Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90081/B
Page 1 of 13
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90081/B Applicant : Ballalheaney Properties Limited Proposal : Extension to the curtilage to create a landscaped garden with terraced decking, external sauna, spa pools and glazed garden pod. Creation of a service yard and erection of a prefabricated service building to house the filtration equipment for the proposed spa pools Site Address : Brightlife Ballalheaney Andreas Road Andreas Isle Of Man IM7 4EN
Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 30.04.2025 Site Visit : 30.04.2025 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 14.07.2025 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposal represents an unjustified encroachment into undeveloped agricultural land outside any designated settlement boundary. It fails to meet the criteria for exceptions under General Policy 3 and does not demonstrate an overriding need or operational necessity for development beyond the existing curtilage. Notably, the Brightlife site comprises a substantial landholding with ample space within the current curtilage to accommodate modest expansion. The applicant has not provided evidence of spatial or operational constraints that would preclude development within the existing boundary. As such, the proposal conflicts with Environment Policy 1, which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake, and Strategic Policy 2, which directs new development to towns and villages. The failure to explore less harmful alternatives within the existing site further undermines the proposal's acceptability. The scheme is therefore contrary to the spatial strategy and countryside protection objectives of the Strategic Plan.
R 2. The proposed extension introduces built structures, hard landscaping, and curated garden features into a currently open and visually distinct rural setting. This results in a loss of openness and a domestication of the landscape that undermines the rural character of the area. The development fails to respect the site's context and landscape setting, contrary to General Policy 2(b, c, f), Environment Policy 1, Strategic Policy 4, and Strategic Policy 5, which require development to protect or enhance the landscape quality and rural character of the countryside.
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90081/B
Page 2 of 13
R 3. The proposal affects land classified as Class 3/2 under the Isle of Man Agricultural Land Use Capability Map, which may include areas of higher-quality soils. No soil survey has been submitted to confirm the land's value, and no compelling justification has been provided for why the development could not be accommodated within the existing curtilage. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Environment Policy 14, which seeks to prevent the unnecessary loss of potentially productive agricultural land.
R 4. The application lacks an ecological appraisal, bat survey, or lighting impact assessment, despite the proximity of the development to mature trees and boundary vegetation with potential ecological value. This omission fails to satisfy the precautionary principle and does not demonstrate compliance with General Policy 2(d), Environment Policies 3, 4, and 5, and Strategic Policy 4, which require development to avoid harm to protected species, habitats, and ecological corridors. __
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: o DOI Highway Services - No objection
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should NOT be given the Right to Appeal because: o Clareville, Andreas Road, Andreas - Objection does not set out in relation to material planning considerations, an impact of the proposal on the lawful use of their land (A10(2)(c)) __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site comprises the curtilage of the Brightlife Spa and Conference Facility, located approximately one mile southeast of Andreas Village. The facility is set within a rural landscape characterised by open agricultural fields, mature hedgerows, and scattered farmsteads. The site is accessed via a private driveway approximately 275 metres in length, which branches from Andreas Road. A separate exit driveway, measuring around 183 metres, also connects to Andreas Road, providing a looped access arrangement.
1.2 The Brightlife complex includes a series of converted outbuildings and dwellings arranged around landscaped grounds. The buildings exhibit a blend of traditional and contemporary architectural styles, featuring white-rendered and natural stone facades, pitched roofs, and, in some cases, large glazed openings that offer expansive views across the adjacent fields. The main building to which the proposed development would be attached is a modern structure with a white-rendered finish, stone base, and large windows. It is set within a well- maintained lawn, with mature trees and ornamental planting contributing to the landscaped setting. A large ivy-covered tree stands prominently near the building, and several other trees and shrubs are distributed along the boundary with Field 124699, which lies to the north of the application site.
1.3 The site is surrounded by agricultural land, with boundaries defined by post-and-wire fencing and mature vegetation. A mix of trees, hedgerows, and shrubs provides natural screening and reinforces the rural character. The southern boundary, in particular, separates the site of the proposed development from the adjacent field and maintains a clear distinction between non-agricultural and agricultural land uses. The surrounding landscape includes open fields, distant hills, and a backdrop of mature vegetation, creating a tranquil and scenic environment.
