached garden building within the curtilage of the dwelling and its intended use for ancillary and tourist accommodation (General Policy 2, Strategic Policy 2, Strategic Policy 8, Business Policy 13); 2. Design, scale, and visual impact, having regard to the siting of the building within the garden, its relationship to the host dwelling, and its effect on the character of the surrounding area (General Policy 2(b, c), Strategic Policy 5); 3. Flood risk considerations, given the site's proximity to a high fluvial and tidal flood risk zone and the requirement for appropriate mitigation measures (General Policy 2 (l), and Environment Policies 10 and 13); 4. Highway safety and parking provision, including the adequacy of existing arrangements and the site's proximity to public transport services (General Policy 2(f), Transport Policies 1, 4, and 7); 5. Impact on residential amenity, particularly in relation to neighbouring properties and the potential implications of introducing tourist use within the curtilage (General Policy 2(d), Business Policy 13); and 6. Other material considerations, including the Isle of Man Visitor Economy Strategy 2022- 2032 and the Policy on the Development of Non-Serviced Accommodation 2019, which support diversification of visitor accommodation where consistent with the Strategic Plan.
7.2 THE PRINCIPLE 7.2.1 The application seeks permission for a detached garden building within the curtilage of an existing dwelling for ancillary and tourist accommodation. The site is designated as Industrial under the Peel Local Plan, with a small part indicated as Mixed Use. Ordinarily, this zoning discourages residential and associated uses to avoid conflicts with industrial activity such as noise, dust, or heavy vehicle movements.
7.2.2 Planning approval under PA 14/00928/B for the existing dwelling established a residential use within the curtilage, which remains a material consideration. The proposed building would also sit entirely within this curtilage and does not extend development into industrial land. In principle, ancillary accommodation is consistent with the established residential use. This locational context, within Peel and close to cultural assets such as Peel Castle, the marina, and heritage walks, also aligns with the Strategic Plan's aim to focus development in existing settlements (Strategic Policy 2) and support sustainable tourism opportunities.
7.2.3 However, the inclusion of tourist accommodation engages Business Policy 13, which permits such use only where it does not compromise neighbouring amenity and aligns with the Strategic Plan's tourism objectives. Those objectives, set out in Section 9.5 and reinforced by Strategic Policy 8 and paragraph 4.4.4, encourage diversification of visitor accommodation but emphasize quality, sustainability, and integration with existing built fabric, particularly historic or established structures. Tourism development is expected to foster enjoyment of the Island's natural attractions and built heritage, rather than simply provide additional bed spaces.
7.2.4 In this case, the building is a new, modern garden structure of modest scale, designed as a fully self-contained unit with kitchen, shower room, sitting space, and sleep deck. While this arrangement introduces functional independence and could serve short-stay visitors, it does not clearly reflect the policy aspiration for quality accommodation that makes appropriate use of existing built form or contributes to the historic character of Peel. If such a unit were part of a managed holiday park or a conversion of an existing ancillary building, it might better align with those objectives. Its insertion within a constrained urban garden raises questions about whether it meets the broader goals of sustainable tourism development and the Strategic Plan's emphasis on enhancing the visitor experience through distinctive character and heritage value.
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90787/B
Page 6 of 10
7.2.5 The design also facilitates independent occupation through a separate pedestrian access, creating severability risks. While its size may limit permanent subdivision, short-term separate use remains feasible. To maintain compliance with General Policy 2 and Business Policy 13, conditions would be necessary to restrict the use to purposes ancillary to the host dwelling, prohibit independent occupation, and require retention of the approved internal layout.
7.2.6 On balance, the proposal benefits from being contained within an established residential curtilage and from its proximity to Peel's cultural assets, which weigh in favour of support. However, these positives are tempered by significant policy conflicts. The development does not fully align with the qualitative objectives of Strategic Policy 8, Section 9.5, and paragraph 4.4.4, which seek to foster tourism through appropriate use of existing built fabric, heritage assets, and distinctive character. The proposed building offers functional accommodation but lacks integration with historic or established built form and does little to advance the Strategic Plan's vision for sustainable, character-led tourism. These shortcomings substantially reduce the weight that can be attached to tourism policies in support of the scheme. On this basis, the principle of tourist use cannot be supported. While the residential context might justify ancillary accommodation, the form and purpose of this proposal do not align with the Strategic Plan's goals for tourism development in towns.
