**Document:** Planning Statement
**Application:** 26/00038/B — Demolition of the existing dwellinghouse and stable, erection of new double story dwellinghouse, detached garage, greenhouse and workshop
**Decision:**
**Decision Date:**
**Parish:** Malew
**Document Type:** report / planning_statement
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/130755-malew-abbey-mill-lodge-demolition-garage/documents/1593528

---

# Planning Statement

## Planning Statement In Support Of An Application For The Demolition Of The Existing Dwelling And Stable And Erection Of New Dwelling, Garage, Greenhouse And Workshop, Abbey Mill Lodge, Bridge Road, Ballasalla, Malew IM9 3DA - Amendment Of 25/90454/B

![An aerial site location map showing a large, densely wooded plot of land surrounded by residential properties and a road.](https://images.planningportal.im/2026/03/7301069.png)

- 1.0 Introduction
- 1.1 Abbey Mill Lodge is an existing dwelling which sits on the north western side of Bridge Road, between Anne’s Cottage to the north east and the former Methodist Chapel to the south west (recently converted to a dwelling - see Planning History).
- 1.2 The existing dwelling on the site is a relatively modern bungalow with tiled roof, external chimney breast, rendered walls and generally large, horizontally proportioned windows. The dwelling has an attached, ﬂat roofed garage. There is also a detached stable building on site.

![A photograph showing the existing white single-story building and stable area with a grey van parked in front, viewed through a metal gate.](https://images.planningportal.im/2026/03/7301071.jpg)

![A photograph showing a dilapidated wooden stable or barn with a small yellow excavator parked in the foreground. A stone church tower is visible in the background.](https://images.planningportal.im/2026/03/7301072.jpg)

- 1.3 The dwelling sits in a landscaped site extending to over half a hectare (1.4 acres). The site bounds Bridge Road to the south west; Mill Road adjacent to the bridge over the Silverburn and 1 and 2, Mill Cottages to the north; the rear of That’ll Do, the former Methodist Chapel, Anne’s Cottage, Abbey Church and hall to the east. Across the river to the west is Rushen Abbey and the Rushen Abbey Hotel.

Rear of 1 and 2, Mill Cottages from within the site

That’ll Do from the bridge

![A photograph of an existing white two-story house situated on a grassy, sloping site surrounded by trees.](https://images.planningportal.im/2026/03/7301074.jpg)

![A photograph of a white two-story detached house surrounded by dense trees and vegetation, with a stream visible in the foreground.](https://images.planningportal.im/2026/03/7301075.jpg)

Rushen Abbey Hotel/ The Abbey above

- 1.4 The County Series maps dating from 1868 show this area as having a number of roadside buildings, no church with the hotel and abbey buildings visible:

![A historical black and white map showing field boundaries, trees, and buildings including a school and chapel.](https://images.planningportal.im/2026/03/7301077.png)

![A photograph showing the exterior of a large white two-story building labeled 'The Abbey' with vehicles parked on a paved driveway.](https://images.planningportal.im/2026/03/7301078.jpg)

- 1.5 Planning approval was sought on two occasions for the replacement of the existing dwelling with a new house. Both applications were refused. The second application, 25/90454/B was considered by the Planning Committee on 22nd December, 2025. There were four recommended reasons for refusal. The ﬁrst two speciﬁcally related to the use of black metal in the ﬁnish of the property, considering this to be out of keeping with the materials used in the local area or the Conservation Area in which the site lies.
- 1.6 The third reason related to the proximity of existing trees and impact thereon and the fourth reason related to the tallest, metal clad elevation facing Mill Cottages and the impact of this on the outlook and perception of overlooking therefrom.
- 1.7 This current application proposes changes to that previous scheme in order to overcome the reasons discussed at the Planning Committee.

- 2.0 Planning context Area Plan for the South
- 2.1 The site lies within a wider area of Predominantly Residential land on the Area Plan for the South which was adopted in 2013. The site also lies within the Silverburn Conservation Area (the green unbroken line below), within the settlement boundary (the purple line below) and outwith the area of Registered Trees (the light green shading below). The dashed green line below denotes a proposed extension to the adopted Conservation Area.