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90081/B
Page 3 of 13
1.4 The 1860s historic map identifies the site within the vicinity of Ballakheaney and Knockeane, showing a well-established pattern of land division and rural access routes. The presence of numbered plots and named holdings reflects the site's long-standing agricultural use and its contribution to the heritage landscape. The current layout largely retains elements of its historic character, particularly in the alignment of boundaries, although there has been a gradual shift of the boundary to the southwest.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for extension to the curtilage to create a landscaped garden with terraced decking, external sauna, spa pools and glazed garden pod. Creation of a service yard and erection of a prefabricated service building to house the filtration equipment for the proposed spa pools.
2.2 The proposed works would include: i. Extension of Site Boundary: The scheme seeks to extend the site area beyond the existing curtilage, incorporating additional agricultural land into the domestic garden setting. This would increase the curtilage by about 510sqm beyond the current boundary defined by the existing post and wire fence on the boundary. Built development would sit further of the current boundary by 6.5m on the western boundary and about 3m on the southern boundary, covering an area measuring 259sqm outside this boundary.
ii. Creation of raised terrace areas that would sit forward of the existing building that sits southwest of the site boundary to support new outdoor spa facilities. a. The larger patio area would measure about 103sqm, be about 1.4m tall and be served by flag steps to the south and north. This raised patio area would have glass balustrades on its southern elevation. This terrace would support a Sauna (4.4m x 3.5m), ice baths, a spa pool measuring 2.7m x 2.8m, a new glazed vestibule (1.8m x 2m). b. The lower terrace area would measure about 38.7sqm and be split by flag steps into two areas measuring 28.87sqm and 9.9sqm. This terrace area would sit about 870mm about the ground level and support a new circular Spa pool partially recessed into the terrace. The spa pool would have a diameter measuring about 3m. c. Then terraces would be enclosed by a 2.1m stoned faced wall on the northern side. The sides of the terraces are to have stone face finishing.
iii. Creation of a landscaped garden area beyond the terraced areas. This quiet garden area would have landscaping and garden features such as Bark path, boulders, bench & low planting (grasses etc). A glazed garden pod with timber frame measuring 4m long, 2.3m wide, and2.3m tall would sit in this garden area. A new circular timber boardwalk with seating areas measuring about 4.2m in diameter would also be created in this garden area. The facilities in the garden area would be connected by new timber boardwalks and permeable resin bound pathways with low lighting.
iv. Construction of a prefabricated timber service building (8m x 4.5m x 3.2m high) on a concrete base to house filtration and mechanical equipment.
v. Other works would include: a. Formation of a service yard screened from view by planting and fencing. b. Erection of a Low masonry wall with 1.5m tall hit & miss fence above on the western boundary of the service building. c. Installing new timber sleepers about 1.4m tall above the wall on the side of the terrace area with a combined height of about 2.4m at the tallest point and 1.8m at the lowest point. d. Erection of new Manx Stone low boundary wall to the south of the proposed garden area to redefine the site boundary from the adjoining field. e. New screen planting is to be planted on the side of the timber fences by the fabricated building (specie not defined).
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90081/B
Page 4 of 13
2.3 The application is supported by the following documents: 2.3.1 A supporting Letter received 17 June 2025 which highlights the following: 1. Brightlife is a non-profit wellness centre that relies on guest numbers to remain financially viable. Post-COVID, guest capacity was reduced for comfort, but the proposed garden would allow a return to full capacity (12 guests per session), improving revenue potential. 2. The spa is facing increasing competition from new facilities in Douglas. Without enhancements like the spa garden, bookings may decline further, threatening the centre's sustainability. 3. Closure of Brightlife would result in the loss of 40 local jobs and negatively impact nearby businesses such as the Park Hotel, Milntown, and retail outlets in Ramsey. 4. The proposed development would create additional employment opportunities in maintenance, housekeeping, therapy, and catering. 5. The land in question is a small strip of poor-quality grazing land, often waterlogged, and its conversion to a landscaped garden would enhance biodiversity through native planting. 6. The garden would not include any dwellings or permanent structures, would not be visible to neighbours, and is entirely within the 39-acre property owned by Brightlife. 7. The applicant is willing to accept planning conditions, including: a. A restriction on further encroachment into agricultural land. b. A requirement to return the land to agricultural use if the spa ceases operation. 8. They state that while the land is not zoned for development, planning decisions can consider broader benefits. Precedents are cited (PA 23/00884/C and 25/90339/C) where they consider similar developments were approved due to their limited impact and public benefit. 9. The architect confirms that the proposed development boundary has been reduced by approximately 55% to minimize encroachment, and revised plans have been submitted accordingly. 10. The letter concludes that the benefits of the proposal-including economic sustainability, job protection, ecological enhancement, and minimal visual or practical harm- outweigh the policy presumption against development on non-zoned land.
2.3.2 Correspondence on Lighting and Noise Considerations dated 24 February 2025: This correspondence was provided in response to concerns raised by a neighbour regarding the proposed spa development at Brightlife. The applicant clarified that all external lighting will adhere to IPL guidance on "Bats & artificial lighting at night" to protect wildlife and preserve the Island's dark skies status, and although existing car park lighting is outside the scope of the application, steps are being taken to reduce its impact through repositioning or shielding. Regarding noise, the spa pool filtration equipment will operate at low levels (53 to 64 LpA), be housed in a sound-insulated prefabricated building with an internal masonry wall and include a variable speed pump to minimise overnight noise. Given that the nearest neighbour (Clareville) is approximately 250 metres away, no adverse noise impact is anticipated.
2.4 Other documents include a Design Statement and Planning Statement.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Site Specific: 3.1.1 The site lies within an area zoned as Areas of Private Woodland or Parkland on the 1982 Development Plan which is not zoned for development. The site is not within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, a Conservation Area, or Registered Tree Area, and there are no registered trees on site. Part of the broader site area is prone to flood risk, but the proposed work area is not prone to flood risks. The site sits within Class 3/2 soils on the Agricultural Land use Capability Map of the Isle of Man.
3.2 National: STRATEGIC PLAN (2016)
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90081/B
Page 5 of 13
3.2.1 The Strategic Plan stipulates a general presumption against development in areas which are not designated for a particular purpose and where the protection of the countryside is of paramount importance (EP 1 and GP3). As currently proposed, the scheme also does not pass any of the exemptions for development that would be allowed in the countryside, as the exemptions. However, given that the application site is linked with an existing complex with building and facilities associated with the Brightlife Spa and Conference Facility within the countryside location, it would be relevant to consider the general development considerations articulated in General Policy 2.
3.3 Other Relevant Strategic Plan Policies: 1. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations. 2. General Policy 3 - Exceptions to development in the countryside. 3. Environment Policy 1 - Protection of the countryside and inherent ecology. 4. Environment Policy 3 - Seeks to prevent unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value. 5. Environment Policy 4 - Protection of species and habitats. 6. Environment Policy 5 - Mitigation against damage to or loss of habitats 7. Environment Policy 14 - Seeks to prevent the permanent loss of important and versatile agricultural land (Classes 1-2). 8. Environment Policy 22 - No support for development that would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties. 9. Business Policy 1 - The growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island will be encouraged provided that development proposals accord with the policies of this Plan. 10. Business Policy 11 - stipulates that tourism development must be in accordance with the sustainable development objectives of this plan; and requires that policies and designations which seek to protect the countryside from development will be applied to tourist development with as much weight as they are to other types of development. Within the rural areas there may be situations where existing rural buildings could be used for tourist use and Environment Policy 16 sets out the circumstances where this may be permitted. 11. Transport Policy 1 - Proximity to existing public transportation services 12. Transport Policy 4 - Highway capacity and safety considerations. 13. Transport Policy 7 - Parking Provisions 14. Spatial Policy 5 - Development in countryside only in accordance with General Policy 3. 15. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources (Part A not applicable as the land has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings). 16. Strategic Policy 2 - New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions (2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3. 17. Strategic Policy 4 - development proposals must protect or enhance the nature conservation and landscape quality of urban as well as rural areas. 18. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact. 19. Strategic Policy 8 - requires tourist development to make use of existing built fabric of interest and quality. 20. Strategic Policy 10 - development should promote integrated journeys, minimise car use and facilitate other modes of travel. 21. Infrastructure Policy 5 - Development proposals should incorporate methods for water conservation and management measures to conserve the Island's water resources.
