713675 — AP25/0011 | Planning Portal IoM | Isle of Man Planning Portal

==== PAGE 1 ====

Appeal: AP25/0011

                 Planning Application: 25/90119/B

__ __

Report on an Inquiry into a Planning Appeal

Inquiry: Tuesday 19 August 2025 Site Inspection: Monday 18 August 2025

Appeal made by Mr Keith Hoyes against the refusal of a planning application for approval to replace the existing dwelling at Thie Dhorlish, Ballaglass, Cornaa, Maughold, Isle of Man, IM7 1EL. __

Procedural Matters

The dwelling at Thie Dhorlish has been demolished so the above description can no longer apply. I have therefore considered the appeal proposal as for the erection of a new dwelling.

Description

The appeal site is on the east side of Rhenab Road, Cornaa just north of a wooded watercourse and in relatively close proximity to a number of varied rural dwellings.

The original two-storey dwelling, Thie Dhorlish, has been demolished, leaving only a boundary wall beside the stream, a pile of apparently former building stone and a general covering of stone remnants colonised by self- set vegetation.

The proposal is to replace the former dwelling that would have been only partly demolished and refurbished under previous planning approval Ref 22/01470/B. The design of the dwelling now proposed would compare with that previously approved, occupying the same footprint but set a short distance further from the stream. The elevations would be of two-storeys, whereas the previous design included dormers at first floor level within a more extensive roof. There would be an additional mid-section first-floor window above the porch and a side window to the porch.

This proposal is a resubmission with no material changes of a previous scheme Ref 24/00805/B. This was refused by the Planning Authority as new rural development due to the demolition of the former dwelling.

Planning Policy

The site is in a rural area not zoned for development where Spatial Policy 5, Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3 (GP3) of the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP) resist new development to protect the countryside; but GP3 makes conditional exception for previously developed land (PDL) and replacement dwellings as follows:

(c) PDL which contains a significant amount of building; ... where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the

==== PAGE 2 ====

Appeal: AP25/0011

                 Planning Application: 25/90119/B

__ __

landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment.

(d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings, subject to Housing Policies 12-14.

The IMSP Glossary definition of PDL includes land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure.

Strategic Policies 1, 2 and 10 together with Housing Policy 4 of the IMSP provide that new housing development will be located primarily in existing settlements to minimise private car journeys and make best use of previously developed or underused land.

Housing Policies 12-14 permit the replacement of existing dwellings and, where residential use has been lost by abandonment, give consideration to refurbishment incorporating existing materials, provided the replacement is not substantially different.

The Case for the Appellant - Mr K Hoyes

The material points are:

Background

Planning permission was approved in March 2023 for partial demolition of an original cottage and refurbishment including a single-storey extension. Minor site clearance works around the house were undertaken by the owner in February 2024 after a very harsh winter. Due to the precarious nature of the existing building, he obtained the services of a professional demolition contractor to carry out works to the house, before the start of the bird nesting season.
Unfortunately, following the removal of the rear extension, the contractor informed the owner that the house was in such a poor condition that it was very unstable and could not be left as it was, as it was a health and safety risk. As there were families in nearby houses the owner decided that the best solution was for the contractor to demolish the house safely while he was there that day.
The present application was refused as new building contrary to GP3 of the IMSP.

Application of Policy

The refused application is in fact supported by GP3 and the IMSP Glossary definition of PDL. The latter clearly includes not only sites which contain significant building but also those that were previously occupied by a permanent structure.

==== PAGE 3 ====

Appeal: AP25/0011

                 Planning Application: 25/90119/B

__ __

There is no question that there was previously a residential dwelling on the land. The redevelopment of the site would reduce the current adverse impact on the landscape and result in improvement to the environment. What is proposed would be attractive and would sit comfortably amongst the other residential properties in the vicinity.
It is submitted that the pragmatic view should be taken that the recent demolition was carried out without the knowledge of the potential planning implications and with all utility services still available.
The Planning Authority confirms that, having regard to other matters, there would be no in objection to the design of the development, which is generally reflective of the 2022 application that was permitted to restore and extend the building. Similarly, the impacts upon highway safety, residential amenity and biodiversity would be acceptable.

