Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
Appeal: AP25/0027
Planning Application: 25/90285/B
__ __
1 Report on a Planning Appeal by the Written Procedure
Site Visit: Monday 27 October 2025
Appeal made by Mrs Brenda Cannell against the decision of the Planning Authority to grant planning approval to Mr David and Mrs Ann Giroux for installation of two boreholes at Bishopscourt Mansion House, Bishopscourt, Kirk Michael, Isle Of Man, IM6 2EZ. __
Procedural Matter
It is noted that the initial decision notice was issued for the application without taking account of third-party comments which had been submitted. This was due to the inception of a new document system. Subsequently, a corrected report and decision notice were issued. This appeal in any event affords the appropriate opportunity for fresh and independent consideration of all factors for and against the proposed borehole installation.
Description
The appeal site comprises two small areas within the grounds of Bishopscourt, the Registered former home of the Bishop of Sodor and Mann, now in private ownership and currently under extensive renovation.
Borehole A (BH.A) would be within the kitchen garden, currently in temporary use as a construction compound, in the north-eastern part of the grounds, behind two roadside cottages, Garden Cottage, the home of the Appellant and The Lindens adjacent.
BH.B would be close to the west boundary, a short distance from an existing, non- historic, garage block.
The boreholes are intended to assist in providing water for Bishopscourt and its grounds. The boreholes would be sunk to a depth of 60m and each would be accompanied by a 20,000 litre, subterranean storage tank. This would be encased in a concrete enclosure about 3m by 8m in size, with final details subject to borehole performance. The only visible surface features would be 1.2m diameter cylindrical masonry cabinets 1m in height.
Planning Policy and Guidance
The adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP) includes General Policy 2 (GP2), which requires development to respect its site and surroundings, Strategic Policy 4 (StrP4) which protects Registered Buildings, and Environment Policy 1 (EP1), which protects the countryside. Strategic Objective (d) and Energy Policy 4 of the IMSP support alternative, renewable energy sources. This is in line with the wide Government imperative to increasingly secure energy from renewable resources and achieve carbon neutrality under the Climate Change Act.
==== PAGE 2 ====
Appeal: AP25/0027
Planning Application: 25/90285/B
__ __
2 The Case for the Appellant - Mrs B Cannell
The material points are:
The Appellant of Garden Cottage and her neighbour at The Lindens are elderly, long- term owner-occupiers of these properties.
These ladies state that they have had their peace and quiet and quality of life disrupted by ongoing redevelopment works affecting the adjacent kitchen garden of Bishopscourt. due to nuisance, vibration, excessive vehicle movements and felling of mature trees.
The proposed boreholes offer no tangible benefits to the quiet local community. The development poses potential risk of ground movement and contamination, damage to tree roots, inconvenience to residents and disruption to wildlife, including protected bats.
Specifically, there is concern regarding the proposed drilling of BH.A and the construction of its underground storage tank, given their proximity to Garden Cottage and The Lindens, only some 50m away. Both properties have recent visible signs of damage due to the current works to Bishopscourt, evident by internal cracking in the plaster of the ground floor walls and ceilings.
No proper details have been provided to allay these justified concerns. The very description of the proposed development is misleading, in that it makes no mention of the underground storage tanks associated with he boreholes.
The Structural Engineers Report by Curtins, submitted in support of this appeal, refers to cracking in the adjacent dwellings, noting their shared boundary with the appeal site. The Report states that it would be normal for the developer to undertake a condition survey of these closely adjacent properties. However, the risk assessment submitted with application makes no reference to them. Neither is any information given as to how the boreholes would be drilled or the depth of excavation for the storage tanks.
In the absence of any risk assessment for Garden Cottage and The Lindens, this appeal should be allowed and the initial approval of the application rescinded.
The Case for the Planning Authority
The material points are:
Jurisdiction and Policy
It is noted by the DEFA Energy and Minerals Team (below) that there is separate legislation to control and monitor any ground drilling deeper than 50ft (10m). In addition, the Manx Museum and National Trust Act controls excavations in and around ancient monuments and areas of potential archaeological interest. These controls are both outside of the planning process, and any grant of planning approval would not affect the need to comply with these statutes.