7.3 DESIGN AND VISUAL IMPACT 7.3.1 The proposed building adopts a contemporary mono-pitched roof form with composite timber cladding and dark grey aluminium openings. At 7.0 m by 3.0 m and up to 3.65 m in height, the structure is modest in footprint but relatively tall for a garden building. While the design introduces a modern aesthetic, it does not draw on the established vernacular of Peel or the materials characteristic of its historic townscape. Strategic Policy 5 and General Policy 2(b) require new development to make a positive contribution to the environment and respect its context in terms of siting, scale, and design. The proposal reflects a functional approach rather than a contextual one, and its architectural language risks being perceived as "anywhere architecture" as described in paragraph 4.3.8 of the Strategic Plan.
7.3.2 The building would be positioned toward the rear of the upper garden, which sits above the level of the adjoining highway. Existing boundary walls, fencing, and hedge planting provide substantial screening, and the structure would not be prominent in views from Mill Road. However, given its height and elevated siting, the upper portion would likely be glimpsed from certain external viewpoints, particularly across the lane and from higher ground. These views would be filtered and limited, and the building would not dominate the streetscape. Nevertheless, the proposal does little to reinforce the character of the locality or respond to the historic setting, which is a key expectation under General Policy 2(c).
7.3.3 While the contained siting mitigates visual intrusion, the design does not demonstrate the quality or contextual sensitivity envisaged by Strategic Policy 5 and the supporting text in paragraphs 4.3.8-4.3.11. The Strategic Plan encourages innovation and sustainability but within a framework that respects landscape and townscape character. In this case, the proposal introduces a modern form without clear reference to its surroundings, and its contribution to the built environment is neutral rather than positive. On this basis, the design and visual impact are considered acceptable only in terms of limited visibility and functional purpose as an ancillary garden structure, but they fall short of the Strategic Plan's aspiration to raise architectural quality and integrate development with its context.
7.4 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT 7.4.1 Flood related policies within the Strategic plan, Environment Policies 10 and 13 and General Policy 2(l), require that development avoids unreasonable flood risk and does not create unacceptable risk either on or off-site. Where potential risk exists, proposals should demonstrate appropriate mitigation.
==== PAGE 7 ====
25/90787/B
Page 7 of 10
7.4.2 The site lies adjacent to an area identified on the Department's flood mapping as being at high fluvial and tidal risk. The existing dwelling falls within this zone; however, the proposed tourist accommodation would be located on a raised garden area outside the mapped flood- prone extent. The building involves no significant excavation or alteration to existing levels, and surface water will continue to discharge to permeable ground or existing garden drainage, maintaining the current regime.
7.4.3 In considering these circumstances, DOI Flood Risk Management acknowledged the raised siting and limited ground disturbance and confirmed they do not oppose the development. Their advice focuses on occupant safety rather than structural risk: they recommend that a flood evacuation plan be prominently displayed within the building to ensure preparedness in the event of a flood. This recommendation reflects the residual risk associated with the wider setting, even though the proposed footprint lies outside the mapped flood-prone area.
7.4.4 Taking these factors together, the raised position of the building, the retention of existing drainage arrangements, and the advice from DOI FRM, the proposal does not introduce an unacceptable risk of flooding either on or off-site. Compliance with Environment Policies 10 and 13 and General Policy 2(l) can therefore be secured by imposing a condition requiring the display of a flood evacuation plan within the building.
7.5 HIGHWAY SAFETY AND PARKING PROVISION 7.5.1 In assessing developments that seek to integrate new uses with existing uses, particularly in built-up areas where parking provision is limited, it is important that highway safety and parking provisions are duly considered, as they form part of a broader objective to ensure development functions efficiently within its urban context while supporting sustainable patterns of movement. To this end, General Policy 2(f) establishes the baseline requirement that proposals avoid prejudice to highway safety and provide access and parking that are proportionate and practical. Building on this, Transport Policies 1 and 4 embed these principles within a sustainable movement hierarchy, prioritising locations with public transport access and encouraging modal shift away from private car dependency, while Transport Policy 7 ensures that parking provision reflects the intensity and character of the proposed use. Taken together, these policies require that development contributes to a coherent and safe movement framework while respecting the operational realities of its setting.