![A site location map showing local roads such as Mill Road and Coomie Road Lane with colored boundary zones.](https://images.planningportal.im/2026/03/7301081.png)

- 2.2 There are no Registered Buildings within or near to the site although Rushen Abbey is a Scheduled Ancient Monument.
- 2.3 There are no Constraints shown on the relevant map attached to the Area Plan applicable to the site.
- 2.4 The part of the site adjacent to the Silverburn is shown on the national ﬂood risk maps as being at risk of river and tidal ﬂooding and there is a high likelihood of surface water ﬂooding across the whole of the site.

Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016

- 2.5 Development which is considered to be at risk of ﬂooding is presumed against and a Flood Risk Assessment is required in applications for development of such areas (Environment Policies 10 and 13 and General Policy 2l of the Strategic Plan).
- 2.6 General Policy 2 sets out a broad ranges of considerations for development which are applicable when the development accords with the land use designation. These considerations relate to highway safety, ecology, visual impact, landscaping and the impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent dwellings. The Residential Design Guidance provides further advice on how such impacts may be assessed.
- 2.7 The Residential Design Guide also provides guidance on the design of new dwellings:

- 3.1.2 This document is intended to facilitate good quality design, and an important aspect of that is local distinctiveness.
- 3.1.3 New residential development should be informed by the best qualities of our existing residential areas. However, this does not mean that all new residential developments should seek to replicate the appearance of older ones, and good quality contemporary design is encouraged.
- 3.1.4 Nevertheless, it is important that the design of new residential developments, including their scale (including height), form, layout/orientation, and detailed design (including the materials used) is informed by and respects both the nature of the development site and the character of the neighbouring buildings and surrounding area.

- 3.1.5 The character and context of any residential development is created by the locally distinctive patterns and form of development, landscape, culture, and biodiversity. These elements have often built up over a considerable time and tell a story of the site's history and evolution - the creation of a ‘sense of place’.
- 3.1.6 The character and context of a site should inﬂuence design positively so that development does not simply replace what was there but reﬂects and responds to it, for example by allowing the long-term retention of existing mature landscaping features such as trees or water features.
- 3.1.7 The initial site context should also identify established building heights, lines, and orientation of buildings that are adjacent to the site and should have a positive relationship with established housing and other development, including ease of pedestrian and vehicular movement.

- 2.8 The Strategic Plan generally encourages good design and that new development enhances its environment (Strategic Policies 3, 4 and 5, Environment Policy 42).
- 2.9 Development is generally directed towards existing settlements (Strategic Aim, Strategic Policies 1, 2 and 10, Transport Policy 1 and Spatial Policy 4).
- 2.10 Development within a Conservation Area (CA) is expected to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA (Strategic Policy 4, Environment Policy 35) and take account of the special characteristics of the area (Planning Policy Statement 1/01 Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man CA/2).
- 2.11 Development is expected not to adversely affect the fabric or setting of Ancient Monuments (Strategic Policy 4, Environment Policy 40) and where a site is thought to affect a site containing features of archaeological importance, appropriate evaluations are expected to accompany any planning application for development which might affect it (Environment Policy 41).
- 2.12 There is a presumption that buildings which make a positive contribution to a Conservation Area will not be removed (Environment Policy 39 and PPS 1/01 CA/6).

- 2.13 Development is now expected to take account of Climate Change and maximise thermal and energy efﬁciency and reduce carbon emissions (Climate Change Act and the Residential Design Guide (RDG).
- 2.14 Development is expected to have an acceptable impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent dwellings (General Policy 2g and the RDG).
- 2.15 Development is expected to have an acceptable impact on highway safety (General Policy 2h and i) including the provision of adequate car parking (Transport Policy 7). Each dwelling is generally expected to have two parking spaces available to it although exceptions may be made in certain circumstances (Appendix 7).
- 2.16 Development is encouraged to make the best use of resources by, inter alia, optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and reusing scarce indigenous building materials and ensuring efﬁcient use of sites (Strategic Policy 1).
- 2.17 Development should demonstrate that it has an acceptable impact on trees and ecology (Environment Policies 3, 4 and 7).
- 2.18 The Silverdale Conservation Area Character Appraisal was commissioned to investigate the potential extension of the CA and was produced in 2010. The document includes a number of statements which are or contain general principles which are considered applicable to this site:

A number of the buildings within the planned area are showing signs of neglect, or have been inappropriately altered. Others are more recent buildings and structures (bungalows, garages, etc) which contribute nothing to the visual or architectural integrity of the area. It would be important that any new policy established a strategy that encouraged future replacement with more appropriate forms and ﬁnishes.

