10 February 2023 · Delegated - Principal Planner Chris Balmer
Cass A Lhergy, Douglas Road, Kirk Michael, Isle Of Man, IM6 1at
The site is part of field 234268 on the north-eastern side of Douglas Road in Kirk Michael, accessed via a lane behind the applicant's dwelling 'Cass a Lhergy'. The proposal involves changing approximately 330sq m of agricultural land to residential use and erecting a single-storey bungalow with two bedrooms, two bathr…
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 determined the proposal fundamentally contrary to planning policy due to the site's location outside the Kirk Michael settlement boundary on the 1994 Local Plan and 1982 plan, within undes…
Strategic Policy 1
Seeks best use of underused sites. Officer assessed that the site, though part of a field, is undesignated countryside outside settlement boundary, so new dwelling does not represent best use of underused urban/brownfield sites as prioritised.
Strategic Policy 2 - Priority for new development to identified towns and villages
States new development will be located primarily within existing towns and villages. Site is outside Kirk Michael settlement boundary, directing development away from this countryside location.
Spatial Policy 5
Requires new development to make positive contribution to Island's environment. Proposal harms AHLV and countryside character, failing positive contribution test.
Strategic Policy 10
Promotes integrated transport network. Assessed acceptably via highways no objection, but contributed to overall refusal on countryside principle.
Strategic Policy 3 - To respect the character of our towns and villages
Identifies Kirk Michael as Service Village. Development outside boundary conflicts with focusing growth in such villages.
Spatial Policy 5
Permits countryside development only per General Policy 3 exceptions. None apply here, prohibiting new open-market dwelling.
General Policy 3
Outlines countryside exceptions: agricultural dwellings, conversions of valued buildings (HP11), rural replacements (HP12/14). Proposal fits none, strictly refusing new housing.
Environment Policy 1
Protects countryside for its own sake. New dwelling in vacant agricultural field directly harms this protection.
Environment Policy 2
In AHLV, landscape character protection paramount unless no harm or essential location. Proposal harms quality despite screening, location not essential.
Housing Policy 4
New housing primarily in towns/villages or urban extensions. Site in countryside with no justification.
Environment Policy 42
Addresses backland development. Site as backland interrupts linear development pattern along road.
General Policy 2
Covers siting, scale, design, amenity, highways. Acceptable on neighbour amenity, highways, drainage (minor issues), but failed on landscape/scale in countryside.
Kirk Michael Local Plan 1994 Policy 5.9
No further residential allocations; access per highways standards. No objection from highways, but site not allocated.
Policy 5.14 Kirk Michael Local Plan
Development east of built environment to regard potential by-pass. Noted but not central to refusal.
Do not oppose
Highway Services and Highways Drainage have no objections to the application with advisory comments on drainage and surface water; Manx Utilities Authority requires percolation test results before support; Michael District Commissioners object due to agricultural zoning and policy non-compliance.
Key concern: agricultural zoning and policy non-compliance
Highway Services HDC
No ObjectionAfter reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking.
MEA
Conditional No Objectionif soakaways are going to be used you will need to demonstrate that the ground is suitable for a soakaway by carrying out a percolation test. We will need to see a copy of this before we can support the application.
Conditions requested: percolation test to demonstrate ground suitability for soakaway, copy required before support
Michael District Commissioners
ObjectionThe area is zoned as Agricultural land.; It is a Developmental creep; There is nothing in either the North West Strategy Plan nor the current Revision for Kirk Michael or Western Plans to provide for a change of use.; The Board wish to state their objection to this development.
MUA
Conditional No Objectionif soakaways are going to be used you will need to demonstrate that the ground is suitable for a soakaway by carrying out a percolation test. We will need to see a copy of this before we can support the application.
Conditions requested: percolation test to demonstrate ground suitability for soakaway, copy required before support
Department of Infrastructure Highways Drainage
Conditional No ObjectionAllowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads.; Recommendation: the applicant is to be aware of and comply with the above clauses.
Conditions requested: applicant to be aware of and comply with Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads
Highways Development Control
No Objectionthere will be no statement and no attendance at the appeal hearing by HDC. There are no highway matters to address.
The original application (22/01460/B) for change of use of part of field 234268 to residential and construction of a new single-storey bungalow was refused under delegated powers by a Principal Planner for being outside the settlement boundary in countryside/AHLV, lacking exceptional circumstances to override countryside protection policies, and causing adverse visual impact. The appellant argued the site's context amid adjacent approved developments, minimal visual impact, sustainability, and consistency with prior appeal approvals like 15/00815/A. The inspector agreed there was policy conflict but found site-specific circumstances (alignment with adjacent residential development, enclosure, rounding-off settlement edge, invisibility from public views, Kirk Michael's service village status) outweighed this with no material harm to countryside aims or character/appearance. No harm to amenities or highways; backland development acceptable under EP42. Appeal allowed subject to conditions.
Precedent Value
Demonstrates appeals can succeed in countryside via exceptional site-specific 'rounding-off' where no material harm to policy aims, even without meeting exceptions. Future applicants should emphasise invisibility, context amid approved backland, and service village sustainability over personal needs.
Inspector: Mrs Jennifer Vyse DipTP, MRTPI, DipPBM
