Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
Appeal: AP25/0012
Planning Application: 25/90046/B
__ __
1
Report on an Inquiry into a Planning Appeal
Inquiry: Tuesday 19 August 2025 Site Inspection: Monday 18 August 2025
Appeal made by Daryl Blake Construction Limited against the refusal of a planning application for approval for the erection of a detached bungalow at the Former Pound Lane Depot, Castletown Road, Port St Mary, Isle of Man, IM9 5LT. __
Description
The site lies on the southern side of the A5 Castletown Road between Four Roads, Port St Mary and Bay ny Carrickey, Rushen. It is bounded by stone walls and has an 11m frontage but widens towards the rear. The site is laid to stone hardstanding and is devoid of any built structure or other feature. To the west is a public footpath connecting Castletown Road with Beach Road to the south.
The nearest properties are two small, pitch-roofed bungalows about 50m to the west.
There is stream nearby, passing underneath the highway and the site is identified as subject to a high risk of tidal fluvial flooding.
The proposed 3-bedroom bungalow would have a hipped roof with hipped gable projections. The building would be finished in a combination of dark stone panels, dark grey composite cladding and smooth render under a roof of anthracite coloured roof tiles. Solar panels would be installed on the roof slopes.
The dwelling would be served by the existing access with 2.4m by 47m . visibility splays, including over adjoining land by agreement. There would be parking and turning space to the front and private gardens to the side and rear.
Planning Policy and Guidance
The rural site is undesignated for development. The adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP) contains the following policies of particular relevance to the appeal proposal.
Strategic Policies 1-5 and 10 and Housing Policy 4 (HP4) together state overarching requirements for new residential development to make best of previously developed land (PDL), be located primarily in towns, use local building materials, protect the landscape, contribute positively to the environment and promote sustainable travel.
==== PAGE 2 ====
Appeal: AP25/0012
Planning Application: 25/90046/B
__ __
2
General Policy 2 (GP2) includes requirements that development must: (b-c) respect the site and surrounding landscape in siting, layout, scale and design; (d) protect wildlife; (g) safeguard local amenity; and (h-i) provide safe access and parking.
GP3 and Environment Policy 1(EP1) together protect the countryside for its own sake and resist new development outside settlements unless there is an overriding national need for it. That is subject to exceptions, including GP3(c), for the re-use of PDL with significant remaining building. In this connection, it is noted that the IMSP Glossary definition of PDL does not include the requirement for the presence of existing building.
Transport Policy 1 (TP1) provides that new development should, where possible, be located close to public transport facilities to promote sustainable travel. TP4, 6 and 7 together protect the safety of highway users, including pedestrians, and require the provision of adequate off- street parking.
Circular 3/91 at Policies 2-5 advises that residential development in the countryside should integrate with the landscape and follow the simple lines, forms and finishes of traditional farmhouses.
The Case for the Appellants - Daryl Blake Construction Limited
The material points are:
Background and Summary
The Appellant company is a local construction firm with four employees. For over 20 years the firm has been based less than a mile from the appeal site in Port St Mary, where Mr Blake was brought up. The site was acquired potentially to provide a home for the family and its business. All construction work would be undertaken by the firm, using locally based sub-contract labour.
The appeal site comprises disused non-agricultural land in the countryside. The constraints of EP1 of the IMSP should not be considered in isolation but in conjunction with Strategic Policies 1, 5 and 10 as well as the exception of GP3(c) for PDL.
Neither should design be assessed in isolation. The design of other properties in the immediate locality should be considered, as well as the topography of the site.
The importance of family connections to the area should also be taken into account.
Similar schemes with positive results for new non-traditionally designed houses in the countryside are quoted in precedent.
==== PAGE 3 ====
Appeal: AP25/0012
Planning Application: 25/90046/B
__ __
3
Principle
The site is within a 500m walking distance of a primary school, not 700m as stated by the Planning Authority. There is a continuous, safe pedestrian footway, on the opposite side of Castletown Road, leading to the health centre, shops and community facilities of Port Erin and there is a public right of way immediately to the west, linking to the A31 Port St Mary road to the south. The development is required to make provision to facilitate the use of private cars in any event.
Electricity, water supply and telephone connections are all immediately available.
Bus services (1a, 2a 11a 12a) are available to Port Erin, Castletown, including Castle Rushen High School, Ballasalla, Balthane employment area and Douglas town centre, also passing close to the Spring Valley Business Park employment area on the south side of Douglas. These services operate along Castletown Road in front of the site on a half-hourly basis during commuting times and hourly over the rest of the day. The site is also within walking distance of both Port St. Mary and Port Erin Steam Railway stations.
The proposal clearly complies with Strategic Policy 10 and Transport Policies 1, 4, 6 and 7 in these respects. There is no case that that the site is in an unsustainable location so far as highways, transport and utilities are concerned.