7.5.2 Against this policy backdrop, the site currently provides two allocated parking spaces within a paved area on the south side of the dwelling, secured under PA 14/00928/B. This satisfies the Strategic Plan's minimum standard for private residential use as set out in Appendix 7. However, the proposal seeks to introduce tourist accommodation within the curtilage, which creates an additional layer of parking demand should visitors arrive by car. No supplementary parking is proposed, and the development does not alter existing vehicular access arrangements. This raises a material question of whether the existing provision remains proportionate when assessed against the combined residential and tourist use.
7.5.3 The Department of Infrastructure Highways has confirmed that the proposal would have no significant adverse impact on highway safety, network functionality, or parking provision. Their assessment gives weight to the site's sustainable location within Peel town centre, where reliance on private car use can reasonably be reduced. However, this advice does not override the Strategic Plan's expectation that parking provision should reflect the intensity of use. In this case, adequacy must be judged in the context of potential short-stay occupancy and the likelihood of visitor car ownership, which remains plausible given the Island's travel patterns.
7.5.4 The property's proximity to the House of Manannan bus stop (approximately 47 metres) is material to this assessment. Ready access to public transport supports compliance with Transport Policy 1 and Strategic Policy 10, which seek to promote integrated journeys and
==== PAGE 8 ====
25/90787/B
Page 8 of 10
reduce car dependency. While this locational advantage mitigates some risk of overspill parking, it cannot guarantee modal shift for all tourist occupants, particularly those arriving from off-Island with vehicles.
7.5.5 Drawing these factors together, the proposal is acceptable in highway safety terms and benefits from a sustainable location. However, the absence of additional parking provision introduces a residual risk of overspill demand, which weighs against the scheme under Transport Policy 7. On balance, this risk is considered manageable given the limited scale of the tourist unit, the availability of public transport, and the absence of objection from DOI Highways. Compliance with General Policy 2(f) and Transport Policies 1, 4, and 7 is achievable only on the basis that the proposed unit remains ancillary in character and its modest occupancy. To safeguard this position, a condition restricting independent occupation and requiring retention of the approved internal layout is essential. Without such control, the risk of intensification, and the associated pressure on parking provision, would undermine the planning balance and conflict with Transport Policy 7.
7.6 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING AMENITY 7.6.1 With regard to potential impacts on neighbours as a result of the new development, it is considered that General Policy 2(d) requires that development does not unreasonably harm the amenities of neighbouring properties through overlooking, loss of privacy, or other adverse effects. Business Policy 13 reinforces this principle by stipulating that permission for tourist use will only be granted where it can be demonstrated that such use does not compromise the amenities of neighbouring residents. These policies operate together to ensure that proposals introducing new or intensified uses within established residential areas maintain acceptable privacy relationships and avoid undue intrusion.
7.6.2 The proposed garden building incorporates a sleep deck positioned above the sitting area, accessed via a compact ladder stair. The submitted plans confirm that the base of the sleep deck window sits approximately 2.9 metres above garden level, with the building itself raised on a platform approximately 500 mm above the upper garden. This results in an effective eye-level height well above the boundary treatment, which consists of rendered walls and timber fencing. The front elevation of the building faces toward the rear of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling (Stumbleholme), and while the primary outlook is angled toward the host garden, the elevated position of the sleep deck window introduces a realistic potential for oblique views across the northern boundary.
7.6.3 Site observations during visit to the property reinforce this concern. Standing on the existing raised garden platform already affords clear views over the timber boundary into the neighbouring garden and toward rear-facing windows of the adjacent dwelling. The sleep deck window, positioned nearly a metre higher than this vantage point, would materially increase the scope and depth of these views, creating a sustained opportunity for overlooking rather than incidental glimpses. This risk is not mitigated by the orientation of the bed, as there is no certainty about how occupants will choose to sleep or use the space. Tourists may prefer to face the lower deck for conversation or reposition themselves for comfort, meaning the potential for overlooking remains inherent in the design.
7.6.4 While the scale of the building and its contained siting mitigate wider visual impacts, the introduction of an elevated opening within a compact urban garden context represents a material change in the privacy relationship between the two properties. The Strategic Plan does not prohibit such arrangements outright, but it requires that they be assessed against the reasonable expectations of privacy in established residential areas. Business Policy 13 adds a further layer of scrutiny: the proposed tourist use cannot be supported if it compromises neighbouring amenity. In this case, the physical capability for overlooking from the sleep deck window directly engages that policy test, irrespective of how the internal space is used.
==== PAGE 9 ====
25/90787/B
Page 9 of 10
7.6.5 On balance, the proposal introduces a material risk of overlooking that cannot be dismissed, given the elevated position of the sleep deck window and the compact relationship between the two properties. While this risk could theoretically be mitigated through design changes such as obscure glazing or restricted openings, no such measures have been proposed as part of the proposal for consideration. Therefore, it is considered that the development fails to demonstrate full compliance with Business Policy 13 and General Policy 2(d), as the elevated vantage point would compromise privacy and erode the amenity of the adjoining property. This weighs significantly against the proposal in the planning balance.
7.7 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS (Visitor Economy Strategy 2022-2032, Policy on Non-Serviced Accommodation 2019) 7.7.1 The Isle of Man Visitor Economy Strategy 2022-2032 sets ambitious targets to grow annual visitor numbers to 500,000 by 2032 and increase the economic contribution of the visitor economy to £520 million. Achieving these targets requires a significant uplift in accommodation capacity and quality, including 500 new or transformed hotel and serviced bedrooms and 500 new units of distinctive, contemporary, eco-friendly non-serviced accommodation. The Policy on the Development of Non-Serviced Accommodation (2019) supports this by encouraging diversification of visitor accommodation types to attract new markets and extend the season.
7.7.2 The proposal would provide a single self-contained unit capable of short-stay occupation, which nominally aligns with the policy direction to broaden accommodation choice. However, its contribution is very limited in scale and does not exhibit the distinctive, sustainable qualities envisaged by the Visitor Economy Strategy. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate engagement with the Department for Enterprise or alignment with strategic priorities.
7.7.3 While this limited alignment carries some weight in favour of the development, it is substantially outweighed by conflict with broader Strategic Plan policies that require high- quality design, protection of local character, and safeguarding of residential amenity. These policies have greater statutory weight and form the primary basis for decision-making. Accordingly, the strategic benefit is marginal and does not alter the overall planning balance.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposal offers some positive aspects: it is contained within an established residential curtilage, benefits from proximity to Peel's cultural assets, and is acceptable in terms of flood risk and highway safety subject to conditions. Its modest scale and screened siting limit wider visual intrusion, and the scheme nominally aligns with the policy direction to diversify visitor accommodation. These factors weigh moderately in favour of the development.
8.2 However, these benefits are substantially outweighed by significant shortcomings. While visual impact is acceptable due to limited visibility, the design does not achieve the quality or contextual sensitivity expected under Strategic Policy 5 and General Policy 2(b and c), offering a neutral rather than positive contribution to the built environment. More critically, the proposal introduces a material risk of overlooking from the elevated sleep deck window, compromising neighbouring amenity contrary to General Policy 2(d) and Business Policy 13. It also falls short of the Strategic Plan's tourism objectives and the Visitor Economy Strategy's emphasis on distinctive, sustainable, and character-led accommodation. Taken together, these conflicts mean the development does not accord with the broader policy framework. Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.
9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).
==== PAGE 10 ====
25/90787/B Page 10 of 10
9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to: o applicant (in all cases). o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.
9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10.
9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required): o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant); o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure, and the local authority for the area; o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and o in the case of a petition, a single representative.
9.5 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity, they cannot be given the Right to Appeal. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 25.11.2025
Determining Officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/ customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal