30 July 2010 · Minister (on appeal), confirming Planning Committee refusal
The Creggan And 54 Acres Of Land At Tholt Y Will, Tholt Y Will Road, Tholt Y Will, Sulby, Isle Of Man, IM7 2bf
The proposal sought retrospective permission for a 370 metre long track, 1-2m wide surfaced in woodchip, including a 1.8m wide by 13m long low-level timber walkway/bridge over waterlogged areas on the south bank of the Sulby River in two fields totalling about 11 acres.
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 Planning Committee refused because the track constituted development contrary to General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1, protecting the countryside for its own sake, with no satisfactory justif…
General Policy 3
Restricts development outside zoned areas except specific exceptions including (h) buildings or works for interpretation of countryside, wildlife or heritage. Officer considered possible under 3(h) but inspector ruled it applies to public access, not private family use; Committee found no overriding justification for countryside development.
Environment Policy 1
Protects countryside for its own sake. Refusal reason directly cites conflict with no justification to override; inspector noted path changes landscape despite low visibility.
Environment Policy 2
Protects Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance unless development does not harm character/quality or location is essential. Site within such area; officer found no harm due to screening, woodchip blending and distance (40m) from opposite public path, but inspector found it creates man-made ledge harming valley character, with no essential need shown.
Approved
Do not oppose
Private residents objected due to impact on quality of life and tourism business, while Highways Division had no objection on traffic grounds and Lezayre Parish Commissioners approved by majority vote; one resident raised planning questions without clear objection.
Key concern: detrimental to quality of life and tourism business
Corrody Cottage (Neil & Carol Hutchinson)
Objectionwe the residents of the Old School House, Tholt-Y-Will which directly faces fields 134742 and 133470 on the application, wish to object; This suggests that the track is not fit for purpose; we therefore feel that this is not only development in the countryside, but construction of vehicular access with change of use
Ian K Bleasdale, Glebe Cottage
No Comment"Personal lifestyle land" is not a land-use recognised in Planning Law; Are both unacceptable visual intrusions into the landscape coupled with unacceptable 'uses'?; We merely wish to raise these questions, leaving the Planning Authority to adjudicate
Lezayre Parish Commissioners
SupportApproved 3-1 Majority
Highways Division
No ObjectionDo not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implication
The original application for retrospective approval of a 370m woodchip track and 13m timber walkway on 11 acres of private fields in an Area of High Landscape Value was refused by the Planning Committee despite officer recommendation for approval, citing conflict with countryside protection policies and highway safety/access concerns. The appellant argued the path enabled disabled family access for private picnics, fell under General Policy 3(h) for countryside interpretation, caused no visual harm, and compared to forestry paths. The inspector, after site visit, found the path created a man-made ledge altering the landscape, did not qualify under GP3(h) as it was private not public use, conflicted with Environment Policies 1 & 2, and lacked authorised access over non-owned land. Both issues were decisive, leading to recommendation to dismiss; the Minister accepted this, confirmed refusal, and directed restoration by removing the bridge and surfacing.
Precedent Value
Appeals for minor rural tracks in AHLV must demonstrate public benefit under GP3(h), not private use, and secure full access rights; limited visibility insufficient if alters landscape character. Future applicants should submit access proposals with ownership evidence and emphasise public/wildlife interpretation over personal need.
Inspector: John S Turner