3.4 Area: AREA PLAN FOR THE NORTH AND WEST
3.4.1 It must be noted that at the time of writing, the Draft Area Plan for the North and West is not formally adopted and is only, at this stage, a broad direction of how planning policy is reviewing the areas. Their proposals can still be challenged at a public enquiry where an inspector could reach a different opinion to the drafts. The final draft would also need to be
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90081/B
Page 6 of 13
ratified by COMIN. This means that the 1982 development plan remains the correct land use designation, and no material weight is given to the Draft Area Plan for the North and West.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025 4.1.1 The Department's Biodiversity Strategy is capable of being a material consideration. It seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary.
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.
4.3 Planning Policy Statement (PPS): Planning & the Economy (A Consultation Document February 2012) 4.3.1 "In applying the provisions of the Strategic and Area Plans, particularly General Policy 1 and General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan, the Department will seek proposals to be supported by evidence that demonstrates that the proposed development would secure sustainable, long term economic growth of Island wide benefit, which meets the wider objectives of sustainable development by weighing market and other economic matters alongside environmental and social costs and benefits."
4.3.2 As this is not an adopted policy document, it is of limited weight.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The site has been the subject of 15 previous planning applications, four of which are considered to be materially relevant to the current application: 1. PA 94/00638/B for conversion of redundant farm buildings to self-catering cottage - Approved.
PA 97/01101/B for rebuilding and conversion of outbuildings for guest accommodation, extension of main house for recreational use - Approved.
PA 01/01516/B - for alterations to building to create conference room, administration and therapy centre - Approved.
PA 05/00891/B - internal alterations and erection of boiler house extensions on exiting tourist accommodation - Approved. With approval of this application there was no extension of development into adjoining fields. The southwest portion of the site remained undeveloped and retained its character as open grazing land. No formal landscaping, infrastructure, or built form extended into this area at that time.
PA 13/00295/B for alterations and extension to existing spa and conference facilities - Approved. This marked the first visible encroachment into Field 124189, located directly to the south of the original development. This development represented a shift in land use from agricultural to other uses beyond the original historic boundary.
PA 14/00588/B for alterations and extension to existing spa and conferences facilities (amendments to 13/00295/B) - Approved. The southwest boundary of the site was extended further into Field 124189, with built structures and hard landscaping now occupying a more
==== PAGE 7 ====
25/90081/B
Page 7 of 13
substantial portion of the southern field. This consolidated the earlier expansion and reinforced the transition of the land from open field to developed estate.
5.2 Parking Area Without Evidence of Planning Approval 5.2.1 A review of the site's planning history and the defined red line boundary, which includes the parking area to the north of the spa building and the junction between both driveways, reveals no evidence of planning approval having been granted for this parking area. Google Earth imagery indicates that the area was created sometime between 2012 and 2018, although the exact date is unclear. While this area lies within the red line boundary, it is not included as part of the current proposed development and as such is not being assessed. This statement is made without prejudice to any rights that may exist under Section 24 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, including the right to apply for a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development (CLEUD), should the relevant criteria be satisfied.
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 existing accesses, proposed internal layout and parking provision on-site is acceptable for the proposals (30 January 2025).
6.2 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team have not made any comments on the application although they were consulted on 24.02.2025 and 19.06.2025.
6.3 DEFA Forestry have not made any comments on the application although they were consulted on 24.02.2025 and 19.06.2025.
6.4 Andreas Parish Commissioners have not made any comments on the application although they were consulted on 14.02.2025 and 19.06.2025.
