Perk Cottage, Knock Froy Road, Santon, Isle Of Man, IM4 1jd
Appeal against the refusal Erection of a replacement dwelling
Erection of a replacement dwelling
Variation of Condition 1 of PA 21/00238/B, Erection of a replacement dwelling, to increase the period of permission by one year
Variation of condition 1 of PA 17/00214/B, Erection of a replacement dwelling, to increase the period of permission by two years
Temporary use of adjoining field as a camp site with associated toilets and parking for the duration of the week before the TT festival until a week after the IOM Festival of Motorcycling
Alterations, driveway extension and erection of a replacement detached garage with ancillary living accommodation above
Erection of a replacement dwelling
Erection of a replacement dwelling
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 original application PA25/90880/B for a replacement dwelling larger than a previously approved scheme was refused under delegated authority on 30 November 2025 for reasons of excessive size, bulk, visual impact on countryside contrary to Environment Policy 1 and Housing Policy 14, undermining a prior refusal, and incongruous design contrary to Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2, and Circular 3/91. The appellant argues for approval on medical grounds for wheelchair access, minimal additional visual impact given existing approval, no longer applicable landscape designations, limited visibility, and precedents of larger replacements nearby. The planning officer defends the refusal, stating the approved scheme already provides ample ground floor space, the proposal's design is out of keeping, and each case is decided on merits. The appeal is AP25/0045, elected for hearing with statements submitted; no inspector analysis or decision available.
Precedent Value
No decision yet; appellants should emphasise medical evidence, distinguish from prior refusals, and cite local precedents carefully as council argues each case on merits. Stress minimal incremental harm vs approved schemes and visibility constraints.