- 2.19 The existing properties on Bridge Road have been photographed (not including the application building) and notes included on their contribution to the CA:

## Anne’s Cottage is described as: “Traditional colours – terracotta walls and pale blue woodwork. The shallowly -bowed windows probably date from 1960 -70. The render

has been ruled to suggest coursing – an early 20thC feature. The church tower can be seen behind.”

The former Methodist chapel is described thus: “Steep slated roof with decorative clay ridge tiles; lancet windows would have offered an untypically high proportion of glazed area; note three openings on gable; rendered apex of gable and gable verge with running proﬁle and decorative corbel; stone boundary walls.”

That’ll Do (formerly Riverside Cottage) described as: “House abuts street; gable-on street elevation to nearest element of house, an untypical feature on the Isle of Man; later, larger two-on-two sashes; shallower roof; cream textured render” and “The overall scale is in character, but the roof pitch is conspicuously modern (too shallow); sectional single garage; cream textured render.”

Walton House, opposite the application site is described as: “Attractive limestone dwelling. Note height of stack, door surround and mullioned windows.”

- 3.0 Planning history
- 3.1 The site has been the subject of a number of applications:
- 3.2 99/02049/B - erection of stable block - permitted
- 3.3 08/02102/B - erection of replacement porch - permitted
- 3.4 24/00528/B - demolition of existing building and erection of a replacement detached dwelling with integral garage, associated greenhouse, summerhouse and workshop and reestablish existing access on Mill Road - withdrawn. The Assistant Registered Buildings Ofﬁcer commented that the loss of the existing dwelling was not objectionable but the replacement, however, is of a design, form and massing that is in no way appropriate to the historic character of the conservation area. The scale and massing are such that the replacement dwelling would have a far greater impact than the existing dwelling, and given the position of the site adjacent to the river, Rushen Abbey and the Abbey Church, they judged that it has the potential to cause signiﬁcant harm to the general character of the Conservation Area.
- 3.5 24/00530/CON - Registered Building Consent for demolition elements to PA 24/00528/B

- permitted. This permission relates to the demolition of the existing dwelling and was granted on the basis that the proposal meets the statutory tests within Section 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, as the character of the conservation area is being preserved. The application also meets the tests of strategic policy 4 and environment policy 35 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 as the proposed conservation area is being protected and preserved. The application was therefore judged to be acceptable.

- 3.6 This permission was not conditional or based upon any replacement of the existing building. The associated application for the replacement of the existing dwelling was withdrawn following discussions with the Assistant Registered Buildings Ofﬁcer and the Planning Ofﬁcer who was dealing with these applications.
- 3.7 The most recent application on the site was 25/90454/B which is referred to above. This application was recommended for refusal, and ultimately refused for the following reasons:

- 1. By virtue of the extensive use of black metal, particularly on the proposed dwelling but throughout the application site, the proposed development would not be in

- keeping with the the surrounding buildings which give the Silverdale Conservation Area its special character. The new development would change the character of this part of the Conservation Area in a harmful way, and its character and appearance would neither be preserved nor enhanced. The proposed development would therefore fail the statutory test set out in Section 18(4) of the Act; and it would also conﬂict with Strategic Policy 4(a) and Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan.
- 2. By virtue of the extensive use of black metal, the proposed development would not respect the design of the existing buildings around it or the materials used in the local area. It would therefore fail to take account of the character and identity of the immediate locality and so conﬂict with Strategic Policy 3(b), Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2 (b & c) and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan.
- 3. The proposed new dwelling would be in close proximity to existing mature trees on the eastern and western boundaries of the site. It would be within falling distance of the largest trees on both boundaries and the trees to the west would shade the garden close to the house and some internal living space in the afternoon. The trees might also give rise to nuisance caused by seasonal debris, such as fallen leaves in gutters. All these issues give rise to a signiﬁcant risk of pressure for unreasonable and disproportionate pruning, which would threaten the health and longevity of the trees. The proposal would therefore be contrary to General Policy 2(f) of the Strategic Plan.
- 4. The new dwelling would present its tallest, black metal clad elevation to the much smaller Mill Cottages to the north. On account of its relatively large scale, its domineering appearance and close proximity, the new building would be overbearing and give rise to at least the perception of overlooking and, potentially, real overlooking. Thus it would be an unneighbourly form of development which would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of Mill Cottages in respect of outlook and overlooking. This would be contrary to General Policy 2(g) of the Strategic Plan.

- 3.9 The adjacent former Methodist chapel to the south was approved for conversion to a dwelling (22/01283/B).

## 4.0 The proposal

- 4.1 Proposed here is the demolition of the buildings on site and their replacement with a new dwelling set further to the north, a workshop set where the existing dwelling currently stands, a detached garage to the south of the new house and a greenhouse to the north of the new house. The proposal is exactly the same as previously proposed other than the ﬁnish materials which are now predominantly smooth, painted render with the central section of the front (east) and rear (west) elevation ﬁnished in natural stone. The garage and store are now to be ﬁnished similarly in render with natural slate roof on the former and a simple, ﬂat roof on the latter.
- 4.2 The access to the site will remain as it currently exists.
- 4.3 The proposed dwelling Is larger than what exists and will be sited in a different position. Whilst this might be an issue in areas not designated for development, in this case, the site lies within an area designated for residential use so there should be no constraint in principle to either a larger dwelling being built on the site, nor one in a different position to what exists. The new siting will result in the property being further from the existing former Methodist church being converted and only slightly closer to Anne’s Cottage but further away than is the existing stable block to this existing adjacent dwelling.
- 4.4 The proposed dwelling will be partly two storey but the majority single storey with accommodation in the roofspace.
- 4.5 The dwelling has been designed with cues from the surrounding building - the steep pitched roof, the use of render and vertically proportioned windows many of which follow the shape of the walling above them - and slate coloured roof ﬁnish but with a slightly different layout, resulting in a dwelling which is its own character but sympathetic to the surrounding buildings and attractive in terms of every elevation, noting that the building will be heavily screened from public view by existing boundary vegetation and surrounding buildings.
- 4.6 The dwelling will be 16m at closest to the rear boundary of Anne’s Cottage but orientated so that it does not directly face this neighbouring property. The dwelling will be just over 20m from the nearest part of 1, Mill Cottages and further still from 2, Mill Cottages. All existing trees which sit immediately alongside the boundaries are to be retained with two individual trees (1 x Category C horse chestnut and 1x Category C plum) and two tree groups (one

- comprising 11 x elder, 5 x plum, 3 x hawthorn, 2 x ash all Category C and the other comprising 2 x apple 5 x plum all Category C).
- 4.7 The application contains arboricultural information prepared by Manx Roots including plans showing existing trees, those to be retained and those to be removed, a tree survey of all trees on site, a tree protection plan and a landscaping scheme which introduces 4 x cornus Eddie’s white wonder (dogwood), 3 prunus cerasifera (cherry plum) and 2 betula papyrifera (paper birch).
- 4.8 The site will be largely soft surfaced with the only hard surfacing in the form of the footprint of the buildings, a small pathway around the house and workshop and a drive and turning/parking area between the entrance and the garage.
- 4.9 The applicant commissioned a report by the Manx Bat Group, dated 4th March, 2024 which conﬁrms that none of the buildings on site contained any evidence of bat presence and hold limited potential for hibernating and solitary bats but negligible potential for maternity colonies. There are no records of bats within the site, with small numbers of records in the immediately surrounding area. The conclusion is that there will be minimal impact on bats from the proposed works and mitigation is not necessary although it is recommended that the provision of bat boxes within the site could improve the habitat for bats to increase opportunities for roosting.
- 4.10 It recommends that if the stables are to be removed emergence surveys should be undertaken in June/July to determine whether it is used by bats. Any trees to be removed should be checked by an arborist qualiﬁed to survey trees for potential bat roosts and with appropriate measures taken if any are found.
- 4.11 External lighting is recommended to be kept to a minimum.
- 4.12 The new dwelling is to be connected to the main services.
- 4.13 The application includes a Flood Risk Assessment dated February 2025 and also a Surface Water Drainage Strategy both prepared by JoFlows on 21st March, 2025. The conclusion of the FRA is as follows:

- • The vast majority of the site lies outside of the areas identiﬁed as being at high risk of ﬂooding from the Silverburn
- • The ﬂood risk maps show the site as being generally at risk from surface water ﬂooding, but it is noted that these maps are not ﬁltered and areas may only be at risk of ﬂooding for limited amounts of time. More detailed assessment demonstrates that most of these areas are associated with a ﬂood hazard below 0.575 and as the unﬁltered ﬂood depths show an average depth of ﬂooding between 40 - 70mm, this suggests that the site is a low risk from surface water ﬂooding during the 1%AEP30CC ﬂood event, without putting the new development platform at risk
- • The site speciﬁc hydraulic model shows that the development platform is not at risk of ﬂooding for the 1%AEP30CC ﬂuvial ﬂood event and a safety freeboard of 910mm is achieved for the design ﬂuvial ﬂood event
- • A surface water drainage strategy will be needed to manage the run off generated by the proposed development and ideally have regard to the use of inﬁltration SuDS and water re-use
- • An assessment of the displacement of ﬂood water shows that the design ﬂuvial scenario leads to a decrease of 8mm off site, mainly in Bridge Road. In terms of the pluvial scenario, the different maps show ﬂood depths to increase by approximately 17mm along Bridge Road and by 5mm at the location of the adjacent properties for the 1%AEP30CC ﬂood event which is not considered to be of particular relevance and not sufﬁcient to increase the ﬂood hazard to above 0.575

- 4.14 The report concludes that with the above measures in place, the development of the site will not exacerbate ﬂood risk for the wider area and the proposed development itself will not be at unacceptable risk of ﬂooding in itself, fully satisfying Strategic Plan Environment Policies 10 and 13.
- 4.15 The Surface Water Drainage Strategy, also prepared by JoFlow recommends that a sustainable urban drainage system is employed and the proposal involves the connection of the development to the main foul sewer for the disposal of foul sewage and the introduction of gravel driveway and geotechnical stabilisation for the areas of hard surface draining to two soakaway crates collecting and ﬁltering the surface water at a rate of 1 cubic metre per 50 square metres. This system is capable of accommodating all rainfall events up to and including the 1%AEP30CC storm event.

- 4.16 The ancillary buildings proposed include a workshop, a garage and a greenhouse. The workshop has a footprint of 10m by 8m and will site on the site of the existing house. This building will be ﬁnished in painted render with a natural slate roof. It will sit on a 150mm reinforced concrete slab over 150mm cellular conﬁnement system providing a reliable tree root protection solution.
- 4.17 The garage is a double garage with single garage door which has a footprint of 7m by 7m with a roof pitched and ﬁnished to match the main dwelling. The south facing roof will have solar panels attached (details provided) which will also be applied to the west, south and east facing roof planes on the proposed house.
- 4.18 The greenhouse will have a footprint of 3.3m by 6.3m and will have an eaves level of 1.5m and an overall height of 2.75m. It will have a low rendered dwarf wall with the glass and frame sitting on top.

## 5.0 Assessment

- 5.1 The demolition of the existing dwelling and stable have Registered Building approval and as from 1st January require planning approval to be demolished. The dwelling is not attractive nor of any historic or architectural value as demonstrated by the Registered Building Consent for their removal. This element of the application should therefore be acceptable as even if the site were left undeveloped, the absence of the existing buildings would not have any adverse impact on the character or appearance of the area, even given its Conservation Area status. The site is in a sustainable location so the principle of the erection of a dwelling or even further dwellings here is acceptable in land use planning terms (SPs 1, 2 and 10, SpP 4 and TP 1).
- 5.2 Whether a single dwelling on this site satisﬁes SP 1 may be debatable in terms of making the best use of the site (but has not been suggested as being a concern) but it is considered that given the proximity of adjacent dwellings and potential impact thereon, the sensitivity of the site to ﬂood risk, the potential contribution of the site to biodiversity and the importance of preserving the character of the site to the Conservation Area, the proposal for the retention of just one dwelling on this site is acceptable.
- 5.3 The critical, detailed issues associated with this proposal are considered to be the following:

- • The need to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and area generally (EPs 35 and 42, PPS 1/01 CA/2, GP2 b, c and g, SPs 3, 4 and 5).
- • The need to identify the special characteristics of the CA which should be taken into account PPS 1/01 CA/2).
- • The need to demonstrate that the development will have an acceptable impact on ﬂood risk. A Flood Risk Assessment is required in this case (EPs 10 and 13).
- • The need to demonstrate an acceptable impact on ecology (EPs 4 and 7).
- • The need to demonstrate an acceptable impact on trees (EP 3).
- • The need to demonstrate that the proposal has no adverse impact on highway safety including car parking (TP 4 and 7 and Appendix 7).