6.5 The owners/occupiers of Clareville, Andreas Road, have made the following comments on the application (31 January 2025): 1. They note that the site lies within a designated Dark Skies area, and as such no floodlighting should be permitted. 2. All external lighting should be restricted to low-level, downward-facing fixtures to minimise light pollution and preserve the dark skies designation. 3. The existing 11-space car park features high-level lighting that impacts the surrounding area and should be retrofitted with low-level alternatives. 4. Additional landscaping should be introduced to mitigate the visual and environmental impact of the car park lighting. 5. The rural setting means sound travels easily, especially at night, so any new filtration or mechanical equipment must not generate noise that negatively affects neighbouring properties. 6. Appropriate noise attenuation measures should be included to ensure operational sound levels remain consistent with rural ambient noise, particularly during nighttime hours.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The key considerations in the assessment of this planning application are; 1. The Principle of the Proposed Development (General Policy 3; Environment Policy 1; Strategic Policy 1; Strategic Policy 2; Spatial Policy 5; Business Policy 1; Business Policy 11); 2. Visual and Landscape Impacts of the Proposal (General Policy 2(b, c, f, g); Strategic Policy 4(b); Environment Policy 3; Strategic Policy 5); 3. Potential Impacts on Highway Safety (General Policy 2(h, i); Transport Policy 4; Transport Policy 7; Strategic Policy 10); 4. Impacts on Ecology (General Policy 2(d); Environment Policies 1, 3, 4, 5; Strategic Policy 4)
==== PAGE 8 ====
25/90081/B
Page 8 of 13
5. Loss of Agricultural Soils (Environment Policy 14; Strategic Policy 2; General Policy 3; Agricultural Soils Study 2001)
7.2 It is not considered that the scheme, as currently proposed, would result in adverse impacts on neighbouring amenity, given the separation distances to nearby properties, over 230 metres to the southeast and 251 metres to the northwest. The intervening vegetation would also help to mitigate any potential concerns regarding neighbour impact.
7.3 THE PRINCIPLE 7.3.1 The application site lies outside any designated settlement boundary and is not zoned for development. As such, the proposal must be assessed against the presumption against development in the countryside set out in General Policy 3, which only permits development in exceptional circumstances. The proposed development does not involve the reuse of redundant rural buildings, nor does it fall within any of the other exceptions listed under General Policy 3 (e.g. essential agricultural buildings, mineral extraction, or overriding national need). It therefore represents a departure from the policy framework unless a compelling justification can be demonstrated.
7.3.2 When viewed from the lens of Environment Policy 1 which clearly states that the countryside should be protected for its own sake, and that development which would adversely affect it will not be permitted unless there is an overriding need and no reasonable alternative, it is considered that the applicant has not demonstrated why the proposed spa garden and associated structures cannot be accommodated within the existing curtilage of the Brightlife complex. The site has sufficient land within its current boundary to support modest expansion, and no operational or spatial constraints have been identified that would necessitate encroachment into the surrounding field. Therefore, further presumptions against the development as proposed is reinforced by EP1.
7.3.3 While Business Policy 11 supports tourism development in rural areas, it does so only where such development aligns with the sustainable development objectives of the plan and does not conflict with countryside protection policies. It also emphasises the reuse of existing rural buildings, which is not the case here. It is also worth noting that the proposal conflicts with Strategic Policy 2, which directs new development to towns and villages, and with Spatial Policy 5, which only permits countryside development in accordance with General Policy 3. The development also fails to make efficient use of land as encouraged by Strategic Policy 1, given the availability of space within the existing curtilage.
7.3.4 The proposed extension of the curtilage represents a material change in land use, extending the operational boundary of the spa facility into previously undeveloped agricultural land. While General Policy 3 allows for development associated with existing buildings, this provision is typically interpreted to support minor ancillary works that do not alter the character or function of the land. In this case, the proposed extension would introduce a suite of built structures, hard landscaping, and formalised garden features that would significantly domesticate the currently open and rural setting. The scale and intensity of the proposed use go beyond what would reasonably be considered incidental to the existing spa use and instead constitute a substantive expansion of the developed estate.
7.3.5 The applicant has cited precedent cases, including applications 25/90339/C and 23/00884/C, to support the principle of curtilage extension. However, these cases involved domestic garden extensions to private dwellings, where the land remained open, green, and visually permeable, often used for passive gardening or lawn space. In contrast, the current proposal introduces commercial activity, multiple structures, and a curated landscape that materially alters the land's character and function. The cited precedents are therefore not directly comparable and do not justify a departure from the policy framework in this instance. The proposed curtilage extension does not align with the intent of General Policy 3 or Strategic
==== PAGE 9 ====
25/90081/B
Page 9 of 13
Policy 2, which seek to protect the countryside from incremental development creep and to direct new development to designated areas.