There are no specific planning policies relating to the construction of boreholes. However, there are numerous references within the IMSP to renewable fuels and renewable energy generation. Whilst the boreholes proposed in this application would not provide a source of energy, the collection, treatment and transportation of water
==== PAGE 3 ====
Appeal: AP25/0027
Planning Application: 25/90285/B
__ __
3 require large amounts of energy, and therefore sustainable local sourcing of water brings an environmental benefit.
Given the location of the proposed BH.B on the far side of the garage block from the historic Mansion House and grounds, it is judged that its construction would not result in harm to the Registered building, its setting, or to the environment.
The proposed location for BH.A is across a stream and to the north-east of the Registered Building. The location is in the former kitchen garden, the present temporary construction compound. It is the stated intention of the Applicants to return this area to kitchen garden use.
Bearing in mind both the historic uses and future intentions of the site of BH.A, it is judged that that there would be no harm due to its construction.
Response to the Appeal
While the main reason given for lodging this appeal appears to be the lack of a structural survey, other issues were raised by the Appellant that are also addressed below. i. Impact on property value and structural Integrity ii. Noise, disruption, and quality of Life iii. Historical significance iv. Reasons for two boreholes v. Environmental concerns
Impact on Property Value and Structural Integrity
The Appellant raises concerns that drilling and other groundworks have already resulted in damage to Garden Cottage, and that further drilling of 60m boreholes could result in more issues of a similar nature.
However, the structural report by Curtins, submitted by the Appellant in support of the appeal, itself states that ground vibration does not appear to have affected the external walls of Garden Cottage and that, whilst vibration may have caused internal cracking, it is in locations where normal shrinkage and ageing of applied finishes can result in such effects. Clearly existing cracking or subsidence cannot be the result of the works proposed in this application, which have yet to take place.
In terms of potential damage as a result of the proposed boreholes, approximately 50m away, it is judged that any borehole works would be sufficiently distant to avoid impact on the neighbouring properties. The Curtins report does not envisage that the borehole installation would have any significant adverse effect on the structure of Garden Cottage. In the circumstances, it is maintained that this matter does not warrant refusal of the application.
Noise, Disruption and Quality of Life
The Appellant raises concerns regarding the significant disruption that is occurring on the land behind Garden Cottage as a result of the large-scale construction works that are being undertaken at Bishopscourt.
The presence of the site compound behind the property and the ongoing works on the adjacent site will undoubtedly be causing noise, disruption and a reduction in
==== PAGE 4 ====
Appeal: AP25/0027
Planning Application: 25/90285/B
__ __
4 neighbouring quality of life. However, these issues are the result of ongoing works under a number of previous approvals. Temporary issues as a result of the implementation of previously approved works do not warrant refusal of this application.
Historical Significance
The Appellant claims that Garden Cottage and The Lindens were part of the original Bishopscourt estate and should be given the same respect. It is acknowledged that the two properties concerned are part of the historic Bishopscourt estate. In terms of statutory protection though, they do not form part of the Registered Building, and therefore do not have the same level of protection
However, it is accepted that, as part of the historic estate, these properties are heritage assets and consideration should be given to protecting their significance within policy guidelines. GP2 of the IMSP calls for development to respect the site and surroundings in form, scale and design. As this proposal involves only very modest, 1m high cylindrical covers to the boreholes, and the site for the nearest BH.A is some 50m away, the works proposed in this application are considered to meet GP2. Any further cover or structure that might affect Garden Cottage or any other property would be the subject of a further planning application and assessed accordingly.
Reasons for the Two Boreholes
The Applicant explains the reasons for installing two boreholes. The scheme includes the restoration of the buildings and gardens with modernisation and rationalisation of the water supply, drainage and rainwater harvesting. This would benefit from the provision of extra of bore-hole water, reducing consumption of mains water.
The provision, treatment and piping of mains water from central reservoirs consumes electricity. Whilst drinking water requires purification, water for garden and estate irrigation does not, and could be provided on-site. Thus, the provision of boreholes, to assist in the water needs of the estate, would support the several Government climate change and renewable energy targets.
Environmental Concerns
The Appellant raises concern regarding groundwater contamination, disruption to local wildlife and the loss of mature trees.
A risk assessment submitted in support of the application finds that it is unlikely that the boreholes would lead to any measurable impact on an adjacent watercourse or Bishopscourt Glen.
The Ecosystems Policy Team raised no concerns, unlike in respect of many prior applications for the Bishopscourt site, when wildlife mitigation measures were put in place. By comparison, the works proposed in this application are modest and narrowly focussed. It is judged that any environmental concerns are insufficient to warrant refusal of the application. Moreover, no further trees would be lost as a result of the present proposal.
