4 August 2014 · Delegated - Head of Development Management
Field 431505, St Marks Road, St Marks, Ballasalla, Isle Of Man, IM9 3ag
This decision was appealedAP14/0060
Appeal dismissed
This decision was appealedAP15/0049
Appeal allowed
The proposal was for a single-storey dwelling with painted render walls, natural slate roof, traditional chimneys, 18.9m frontage, 7.8m depth plus a 7m rear annex, located south of the existing access on a half-hectare field with existing stable and greenhouse.
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 concluded that the principle of a new dwelling in the countryside is contrary to Strategic Plan policies promoting sustainable development in zoned settlements to reduce car dependency and…
Strategic Policy 1
Requires optimising use of previously developed land, efficient site use, and location utilising existing infrastructure. The officer noted the site is an undeveloped field, not previously developed land with redundant buildings, failing the policy test for countryside development.
Strategic Policy 2 - Priority for new development to identified towns and villages
Directs new development primarily to existing towns/villages or sustainable extensions; countryside only in exceptional circumstances. Site is countryside, not within settlements, with no exception applying.
Spatial Policy 5
Permits countryside development only per General Policy 3, prioritising defined settlements. Officer assessed site as undesignated per Area Plan for the South, failing location test.
Strategic Policy 10
Promotes integrated transport by minimising car journeys, using public transport, highway safety. Remote location would increase private car reliance, contrary to policy.
General Policy 3
Prohibits development outside zoned areas except specific exceptions (e.g. agricultural housing, redundant building conversion). Proposal does not qualify under any exception (a-h); previously approved structures are minor and do not make site 'previously developed land with significant buildings'.
Environment Policy 1
Protects countryside for its own sake; development adverse unless overriding national need with no alternative. Officer emphasised no overriding need, personal circumstances insufficient despite sympathy.
Housing Policy 4
Implied in refusal; restricts new housing outside zoned areas, consistent with GP3 exceptions. Cited in prior refusal and current reasons.
Do not object provided that visibility splays of 2.4m by 120m are provided over land within the applicant's ownership and nothing may be planted or built within the splay such that each would be over 1m in height
Ask that the applicant contact them regarding the provision of electricity (not a material planning consideration)
The original application (14/00761/B) for erection of a dwelling at Alder Oaks field was refused due to countryside protection policies. The appellant argued that unique personal circumstances—overcrowded local authority housing for a family of seven, appellant's past brain tumour, no available larger social housing, and family-owned land—should override policy, supported by MHKs and letters. The Council defended refusal citing Strategic Plan policies against countryside development and inability to permanently tie occupation to the family. The inspector found fundamental policy conflict, acknowledged sympathy for circumstances but concluded the permanent dwelling would outlast needs, set precedent for others, and lacked enforceable occupancy mechanism, recommending dismissal.
Precedent Value
Personal/family housing needs alone cannot override strict countryside protection policies without enforceable occupancy restrictions and proof no alternatives exist; appellants must proactively provide legal undertakings, as sympathy is insufficient for permanent structures.
Inspector: Stephen Amos MA (Cantab) MCD MRTPI