7.3.6 In summary, the proposal fails to meet the policy tests for development in the countryside. It does not fall within any of the defined exceptions under General Policy 3, nor has the applicant demonstrated an overriding justification that would warrant a departure from the established policy framework. The proposed curtilage extension involves the incorporation of agricultural land into the operational area of the spa facility. This constitutes a material change of use that is not incidental to the existing operation and introduces a level of development that conflicts with the strategic objectives of countryside protection. When considered alongside the availability of land within the existing curtilage and the absence of a clear operational necessity for expansion into undeveloped land, the proposal is not supported by the relevant policies of the Strategic Plan. The principle of development is therefore not acceptable in policy terms.
7.3 VISUAL AND LANDSCAPE IMPACTS 7.4.1 In assessing the visual and landscape impacts of the proposed development, it is considered that the scheme introduces a series of built and landscaped elements, including raised terraces, spa pools, a glazed garden pod, a service yard, and a prefabricated service building, extending approximately 6.5 metres beyond the existing western boundary and 3 metres beyond the southern boundary of the established spa curtilage. These works would occupy land that is currently open, undeveloped, and visually distinct from the operational area of the spa.
7.4.2 The existing boundary between the spa complex and the surrounding countryside is clearly defined by a combination of open lawn, mature vegetation, and a simple post-and-wire fence. The spatial gaps between the existing buildings and the absence of built form beyond the fence contribute to a soft and legible transition between the developed spa curtilage and the adjacent agricultural land. This rural edge is reinforced by the visual continuity of open fields and grazing land, as evidenced during the site visit. The proposed development would override this transition, replacing it with a curated and semi-domestic landscape comprising terraces, spa structures, and formalised garden features. This shift is inconsistent with the aims of Environment Policy 1, which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake and prevent development that would adversely affect its openness and rural qualities.
7.4.3 Although the proposal incorporates natural materials, native planting, and low-level lighting, and would not be readily visible from public viewpoints, the cumulative effect of the built structures and hard landscaping would significantly alter the character of the site. The development would no longer read as a rural wellness facility integrated into its landscape setting, but as a curated and intensively used garden environment. This conflicts with General Policy 2(b, c, f), which requires development to respect the character of the site and surroundings in terms of layout, scale, and landscape integration, and to incorporate existing topography and landscape features where possible. Importantly, the absence of public visibility does not diminish the policy impact. As made clear in Environment Policy 1 and the supporting text to Strategic Policy 5 (paragraph 4.3.11), the countryside is to be protected for its own sake, and development that undermines its openness and rural qualities is not supported unless there is an overriding national need. The proposal does not meet this threshold and fails to make a positive contribution to the environment, as required by Strategic Policy 5.
7.4.4 The proposal also conflicts with Strategic Policy 4, which requires development to protect or enhance the landscape quality of rural areas. The domestication of this currently open field, through the introduction of built form, terraces, and curated landscaping, would not enhance the landscape but would instead diminish its rural character and spatial continuity.
7.4.5 In conclusion, the visual and landscape impacts of the proposal are not acceptable in policy terms. The development would result in unjustified encroachment into the countryside, a
==== PAGE 10 ====
25/90081/B Page 10 of 13
loss of openness, and a significant erosion of rural character, contrary to the objectives of the Strategic Plan.
7.5 HIGHWAY SAFETY & PARKING 7.5.1 With regard to highway safety and parking impacts, it is considered that the proposed development would not alter the existing access arrangements to the site, which is served by a one-way system from the A9. No new access points are proposed, and the internal circulation remains unchanged. The site benefits from a number of parking provisions spread across the site, including the parking spaces near the main house and accommodation courtyard. There is also sufficient room within the broader site to accommodate more parking provision should they be required, based on currently available information.
