25 February 2011 · Senior Planning Officer (delegated under Article 3(13) of the Town and Country (Development Procedure) Order 2005)
Field 120259, Smeale, Andreas, Isle Of Man, IM7 3ef
The proposal involved replacing a single-storey stable block and barn within Field 120259, Smeale, Andreas, with a new dwelling on the existing footprint. The site is on the south side of the A10 road, northwest of Andreas village, in an unzoned rural area designated as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Signif…
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 there is a long-established presumption against new residential development in the countryside, reinforced in four ways: the site is unzoned 'white land' under the 1982 Developme…
General Policy 3
Prohibits development outside zoned areas except specific exceptions like agricultural housing, redundant building conversions, or overriding national need. Officer assessed the proposal fails all exceptions as it introduces new housing neither essential for agriculture nor replacing an existing dwelling, in unzoned countryside.
Environment Policy 1
Protects countryside for its own sake, permitting development only for overriding national need with no alternative. Officer found no such need, so proposal adversely affects countryside.
Environment Policy 2
Prioritises landscape character protection in Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value unless development causes no harm or is essential. Site is in such an area; officer judged a dwelling would harm character despite existing buildings.
Housing Policy 4
Directs new housing to towns/villages or sustainable extensions, allowing countryside housing only exceptionally (e.g. agricultural, conversions, replacements). Proposal fits none, creating new rural dwelling.
Environment Policy 22
Prevents unacceptable environmental harm like pollution. Not a primary refusal reason; officer noted no drainage issues but focused on access visuals.
no objections
no objection (informative note only)
The original application (11/00053/A) for approval in principle to erect a dwelling on the footprint of existing barn and stables in open countryside was refused for reasons including conflict with General Policy 3, Housing Policy 4, Environment Policies 1, 2 and 22, and location in an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value. The appellant argued that personal circumstances—needing to accommodate her mother after lease expiry and inability to expand current home—should outweigh policy restrictions, with no visual impact as the dwelling would match the existing footprint and access issues resolvable later. The council defended the refusal emphasising strong policies against non-essential countryside development and precedent risks. The inspector, after a site visit, found the proposal would have unacceptable adverse visual impact due to the new dwelling's appearance in the rural setting and required access changes, deeming personal circumstances insufficient to override policies. The appeal was recommended for dismissal.
Precedent Value
This appeal demonstrates that personal/family circumstances alone do not justify overriding strict countryside development policies; future applicants must demonstrate essential need (e.g. agricultural) or no visual harm, with site visits critical for assessing rural character impacts.
Inspector: John S Turner
