31 May 2011 · Senior Planning Officer (delegated under Article 3(13) of the Town and Country (Development Procedure) Order 2005)
Ash Lodge, Patrick Road, St. Johns, Isle Of Man, IM4 3br
The site is Ash Lodge, a substantial Georgian-style house in rural countryside with approximately 7 acres of grounds including gardens, orchards, livestock areas, and a wooded glen. The proposal sought to demolish a dilapidated existing detached garage/store (described as damp, rodent-infested, and inadequate) and repl…
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 site is in the countryside, not zoned for development, where General Policy 3 strictly limits exceptional development and makes no provision for detached home offices or playrooms.
General Policy 3
GP3 prohibits development outside zoned areas except specific exceptions like essential agricultural buildings. Officer accepted ground-floor storage as essential agriculture but rejected first-floor home office as no provision exists for detached home offices in new rural buildings; the design resulted in dwelling-like appearance, failing the policy test despite low visibility.
Housing Policy 4
HP4 limits new housing in countryside to exceptional cases (e.g. agricultural workers, barn conversions, dwelling replacements). Proposal deemed tantamount to new dwelling due to design and upper accommodation, with no applicable exception; officer noted policy protects against such incremental housing.
Impressed by the support letter; no objection provided a condition limits use to that described (not self-contained living accommodation) as office use would not generate traffic.
Do not oppose; has no adverse traffic management, parking or road safety implications.
The original application (11/00519/B) for erection of a garage/storage building with an upper floor home-office/hobbies room to replace a dilapidated existing garage was refused by the Department of Infrastructure due to its design and first floor accommodation giving the appearance of a new dwelling in the countryside, contrary to GP3 and HP4. Appellants argued the policies were inapplicable, the building complemented the historic house without countryside harm, met family needs better than a house extension, and cited precedents. The inspector accepted the principle of replacement but found specific features like French windows, veranda, porch, and dormers made it too dwelling-like, incrementally harming countryside character despite good design and screening. Policies EN1, GP3, and HP4 were upheld. The Minister concurred with the inspector's recommendation to dismiss the appeal on 20 October 2011.
Precedent Value
Appeals must ensure rural outbuildings avoid any dwelling-like features, even if ancillary and conditioned; assess against countryside policies regardless of visibility or owner intent, as incremental built development harms rural character. Future applicants should prioritise house extensions under HP15 over detached upper-floor additions.
Inspector: Alan Langton