7.5.2 Further to the above, the Department of Infrastructure (Highways) has advised that the proposal would have no significant negative impact on highway safety, network functionality, or parking provision. This conclusion is based on the acceptability of the existing accesses, internal layout, and on-site parking provision and aligns with the requirements of Transport Policy 4, which seeks to ensure that new development is served by highways capable of accommodating vehicle and pedestrian movements in a safe and appropriate manner.
7.5.3 While the applicant states that guest numbers will remain capped at 12 per session, the supporting documents confirm that current operations are below this level and that the proposal is intended to enable a return to full capacity. The development is also expected to generate additional staffing, which may result in increased vehicle movements and servicing activity. These changes are not quantified, and no transport assessment has been submitted to demonstrate how these would be accommodated within the site. Nonetheless, the presence of undeveloped space suggests capacity for increased parking provision if required.
7.5.4 On balance, the proposal is not considered to raise immediate highway safety concerns, given that it relies on established access arrangements and existing on-site parking infrastructure. Although the development would lead to a modest intensification of use, particularly in relation to staffing and servicing activity, no objections have been raised by the Department of Infrastructure (Highways), who consider the access, layout, and parking provision to be acceptable. While no transport assessment has been submitted to fully quantify the potential changes, the available space within the site offers scope to accommodate any increased parking demand. As such, the proposal is judged to be acceptable in highway safety and parking terms.
7.5 BIODIVERSITY AND TREE IMPACTS 7.6.1 The application site lies within the open countryside and is not subject to any formal ecological or conservation designation. However, this does not diminish its policy protection. Environment Policy 1 establishes that the countryside and its ecology are to be protected for their own sake, and that development which would adversely affect them will not be permitted unless there is an overriding national need. No such need has been demonstrated in this case, and the proposal must therefore be assessed against the presumption against ecological harm.
7.6.2 The applicant asserts that the site is of low ecological value, comprising managed grassland and a portion of grazed field. However, this conclusion is not supported by any ecological appraisal or survey. In the absence of such evidence, the proposal cannot be said to comply with General Policy 2(d), which requires that development must not adversely affect protected wildlife or locally important habitats on or adjacent to the site. During the site visit, the presence of mature trees, including an ivy-covered specimen, and dense boundary vegetation was noted. These features are commonly associated with nesting birds, invertebrates, and potentially roosting bats. The proposed boundary wall around the service area would sit just 1.2 metres from a mature sodbank and ecological features, further highlighting the proximity of the development to these sensitive features.
==== PAGE 11 ====
25/90081/B Page 11 of 13
7.6.3 This proximity is particularly relevant in the context of Environment Policy 4, which prohibits development that would adversely affect species and habitats of local importance, including those that function as ecological corridors. The applicant's Design Statement acknowledges the potential for bat activity but proposes a survey only if deemed necessary at a later stage. This reactive approach does not satisfy the precautionary principle embedded in Policy 4, which requires that potential impacts be assessed prior to the grant of planning permission.
7.6.4 Furthermore, Environment Policy 3 seeks to prevent the loss or damage of woodland areas of conservation value. While the trees and hedgerows on site may not be formally registered, their ecological function and contribution to the rural character of the area are material considerations. The proposed development, including the service yard and lighting, would be located immediately adjacent to these features, increasing the likelihood of disturbance or degradation. The absence of a tree survey or root protection plan further undermines the ability to assess compliance with this policy.
7.6.5 The proposal also fails to demonstrate how it would meet the requirements of Strategic Policy 4, which requires development to protect or enhance the nature conservation value of rural areas. The proposed lighting scheme, while described as low-impact, has not been assessed in terms of its potential effects on nocturnal species, particularly bats. While the applicant has confirmed in correspondence dated 24 February 2025 that external lighting will follow IPL guidance on bats and artificial lighting, this commitment is not supported by any evidence to identify the type of biota likely to be affected, nor whether the proposed lighting would serve to mitigate any harm that could result. Without such assessment, it cannot be assumed that the development would avoid ecological harm or deliver meaningful biodiversity enhancement. As such, the proposal does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude compliance with Strategic Policy 4 or Environment Policies 4 and 5.
7.6.6 While the absence of an ecological appraisal and lighting assessment weighs against the proposal, it is acknowledged that some of the identified risks may be capable of mitigation through the imposition of planning conditions. These could include a requirement for a pre- commencement ecological appraisal (including bat and bird surveys), a tree protection plan, and a detailed external lighting strategy demonstrating compliance with ILP guidance on bats and artificial lighting. A biodiversity enhancement and management plan could also be secured to ensure the delivery and maintenance of native planting and habitat features. However, the use of conditions to secure mitigation is only appropriate where the likely impacts are understood and can be clearly addressed. In this case, the lack of baseline ecological information limits the ability to conclude that the proposal would comply with General Policy 2(d), Environment Policies 1, 3, 4, and 5, and Strategic Policy 4. As such, the proposal is not supported in biodiversity terms.
7.7 LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL SOILS 7.6.1 The proposed development affects an area of land measuring about 510sqm classified as Class 3/2 under the Isle of Man Agricultural Land Use Capability Map. While this classification does not represent the highest quality agricultural land, it is recognised as a transitional category that may contain areas of both Class 3 and Class 2 soils. As such, it is not always possible to determine precisely which parts of a field fall into which class without site- specific soil analysis (See Paragraph 7.13.1 of the Strategic Plan).
7.6.2 Environment Policy 14 seeks to prevent the permanent loss of Class 1 and 2 soils unless there is an overriding need and no reasonable alternative. While Class 3/2 land is not afforded the same level of protection, its potential to include Class 2-quality soils warrants a precautionary approach. In this case, no soil survey has been submitted to confirm the quality of the affected land, and the applicant has not demonstrated why the proposed development could not be accommodated within the existing curtilage, where land of lesser agricultural value may be available.
==== PAGE 12 ====
25/90081/B Page 12 of 13
7.6.3 The applicant has stated that the land is of poor quality and often waterlogged and has offered to revert it to agricultural use if the spa ceases operation. While this aligns with the mitigation principles of Environment Policy 5, it does not override the requirement under General Policy 3 to avoid unnecessary encroachment into the countryside, particularly where the land may have agricultural value.
7.6.4 In the absence of a soil survey or clear justification for the selection of this specific area, the proposal does not demonstrate that the loss of potentially higher-quality agricultural land has been avoided. The development therefore fails to fully comply with Environment Policy 14, Strategic Policy 2, and General Policy 3, and the loss of agricultural soils cannot be supported on policy grounds.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposed extension of the Brightlife Spa curtilage to accommodate a landscaped garden, spa pools, sauna, and associated infrastructure presents a number of positive attributes. The scheme supports the continued operation of a non-profit wellness facility that contributes to the local economy and employment. It aligns with the Isle of Man Visitor Economy Strategy by enhancing the Island's wellness tourism offer and includes design features such as native planting, low-level lighting, and natural materials that aim to integrate the development into its rural setting. The applicant has also demonstrated a willingness to accept planning conditions to limit future encroachment and mitigate potential impacts.
8.2 However, these benefits are outweighed by significant and unresolved policy conflicts. The proposal constitutes a material change in land use, extending built development into previously undeveloped agricultural land without demonstrating an overriding need or operational necessity. It fails to comply with General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1, which establish a strong presumption against development in the countryside. The development would erode the rural character of the site, introduce a domesticated landscape inconsistent with its surroundings, and result in a loss of openness and visual continuity.
8.3 Furthermore, the absence of ecological surveys, soil assessments, and a comprehensive lighting strategy undermines the ability to assess the proposal's impact on biodiversity and agricultural land. The proximity of development to mature vegetation and potential bat habitats raises concerns under Environment Policies 3, 4, and 5, while the lack of a soil survey limits compliance with Environment Policy 14. Although highway safety is not compromised, the proposal lacks the necessary supporting information to enable the evaluation of the cumulative impact of increased use.
8.4 On balance, while the proposal offers economic and operational benefits, it fails to meet key planning policy requirements relating to countryside protection, ecological safeguarding, and sustainable land use. The development represents an unjustified encroachment into the rural landscape and does not demonstrate compliance with the Strategic Plan. Therefore, refusal is recommended.
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).
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.
==== PAGE 13 ====
25/90081/B Page 13 of 13
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. __
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: 17.07.2025
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