- • The need to demonstrate that the development has no adverse impact on archaeology (EPs 40 and 41 and SP 4). There does not appear to be any concern in this respect, given the lack of comment on the previous detailed application by Manx National Heritage.
- • The need to demonstrate an acceptable impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent property.

## Preserving or enhancing the Conservation Area (CA) - design and visual impact

- 5.4 The satisfaction of the requirement for preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA is closely linked to the identiﬁcation of the special characteristics of the CA. The resulting impact on the surrounding area is also closely associated with these elements.
- 5.5 The CA Appraisal, although dealing with a proposed extension to the CA, identiﬁes and comments on a number of properties, commenting positively on those which have traditional characteristics and materials and noting that a number of these are very close to the application site. Limestone is mentioned a number of times as a positive feature, as is the traditional proportion and materials of the local Manx cottages. The pitch of rooﬁng is noted -

- a particular mention of rooﬁng which is too shallow as a negative element.

- 5.6 The type of buildings which contribute positively appear to be traditional Manx cottages and ecclesiastical buildings with their respective distinctive features (mullioned windows, painted render, limestone walling, slated roofs). Those which contribute less tend to be more modern buildings and/or those which do not incorporate the traditional features referred to above.
- 5.7 It is not considered appropriate to try and replicate any of the existing adjacent buildings given that the context of Abbey Mill Lodge is quite different to all of these as the building is set in a substantial, landscaped plot. As such, the design chosen takes key design elements from the more attractive and interesting adjacent buildings - the steep, pitched roof, the dark coloured roof ﬁnish, the verticality of the windows and outer sections of the building and now, the painted render and limestone ﬁnish to the external walls. We would suggest that this now reﬂects the comments made in the Conservation Area Appraisal and the proposed dwelling complements its surroundings and satisfying Strategic Policies 3, 4 and 5, General Policy 2

- b, c and g and Environment Policy 42.

- 5.8 We would submit that the building will be interesting and not out of place to anyone who may see it and would be signiﬁcantly more attractive than what exists, thus enhancing the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. It should be noted that in the last application, the Registered Buildings Ofﬁcer concluded that the proposed dwelling, including its black cladding, would not have an unacceptable impact on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area although this was not accepted by the planning ofﬁcer or the majority of the Committee members. The reasons for refusal relating to the impact on the Conservation Area and area more generally referred only to the use of materials, not to any other element of the proposed dwelling, garage or workshop.
- 5.9 The proposed workshop whilst closer to the entrance will be generally screened, as is the existing dwelling which is taller than this proposed replacement building, and will have a neutral impact on the streetscene. Arguably, the removal of the modern existing house and its replacement with a smaller and lower building will result in an enhancement to the appearance of the site, in accordance with EP35 and PPS 1/01. Again, no reference was made to this in the previous refusal.

Flood risk

- 5.10 A FRA is provided along with a Surface Water Drainage Strategy on which the proposed development is based. These documents demonstrate that the development can be achieved without any unacceptable impact from ﬂooding either to the proposed development itself or any surrounding area or property. The proposal is therefore considered to satisfy EPs 10 and 13. The reasons for refusal for the most recent application do not relate to ﬂood risk.

Impact on ecology

- 5.11 The report from the Manx Bat Group conﬁrms that the development will not have any unacceptable impact on bats and may have the potential to enhance bat habitat through the introduction of new bat boxes within the site. The response to the previous application from the Ecosystems Policy Ofﬁce conﬁrms that some of the trees to be removed could have the potential to accommodate nesting birds but recommended that the development be permitted to proceed subject to conditions which require that a bird and bat box nesting plan is provided including at least 2 bat boxes suitable for crevice dwelling species and at least 2 integrated swift nest bricks and one open fronted nest box the latter of which must be provided prior to works commencing. They also recommended that no external lighting may

- be installed without prior permission and attention is given to the impact of lighting on wildlife if such is considered.
- 5.12 Of course, the provisions of the Wildlife Act 1990 must also be observed throughout the development.
- 5.13 Ecosystems Policy also recommended that measures should be put in place to avoid bird strike against glazed balconies. There are no balconies proposed in this current application. The previous refusal made no reference to any adverse impact on ecology.

Impact on trees

- 5.14 The application includes a full Arboricultural Impact Assessment and it is also noted that the removal of trees was not raised as an issue per se in the previous application. What is now proposed proposes the removal of some additional trees within the two tree groups but this is not considered to materially affect the impact of the development on the existing trees in arboricultural or ecological terms.
- 5.15 Whilst the most recent application generated no objection from the Arboricultural Ofﬁcer of Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the planning ofﬁcer overruled that professional recommendation and included impact on trees as a reason for refusal. Whilst the Planning Committee accepted that reason for refusal, the members stated a number of times that they would have liked to have supported the application but the ﬁnishes of the house were the only reason they could not.
- 5.16 This was queried with the committee at the time, who conﬁrmed that all four of the reasons for refusal were accepted, but at no time did they refer to anything other than the ﬁnish materials as the reason for their refusal of the application.
- 5.17 It is our position that the committee was not concerned with the impact of the proposed dwelling on the surrounding trees but also that the professional recommendation of the Arboricultural Ofﬁcer of the Department should be accepted.

Impact on highway safety

- 5.18 The information provided in the previous application, including amendments appears to demonstrate this to the satisfaction of the Highway Services Division of Department for

Infrastructure and no changes are proposed to the existing access. The proposal more than meets the requirements for car parking within the site.

## Archaeology

- 5.19 There were no adverse comments from Manx National Heritage in respect of the previous application. As such, it would not appear that this is an issue or that any further information is required. The lack of any structures on the site as shown in the 1868 map also supports the position that no further information is required in respect of these policies.

Impact on neighbours

- 5.20 The 2024 application did not generate any objection from those in neighbouring properties and it is understood that the applicant is on good terms and in regular contact with those who live alongside. Anne’s Cottage is presently advertised for sale. The 2025 application did not generate any objections from any of the adjoining neighbours either but the planning ofﬁcer considered the impact of the northern elevation on Mill Cottages to be unacceptable. She referred to “the tallest, black metal clad elevation to the much smaller Mill Cottages to the north” and considered that “On account of its relatively large scale, its domineering appearance and close proximity, the new building would be overbearing and give rise to at least the perception of overlooking and, potentially, real overlooking.”
- 5.21 The application has been carefully designed to respect the privacy and outlook of those in adjacent properties and what is proposed will satisfy the requirements of the Residential Design Guide in the avoidance of windows which are closer than 20m to existing windows where there is a direct line of sight. It is also noted that there is either distance, or existing vegetation, or both between the proposed dwelling and its neighbours. Whilst the planning ofﬁcer considers that the “relatively large scale” of this elevation is unacceptable and in “close proximity”, we would submit that it is neither unduly large or tall - being only 0.75m taller than Mill Cottages and is not in close proximity, being 20m at nearest and set at an angle to Mill Cottages. The proposal is therefore, we would submit in full accordance with the Department’s design guidance and should be considered acceptable in terms of that and General Policy 2g.
- 5.22 The proposed dwelling is smaller than that proposed in the 2024 application and with less area of hard standing.

- 5.23 The proposal will reduce the height of the building closest to the former Methodist Chapel to the south and thus improving the outlook therefrom.

Conclusion

- 5.24 The proposal will result in a modern building which is thermally and energy efﬁcient but designed and ﬁnished in traditional materials which are found in the immediate vicinity and which has a limited and no unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and surrounding area more generally due to its location. What will be seen, we would say presents a more attractive development than what exists, satisfying the relevant parts of General Policy 2, Environment Policy 35 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 CA/2.
- 5.25 The development, including the ancillary buildings will be connected to the mains services in a manner which avoids increasing ﬂood risk either to the site or surrounding property and the inclusion of bird and bat habitat and the retention of the majority of existing trees together with the planting of new trees and shrubs as shown in the submitted plans, will result in the development having a positive impact on biodiversity.
- 5.26 The proposal now, in our opinion, satisﬁes all of the concerns which were raised by the planning committee in their consideration of the previous application and the concerns expressed regarding impact on trees and neighbours is not supported by the professional advisers of the Department, neighbours nor the Department’s own guidance and policy.
- 5.27 The development will make best use of an existing sustainable site within a settlement with no adverse impact on those in adjoining property satisfying all of the relevant planning policies applicable to this proposal.

## Sarah Corlett 16.01.26

---

*Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).*
*Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/130755-malew-abbey-mill-lodge-demolition-garage/documents/1593528*