22 September 2015 · Planning Committee
Field 431505, St Marks Road, St Marks, Ballasalla, Isle Of Man, IM9 3ag
The proposal was for an L-shaped single-storey house with painted render walls, natural slate roof, traditional chimneys, a 19m frontage, 7.8m depth plus a 7m rear annex, set back 10m from the road on a 0.5 hectare field with existing stables, greenhouse and paddocks.
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 acknowledged considerable sympathy for the applicant's overcrowded living conditions in a 3-bedroom house with a family of seven and his medical condition requiring a single-storey home, b…
Strategic Policy 2 - Priority for new development to identified towns and villages
Requires new development primarily in towns/villages or sustainable extensions, countryside only in exceptional cases per para 6.3. Officer assessed site as open countryside outside zoned areas, proposal conflicts fundamentally as it directs housing away from sustainable locations.
Spatial Policy 5
New development within defined settlements, countryside only per General Policy 3. Site not in settlement, no GP3 exception met, thus policy failed.
General Policy 3
Prohibits development outside zoned areas except specific cases (e.g. ag housing, redundant buildings). Proposal does not fit any exception; personal circumstances not listed, key failure tipping to refusal.
Environment Policy 1
Protects countryside for its own sake, development only if overriding national need with no alternative. No such need demonstrated; sympathy for applicant but policy not set aside.
Strategic Policy 10
Promotes integrated transport minimising car use. Remote site likely increases private vehicle reliance, conflicting with policy aims.
Housing Policy 4
New housing primarily in towns/villages, countryside only for ag housing, conversions or replacements. Proposal new build in countryside without qualifying exception.
Supports due to extenuating personal circumstances, unique family situation with family-owned land and building skills, offers lifetime occupancy guarantee, sensitive design, cites precedents where personal needs overruled policy.
No objection subject to visibility splays of 2.4 x 120 metres.
No objection to plans, recommends tree protection if approved.
Malew Parish Commissioners object to the proposal due to conflict with Isle of Man Strategic Plan policies on development outside zoned areas; Highways have no objection subject to visibility splay conditions; Arboricultural Officer comments relate primarily to a different application.
Key concern: proposed development is in an area not zoned for development in the Southern Area Plan
Doug Chalk (Arboricultural Officer)
No CommentThe plans submitted show 3 trees and their locations. No additional information is given so I am unable to comment on their type, size, maturity, or quality. There does not appear to be any proposed loss of trees. In view of this, I expect DEFA would have no objection to the extension provided that the three trees are protected against damage.
Malew Parish Commissioners
ObjectionThe Board, by a majority, objects to this proposal; Whilst the Commissioners have sympathy for the applicant's personal circumstances, this application is in fundamental conflict with the policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
DOI Highways
Conditional No ObjectionDNOC - Visibility splays of 2.4 x 120 metres in both directions over land within the ownership of the applicant
Conditions requested: Visibility splays of 2.4 x 120 metres in both directions over land within the ownership of the applicant
The original application (15/00841/B, revised from 14/00761/B) for a single-storey dwelling was refused by the Planning Committee on 22 September 2015 for conflicts with Strategic Plan policies protecting countryside, lack of General Policy 3 exceptions, transport impacts, and visual impact from access. Appellant argued exceptional personal circumstances including severe overcrowding in 3-bedroom public housing, Mr Reubens' medical condition post-brain tumour surgery requiring ground-floor facilities, no viable housing alternatives, and precedents. Council defended refusal citing policy primacy despite sympathy. Inspector found low rural harm but severe housing stress, no strong case for full single-storey need but proportionality favoured approval on fine balance. Recommended allowing appeal with conditions.
Precedent Value
Sets narrow precedent that finely-balanced severe housing stress with exhausted alternatives can exceptionally override countryside policy if harm low; applicants must exhaust public housing (including flexibility), provide robust need evidence early, minimise impact, distinguish from precedents.
Inspector: Alan Langton DipTP CEng MRTPI MICE MCJHT