Finally, as noted by the Head of Energy Policy, the Isle of Man Minerals Act 1986 sets separate legal requirements for drilling, with which the developer must comply in any event.
==== PAGE 5 ====
Appeal: AP25/0027
Planning Application: 25/90285/B
__ __
5 Conclusion
It is concluded that the proposal now in dispute complies with EP1, StrP4, GP2 and Energy Policy 4 of the IMSP, as the proposed works would protect the setting of the Registered Building, would not harm the wider environment, would be sited to respect the site and its surroundings, and would have due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.
This appeal should therefore be dismissed and the initial approval upheld.
The Case for the Applicants - Mr D and Mrs A Giroux
The material points are:
Introduction
Bishopscourt is presently under an extensive programme of restoration and improvement, of which this proposal forms one part of the modernisation of services approved in previous applications. The water needs of Bishopscourt were historically met by local sources. By the late 20th Century Bishopscourt was provided with mains water, a connection the present Applicants wish to retain. However, the restoration would benefit from the extra provision of bore-hole water, reducing consumption of mains water with the property taking responsibility for its own supply.
Subterranean storage tanks are proposed adjacent to the boreholes, one buried beneath the 2001 garage, the other buried beneath the reinstated kitchen garden. Their sizes would be confirmed after initial drilling to provide more information as to the nature of the expected water supply.
It is hoped that the responsible provision of this additional layer of water supply to Bishopscourt would support the comprehensive restoration of its buildings and gardens, which will be of great benefit to built heritage of the Island generally and to biodiversity locally.
Response to the Appeal
Noise, Disruption and Quality of Life
Discussions were held with the Appellant for the purpose of explaining the reason for the temporary works and intended restoration in the Bishopscourt kitchen garden which, in any event, is not public property but part of the Bishopscourt private estate. Tree removal was by approval. None of the ongoing works are connected to the present appeal proposal.
Impact on Property Value and Structural Integrity
There are three cottages near the abandoned kitchen garden close to the main road. Garden Cottage is the smallest of these and is bracketed by The Lindens to the south and The Coach House to the north.
Neither of the structural reports submitted by the Applicants and the Appellants find that activity in the kitchen garden has damaged Garden Cottage.
==== PAGE 6 ====
Appeal: AP25/0027
Planning Application: 25/90285/B
__ __
6 41. A report by BB Consulting Engineers, for the Applicants, states that it is not considered likely that the defects viewed within the dwelling are due to ground borne vibration related to the Bishopscourt construction project. Damage to buildings associated solely with ground-borne vibration is not common and although vibration may be noticeable, there is little evidence to suggest that it produces cosmetic damage, such as plaster cracks, unless the magnitude of the vibration is excessive. HGVs accessed the compound during its construction. However, it is considered that the proximity of the high-speed HGV traffic on the adjacent A3 poses a greater ground borne vibration risk that the low-speed HGVs entering the compound
Curtins Consulting Engineers, for the Appellant, advise that the magnitude of cracking within Garden Cottage is small and located where normal shrinkage and ageing can be expected to arise. Any adverse effects of ground vibration do not appear to have affected the external wall structure of Garden Cottage.
So both structural engineering reports refer to internal aesthetic repair and maintenance issues, at least some of which seem to be long-standing. Such internal aesthetic repair and maintenance issues have no relevance to the proposed borehole installation and should not be considered.
Curtins Consulting Engineers, for the Appellant, do not envisage that the proposed borehole and tank installations would have any significant adverse effect on the structure of Garden Cottage. Indeed, the drilling of boreholes is regarded as so safe that those constructed for heat pumps do not now require planning permission1. As the boreholes at Bishopscourt are for irrigation, planning permission is still required. However, the drilling of the boreholes is the same, regardless of their eventual purpose
The owners of Bishopscourt have an incentive to preserve and protect their property, including the boundary walls behind Garden Cottage, and would not engage in work which would pose a risk to their own structures
Curtins Consulting Engineers also state that it would be normal for the Appellants to undertake some form of condition survey of adjacent properties. However, the risk assessment does not refer to adjacent properties because the drilling of boreholes does not affect adjacent buildings. Two boreholes have recently been sunk on the Island immediately adjacent to buildings at RNLI Peel and at RNLI Ramsey with no adverse effect, as illustrated in submitted photographs. In addition, boreholes have been drilled 25m away from the dwelling at Braaid Farm and 15m from the dwelling at Sartfel Nature Reserve. Neither borehole caused structural damage.
Drilling would be undertaken by rotary air percussion drilling, which utilises a rotating drill bit offering speed and efficiency, versatility in the materials to be drilled and smooth operation with significantly less vibration than conventional percussion drilling. The concern that borehole drilling could lead to subsidence and structural issues at Garden Cottage does not accurately reflect that the risk of borehole installation is non- existent.
Even if the development were to affect the value of Garden Cottage, that is not a material planning consideration.
1 Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2025 section 28 Class 23
==== PAGE 7 ====
Appeal: AP25/0027
Planning Application: 25/90285/B
__ __
7 Assessment by the Inspector
Planning Issues
The main issue in this appeal is whether the construction of proposed Borehole A on the Bishopscourt estate would adversely affect the structural integrity of neighbouring Garden Cottage. It is also appropriate to consider the effects on the surrounding Bishopscourt estate and the setting of the Registered Bishopscourt Mansion House.
Garden Cottage
I sympathise with the plight of the Appellant and her neighbour who plainly feel that they have had to endure significant disruption to their daily lives and peace of mind due to the extensive ongoing renovation works at the adjacent Bishopscourt estate.
However, the concerns expressed and the internal plaster cracking I was shown cannot be related to the proposed future drilling of BH.A within the adjacent kitchen garden area.
On careful consideration of all the written evidence summarised above, it is evident to me that the type of engineering operation required to construct these boreholes can reasonably be expected not to cause significant vibration or any structural damage even to adjacent buildings, whereas Garden Cottage itself is some 50m from the intended location of BH.A and its associated underground storage tank.
Clearly, BH.B on the far side of the grounds is too remote to cause damage to Garden Cottage in any event.
Overall, I find no need for any further pre-commencement structural assessment nor any objection to the proposed borehole development with respect to the structural integrity of Garden Cottage or any other property.
Character and Appearance
BH.B would require excavation below part of an existing, non-historic outbuilding. Overall, however, the visible, above-ground, masonry cabinets associated with the proposed boreholes would be relatively small and discreet in appearance.
I do not consider that the development proposed in this particular application would harm unacceptably the character or appearance of the immediate sites of the boreholes or their surroundings within the Bishopscourt estate or the setting of the Registered Bishopscourt Mansion House itself.
Conditions
In addition to the normal time limit for commencement, one further condition is appropriate to clarify that any further above-ground works associated with approved boreholes would be need to be subject to further planning approval.
Conclusion
Accordingly, I share the conclusion of the Planning Authority that the development proposed in this application would be compliant with EP1, StrP4, GP2 and Energy Policy 4 of the IMSP in protecting the setting of the Registered building, avoiding harm
==== PAGE 8 ====
Appeal: AP25/0027
Planning Application: 25/90285/B
__ __
8 to the wider environment and respecting the site and its surroundings. The development would also pay due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption by part-reliance on natural water supplies, as a material planning benefit.
Recommendation
I recommend that the appeal be dismissed, with the effect that the decision of the Planning Authority to allow the application be upheld and planning approval granted for installation of two boreholes at Bishopscourt Mansion House, Bishopscourt, Kirk Michael, Isle Of Man IM6 2EZ, in accordance with the drawings and subject to compliance with the conditions and for the reasons set out in the Appendix to this Report.
B J Sims
B J Sims BSc CEng MICE MRTPI Independent Inspector
10 November 2025
==== PAGE 9 ====
Appeal: AP25/0027
Planning Application: 25/90285/B
__ __
9 APPENDIX
Schedule of Recommended Conditions Approved Drawings Reason for Approval
Conditions
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: Only permission for the two bore holes has been sought.
Approved Drawings
This decision relates to drawings 6296 1000, 6296 1004 (B) and 6296 1005 (B), together with the other supporting information received on 29.4.2025.
Reason for Approval
It is judged that the application complies with Environment Policy 1, Strategic Policy 4, General Policies 2 and Energy Policy 4 of the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 as the proposed works would protect the setting of the Registered Bishopscourt Mansion House, would not harm the wider environment, would be sited so as to respect the site and its surroundings, and would have due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal