15 April 2010 · Senior Planning Officer (delegated under Article 3(13) of the Town and Country (Development Procedure) Order 2005), signed by Mrs P Faragher, Deputy Secretary to the Planning Committee
Hampton Court, Quines Hill, Port Soderick, Isle Of Man, IM4 1az
The proposal sought permission to change the use of the ground floor of the east wing of the existing detached dwelling at Hampton Court, including the library, garage, bathroom, orangery, and kitchen, to a corporate conference facility available for hire, accommodating up to 20 people for meetings typically between 09…
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 assessed the proposal as a form of office development (conference facility) and found it contrary to the principle of sustainable development in Strategic Policy 1, which requires optimisi…
Strategic Policy 1
Requires development to optimise previously developed land, ensure efficient site use with access/amenity standards, and locate to utilise existing/planned infrastructure/services minimising journeys. Officer found proposal failed as rural site requires additional travel by users/services, not utilising infrastructure efficiently.
Strategic Policy 10
Requires new development located/designed to promote integrated transport minimising car journeys, maximising public transport, protecting highway safety, encouraging walking. Rural location fails sustainability test as trips cannot be absorbed like in urban centres.
Business Policy 7
New office floorspace in town/village centres on zoned land; exceptions for business parks (headquarters no callers) or historic buildings where office is best viable use. Site not zoned, not town/village, no exceptional circumstances claimed/met.
No objection
Do not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications
The original application PA10/00266/C for change of use of the east wing of Hampton Court, a historic dwelling in rural Braddan, to corporate use was refused by Senior Planning Officer due to conflict with Strategic Policies 1, 10 and Business Policy 7 requiring office uses in town centres. Appellant argued the building's historic/architectural merit qualified for the policy exception as the only viable means to fund maintenance after £1m restoration and failed prior applications. Council defended refusal citing unsustainable rural location and prior refused precedent at The Rowans. Inspector found the building met 'acknowledged architectural or historic interest' per Business Policy 7(b), limited use had minimal impact, and it was the most practicable economic solution for upkeep. Minister accepted Inspector's recommendation to allow the appeal on 14 July 2010 with a 4-year commencement condition.
Precedent Value
Demonstrates exceptions in Business Policy 7(b) viable for heritage buildings even unregistered if criteria met; low-intensity corporate uses in rural historic homes can succeed where daily offices fail; future applicants should provide comprehensive restoration costs, failed alternatives evidence and heritage documentation.
Inspector: David Ward