Other Matters

Although the site is not zoned for development, on balance GP3(c) does allow for development on previous developed land and this particular site would comply with the IMSP Glossary definition of PDL
The site is located within an area of varied residential properties. Any concerns that approval of this application could set a precedent for future development on other sites should be discounted.
In terms of massing and proportion the proposed design and finishes follow the lines of a traditional Manx cottage. There would be two off-road parking spaces, as well as turning space in compliance with adopted standards.
There would be adequate amenity space with a reasonably sized garden and pleasant outlooks ensuring an acceptable standard of amenity for occupiers.

Conclusion

The appeal should be allowed and the permission sought granted.

The Case for the Planning Authority

Planning Considerations

The key consideration is the principle of a replacement dwelling on the site. Other material considerations relate to the design, scale and impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area, highway safety and residential amenity.

Principle

The site is in the countryside and not in a village recognised as a sustainable location for new housing.

==== PAGE 4 ====

Appeal: AP25/0011

                 Planning Application: 25/90119/B

__ __

As determined under previous application Ref 24/00805/B, the residential use of the site has been abandoned as a result of the original dwelling having been demolished.
The Appellant submits that the dwelling was demolished when works to clear the site and demolish the rear extension of the dwelling were commenced as the building was in an unsafe condition and liable to collapse.
Whilst there is some sympathy for the circumstances of the Appellant, the fact remains that there is a lack of detailed evidence, other than an email from the building contractor, regarding the condition of the former building. In the absence of a structural survey or other information, it is not possible to substantiate the claim that the building was unsafe and liable to collapse.
It seems that the decision to demolish the structure was made in haste and unwisely, without prior discussions with either the planning or building control teams. The residential use of the site was abandoned more than 12 months before the application was made. It is accordingly considered that the proposed development fails to comply with HP12-13 and cannot be considered as a replacement dwelling and fails to comply with either the exception contemplated by GP3(c) for PDL with building still in place or GP3(d) for replacement dwellings in the countryside.
Without forming a genuine replacement dwelling under GP3(d) or reusing PDL in terms of GP3(c), the appeal scheme would be tantamount to new residential development in an unsustainable rural location, encouraging unsustainable transport movements, in conflict with Strategic Policy 10 and the criteria of HP10 and HP4.

Other Matters

However, there is no objection in principle to the design of the development, which is generally reflective of the 2022 approval to restore and extend the building. Similarly, the impacts upon highway safety, residential amenity and biodiversity would be acceptable.

Conclusion

Having regard to the above matters, the proposed development represents unjustified new residential development in the countryside that conflicts with Strategic Policies 1, 2 and 10, Spatial Policy 5, Housing Policies 4, 12 and 13 together with General Policy 3. It is therefore recommended that the appeal be dismissed.

Other Representations

Garff Commissioners have no objections as the design and scope of the proposed dwelling would be relatively in-keeping with the previous cottage and would not be inappropriate in this location. The dwelling would present

==== PAGE 5 ====

Appeal: AP25/0011

                 Planning Application: 25/90119/B

__ __

similar characteristics to the original dilapidated cottage and would therefore have minimal impact on the character of the area. A further concern is that, in future years, there may be a change in approach in regard to the status of the site and any design coming forward at that time might not as adequately reflect the character of this sensitive location, which overlooks one of the Island’s premier Glens.

DOI Highway Services foresee no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality or parking, subject to vehicular access, the front boundary wall and parking being completed as proposed.
The Ecosystem Policy Team has no objection subject sensitive external lighting due to the proximity to a wooded riverside wildlife corridor.

Assessment by the Inspector

Main Planning Issue

This appeal turns on the sole main issue of whether the proposed dwelling is acceptable in principle, with respect to adopted planning policy governing new house building in the countryside on consideration of all other material considerations.

Principle

The original application was for a replacement dwelling, acceptable in principle under GP3(d). But there is no longer any dwelling on the site to replace. So GP3(d) cannot apply. It is for this reason that I consider the proposal as for a new dwelling.
The site is PDL according to the Glossary definition appended to the IMSP, which contemplates the redevelopment of land previously occupied by a structure, as is clearly the case here. But GP3(c) itself specifies that the exception for PDL to be redeveloped in the countryside is limited to land which still contains significant building.
Whilst the wording of policy should presumably take precedence, it seems to me to remain a moot point as to whether in principle the proposed dwelling would be acceptable in terms of GP3(c) of the IMSP.

Other Considerations

It may not have been the intention of the Appellant, under pressure of circumstances, to alter the planning status of the appeal site but the fact remains that this occurred and in the strict terms of GP3 a new dwelling should not be allowed.
However, it is clear from inspection that the demolition took place relatively recently. There is support from the Garff Commissioners and no third-party objection to the dwelling as now proposed.

==== PAGE 6 ====

Appeal: AP25/0011

                 Planning Application: 25/90119/B

__ __

The Planning Authority is clear that, if the development were acceptable in principle, there would be no objection to the design or with respect to any other planning interest including highway safety and ecology, subject otherwise only to standard conditions. I see no reason to disagree with that analysis.
The dwelling would largely replicate a traditional Manx cottage but to modern standards of construction and energy efficiency, broadly compliant with the limiting criteria of HP12-14 of the IMSP for replacement houses when permitted. The access, visibility and parking arrangements would evidently comply with adopted standards for highway safety.
I consider that the development would sit well within its rural context and provide a degree of environmental improvement compared with the dilapidation of the previous cottage and the present condition of the land following its comparatively recent demolition.
The Garff Commissioners favour the proposal as the best option to prevent a future less acceptable use of the site should policy for rural development change. That is a form of conjecture which can carry little planning weight in the present appeal, given there would always be control of the effects of any development proposal.

Conclusion

The proposed development would create a modern dwelling on land clearly occupied until relatively recently by significant building in terms of the IMDP Glossary definition of PDL.
Despite a degree of conflict with adopted policy controlling rural housing development, I have reached the overall conclusion that the factors in favour of the development are sufficient to outweigh any policy objection of principle in the circumstances of this particular case.

Planning Conditions

Conditions should be applied to a ensure safe vehicle access as requested by DOI Highways and advance approval of finishing materials and landscaping in the interest of the acceptable appearance and character of the development. There needs to be a further condition to prevent external lighting without further approval, to protect an adjacent wildlife corridor identified by the Ecosystem Policy Team.

==== PAGE 7 ====

Appeal: AP25/0011

                 Planning Application: 25/90119/B

__ __

Recommendation

I recommend that the appeal be allowed, and planning approval granted for the erection of a dwelling at Thie Dhorlish, Ballaglass, Cornaa, Maughold, Isle of Man, IM7 1EL, as shown on Drwg Nos TD-01, TD-06, TD-07, TD-12, dated April 2024 and TD-13, dated August 2024, and subject to the conditions and reason for approval set out in the Appendix to this Report.
If accepted, this recommendation would 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

15 September 2025

==== PAGE 8 ====

Appeal: AP25/0011

                 Planning Application: 25/90119/B

__ __

APPENDIX

Recommended Planning Conditions and Reason for Approval

Conditions

The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

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.

The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the means of vehicular access and the visibility splays have been completed in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter the access and visibility splays shall be retained and the visibility splays kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1.1m in height above adjoining carriageway level.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

No development shall be commenced until a hard and soft landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Such scheme shall include details of all walls, fences, trees, hedgerows and other planting which are to be retained and their means of protection; details of all new walls, fences and other boundary treatment and finished ground levels; a planting specification; details of the hard surface treatment of the open parts of the site and a programme of implementation. All hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and a programme of implementation agreed in writing with the Department and thereafter retained.

Any trees or plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with other trees or plants of a species and size to be first approved in writing by the Department. All hard landscape works shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.

No development shall commence until details of all finishing materials to be used in the external surfaces of the dwelling and boundary walls have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved details.

==== PAGE 9 ====

Appeal: AP25/0011

                 Planning Application: 25/90119/B

__ __

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

No external lighting shall be installed on the site unless of details of such lighting have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and the external lighting shall be installed and thereafter retained only in accordance with the details approved.

Reason: In the interests of protecting the nearby wooded riverside wildlife corridor.

Reason for Approval

Despite the loss of residential use due to demolition of the former dwelling, the proposed dwelling would in all other respects comply with the criteria of Housing Policies 12-14 of the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP), such that on a balance of judgement of the particular circumstances of this case, where the demolition was not originally intended, the general strategic presumption of General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the IMSP against rural development may be set aside, with the benefit of a modern dwelling contributing to the housing supply.

End of Appendix -