Moreover, there is no dispute that the site, whilst now redundant, was long established as a working depot, occupied from time to time by portacabins and heavy plant. It should therefore be regarded as PDL, as defined in the Glossary to the IMSP, and subject to the exception of GP3(c), notwithstanding that the site currently contains no buildings.
On that basis the proposed development is acceptable in principle.
Design, Character and Appearance
The design of the proposed development was specifically undertaken to comply with the reasons for refusal of an earlier application for a two- storey dwelling.
The character of the locality is of agricultural fields, regularly interspersed with single-storey development, between the built-up areas of Gansey and Port Erin. The proposed bungalow has been designed to fit in with the locality, being also screened on the south side by rising land.
The dwelling would assume a low profile, only 4.3m high to the ridge and 5.5m long, with anthracite colour tiles. It would have smooth, painted walls with dark grey stone panels either side of the front bays and dark grey weather boarding below the grey uPVC windows.
==== PAGE 4 ====
Appeal: AP25/0012
Planning Application: 25/90046/B
__ __
4
The nearest residential properties are not traditional so do not set any design precedent. The bungalow now proposed would not be prominent in the landscape and the finishes would fit with the surroundings.
The design, size and scale and finishes of the proposed dwelling are therefore equivalent to those used on the older dwellings just to the west. These are sympathetic to the rural character of the area and one also has a forward projecting bay.
The low-profile, single-storey bungalow would not constitute over- development of the site. The development would not have any adverse visual impact, being set back 10.5m from the roadside frontage.
With regard to energy performance, the dwelling would have solar panels on the roof, an air source heat pump and an electric vehicle charging point.
While the site is technically in the countryside, the nature of the area and, in particular, the appeal site itself, is not that of a rural locality, the site having been in non-countryside use for around 50 years. The area is characterised by sporadic development, the appeal site itself comprising a well-defined compound surfaced with hardcore. In this location the proposed development would not adversely affect the countryside.
The proposal is therefore in full conformity with Strategic Policy 5, EP1 and GP2(b-c) of the IMSP. There is accordingly no requirement to demonstrate an overriding national need for the development.
Highway Safety
Other Matters
The Planning Authority is also satisfied that the proposed development would have no adverse impacts with respect to: flood risk from the nearby stream, based on the submitted flood risk assessment (FRA) and the detailed design; amenity of existing residential properties, given the nearest is some 55m distant; or ecology due to the limited ecological value of the hard-surfaced site, subject to a condition to control external lighting.
There is no objection from the Commissioners or local residents.
The long-term family ties of the Appellants to the area should be given due consideration.
==== PAGE 5 ====
Appeal: AP25/0012
Planning Application: 25/90046/B
__ __
5
Conclusion
The Case for the Planning Authority
The material points are:
Issues
Principle
The appeal site is in the open countryside which is not designated for development and where there is a general policy presumption against new development.
Whilst the site is located along a main road and there are properties sporadically located along its length, the land is not within either settlement of Port Erin or Port St Mary but is part of the open countryside and therefore not considered sustainable for new housing.
Whilst it is acknowledged that services, in regard to electricity, water and foul drainage may be accessible from the immediate area, the site is not well located in relation to services and facilities generally required for day to day living.
The nearest shops, supermarket and community facilities such as the church and dental practice are over 1.4km away to the west in Port Erin, whilst the school and medical centre are some 0.7km distant. Port St Mary is a smaller settlement with fewer facilities and is located further away to the south, some 1.75km by road.
The Planning Authority is not aware of any bus routes that run along Castletown Road.
It is acknowledged that the site is PDL, where GP3(c) allows for development but only where the site contains a significant amount of building, its use is redundant, and redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment, and also where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment.
The appeal site clearly does not contain a significant amount of building. It is acknowledged that the appeal site meets the IMSP Glossary definition of
==== PAGE 6 ====
Appeal: AP25/0012
Planning Application: 25/90046/B
__ __
6
PDL but the absence of a significant amount of building means that it does not meet the exception test of GP3(c).
It is also acknowledged that the development would make efficient use of the site, but this does not outweigh the general principle against development in the countryside.
Furthermore, the proposed development would be in an unsustainable location, remote from services, community facilities and tourism attractions, upon which future occupiers would generally rely. The development would thus foster a need for motorised travel, due a lack of accessibility to services via public transport, cycle or on foot.
For these reasons, the proposed development is not supported in principle.
Character and Appearance of the Landscape
The application site comprises PDL but is relatively inconspicuous in the landscape, being an area of hardstanding that is enclosed by low-level walling. Its main visual impact at present is only noticeable to passers-by. However, the proposed dwelling would be clearly visible from the highway, as well as within the wider landscape setting.
Even though there are residential properties sporadically located along the highway and more distantly in the surrounding area, the bungalows to the west are much smaller than the proposed dwelling and simpler in architectural style. The much larger proposed dwelling, of non-traditional design with a convoluted range of roof hips, would have no positive impact upon the character and appearance of the area.
Under C3/91, new rural dwellings should follow a more traditional vernacular to ensure any visual impact is appropriate to the countryside. The proposed dwelling fails to achieve this and is not considered to represent a design approach that is in keeping with the rural setting of the appeal site.
The proposed design is clearly at odds with the C3/91, lacking suitable proportion and form, with non-traditional finishing materials and fenestration design which do not strictly accord with its policies.
The site is readily visible from public vantage points along the highway and, despite its proximity to two small dwellings to the west, any new building on the otherwise vacant site would form a prominent new addition within the street scene and wider landscape.
It is considered that the design and finished appearance of the proposed dwelling would be at odds with the rural character of the area and would result in demonstrable harm to the landscape and visual amenity.
==== PAGE 7 ====
Appeal: AP25/0012
Planning Application: 25/90046/B
__ __
7
There is no essential or overriding national need for the development to be located in this area and it would give rise to demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the area.
The proposal fails to comply with GP2(b-c), GP3 and EP1 of the IMSP.
Highway Safety
The proposed development would utilise the existing vehicular access with improved vision splays, achieved by reducing the roadside walls and planting. It is accepted that the former use of the site as a depot would have generated vehicle movements.
The proposed site layout includes the minimum of two parking spaces required, as well as turning space and an electric vehicle charging point (EVCP), whilst the general layout is considered to be acceptable and safe.
Highway Services do not object to the proposal, which complies with GP2(i) and TPs 4 and 7, by avoiding any unacceptable harmful impact upon highway safety and providing parking to the adopted standard.
Flood Risk
The appeal proposal is supported by a submitted FRA which notes that the primary flood risk within the area is fluvial, from the adjacent watercourse, and that the main potential for the flooding arises from the culvert under the main road, and overland flows in the event of its surcharge or blockage.
The FRA assesses the likely flood level to be 100.00m AOD, which is below the highest part of the site. It is recommended therefore that the finished floor level of the dwelling be set at 100.6m AOD to provide the requisite 600mm threshold, should flooding occur. Other recommendations within the report set out how the dwelling would be safe from flooding over its lifetime. The development would also reduce the amount of impermeable surface on the site, thereby reducing surface water runoff.
Based upon the detailed submitted information, it is considered that, whilst part of the site falls within the flood zone, the risk to property and occupants would be mitigated in the design.
Accordingly, no objection is raised in relation to flood risk.
Other Matters
The proposed development would be located sufficiently far from other dwellings to avoid any material impact upon residential amenity.
The proposal is not supported by any ecological appraisal or any assessment of protected flora or fauna. However, the site is an area of hardstanding with limited ecological value and matters relating to lighting
==== PAGE 8 ====
Appeal: AP25/0012
Planning Application: 25/90046/B
__ __
8
could be controlled by condition. There is accordingly no perceived adverse impact upon ecology.
Conclusions
In principle, the proposed the erection of a dwelling fails to accord with relevant policy because the site lies within a rural and protected part of the countryside where any development is strictly controlled. Although PDL, the site is without any buildings and the development would fail to enhance its appearance in the landscape. The appeal proposal therefore conflicts with GP3, EP1 and HP4 of the IMSP.
It is further considered that the design and scale of the proposed dwelling are not sympathetic to the rural character of the area. The erection of a dwelling on the site would unacceptably alter the character and appearance of this part of the landscape and it is considered that the proposed development would be visually harmful to the rural character and appearance of the site and surroundings, contrary to the provisions of GP2(b-c) and EP1 of the IMSP.
The development would also foster the need to travel by private motor vehicle and the site is not within a sustainable location for new housing. The development therefore fails to comply with the strategic sustainability provisions and TP1 of the IMSP.
Having regard to all the above considerations, it is recommended that the appeal be dismissed.
Other Representations
The Arbory and Rushen Parish Commissioners support the proposal.
DOI Highway Services do not oppose the application subject to the access visibility splays, parking and vehicular turning space being completed as proposed. The first 6m of driveway from the adopted highway should also be conditioned to be bound and consolidated.
==== PAGE 9 ====
Appeal: AP25/0012
Planning Application: 25/90046/B
__ __
9
Assessment by the Inspector
Issues
Principle
There is no doubt that the proposed development is against the strict policy principles of the IMSP. The only valid exception to this would be compliance with GP3(c) as PDL with substantial building still in place, whereas the site is now redundant and vacant.
However, I have regard to the Glossary definition of PDL which includes no such requirement. I also bear in mind that the site has been a long-term depot with temporary buildings and plant stationed there.
Moreover, in terms of its sustainability, despite its designated countryside location, the site is evidently well connected by public transport, a roadside pedestrian footway and multiple bus and train connections nearby, offering non-car access to a school some 500m distant and the other community facilities of Port Erin, within about 1.4km.
These circumstances together lead me to the view that the departure of the appeal proposal from the principles of the IMSP would be slight, in terms of any planning harm to its strategic aims.
Character and Appearance
I recognise that the appeal bungalow would be a modern dwelling in a rural location, also strictly against EP1 to protect the countryside. However, it would be of relatively modest dimensions and set well back into the site which in turn, is quite well separated from its immediate surroundings by its boundary walls.
By comparison, the previously developed site is currently inconspicuous. However, it detracts somewhat from the rural character of the area in its redundant, hard-surfaced and featureless state, notwithstanding the absence of any bult structure there.
I do not think the design, scale or form of the bungalow or its comparatively subdued finishing materials would appear unduly out of keeping with the other modest dwellings in the vicinity or with the wider surrounding countryside landscape.
==== PAGE 10 ====
Appeal: AP25/0012
Planning Application: 25/90046/B
__ __
10
Indeed, I have come to the view that the development would make a net positive contribution to the environment, compared with the present redundant, previously developed appeal site.
Again therefore, with regard to character and appearance, I consider the departure of the proposed development from the constraints of EP1 and GP3 of the IMSP to be relatively slight in terms of planning harm.
Highway Safety
There is no dispute that the development as proposed would include satisfactory off-street, parking, access and vision splays sufficient to comply with adopted road safety standards. The only impediment to that is the need for frontage land outside the appeal site boundary or the control of the Appellants to complete the vison splays required.
However, the owners of the adjacent land have provided written confirmation of support for the appeal and consent to the future access to maintain hedgerows to achieve safe sightlines and visibility splays crossing the adjacent field. They also offer further assistance in the matter.
In the circumstances, I am satisfied that there is every likelihood that appropriate vison splays can be achieved, provided that the consent of the neighbouring landowners is formalised into an enforceable legal deed.
On that basis, the vision splays can properly secured by a reasonable and enforceable, negative, pre-commencement planning condition.
Overall, the proposed development would comply with TP4 and 7 and GP2(h-i) of the IMSP with respect to access, car parking and highway safety.
Other Matters
The Planning Authority considers and, on the evidence summarised above, I agree that the proposed development would avoid adverse impact with respect to flood risk, residential amenity or ecology.
I note the absence of local objection from the Commissioners or residents, as well as the long family connection of the Appellants to the area.
Conditions
==== PAGE 11 ====
Appeal: AP25/0012
Planning Application: 25/90046/B
__ __
11
Conclusions
I have found only slight planning harm in terms of the main issues of principle and design whilst, subject to appropriate conditions, the development would in all other respects policy-compliant.
But for the absence of any remnant building, the site would be exempt under the GP3(c) exception for PDL. Moreover, I see the proposed development as making a net positive contribution to the environment over the present PDL.
I give some planning weight to the lack of local objection and the family ties of the Appellants.
I take all relevant adopted development plan policy into account but I am mindful that, under Manx law, it is a material consideration among all others.
Altogether, for the reasons explained, it is my conclusion on balance that this appeal should be allowed and the refusal overturned.
Recommendation
I recommend that the appeal be allowed, and planning approval granted for the erection of a detached bungalow at the Former Pound Lane Depot, Castletown Road, Port St Mary, Isle of Man, IM9 5LT, as shown on Drawings Nos 1583/10 Revision 1 and 1583/11 and subject to the conditions and for the reason set out in the Appendix to this Report.
If accepted, this recommendation will have the effect of overturning the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application.
B J Sims
Brian J Sims BSc (Hons) CEng MICE MRTPI Independent Inspector
19 September 2025
==== PAGE 12 ====
Appeal: AP25/0012
Planning Application: 25/90046/B
__ __
12
APPENDIX
Schedule of Recommended Planning Conditions and Reason for Approval
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the locality.
All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved landscaping scheme must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwelling, whichever is the sooner.
Any trees or plants which, within five years from the date of this approval, die or become seriously damaged or diseased, must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.
Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.
The access, car parking and turning space and vison splays shall be completed in full accordance with approved drawings before the dwelling hereby approved is occupied and thereafter retained for the life of the development.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
==== PAGE 13 ====
Appeal: AP25/0012
Planning Application: 25/90046/B
__ __
13
approval, shall be carried out without the prior written approval of the Department.
Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
Reason for Approval
Despite a measure of conflict with General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 to protect the countryside for its own sake, the development would have minimal adverse impact on the character or appearance of the surrounding area or other any planning interests and would make a net contribution to the environment over its present state as previously developed land, carrying a degree of overriding planning benefit justifying approval.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal