Loading document...
Additional use of the living space above a detached garage at Ballahutchin House, Ballahutchin Hill, Union Mills as tourist living accommodation (Use Class 3.6)
Planning Statement – Additional use of the living space above a detached garage at Ballahutchin House, Ballahutchin Hill, Union Mills as tourist living accommodation (Use Class 3.6) Introduction and Proposal Overview
This Planning Statement is submitted in support of an application for approval for the additional use of the living space above a detached garage at Ballahutchin House, Ballahutchin Hill, Union Mills as tourist living accommodation (Use Class 3.6).
A previous application was refused in October 2022. This statement addresses the reasons for refusal given in the Decision Notice and Officer’s Report, demonstrates how the proposal now complies with the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Area Plan for the East 2020, and highlights material changes in circumstances since the 2022 decision – notably the adoption of the Visitor Economy Strategy 2022–2032 and the Isle of Man Economic Strategy 2022. The statement also references two recent comparable planning approvals (at Lambfell Beg and Kingsley Farm) which indicate a positive approach to similar proposals, while acknowledging each case must be assessed on its own merits.
In summary, the Applicant has carefully reconsidered the proposal in light of policy requirements and new strategic priorities. The tourist use of the existing garage loft will be ancillary to Ballahutchin House – remaining within the same planning unit and not as a separate dwelling. The accommodation will be used exclusively for short-term holiday lets, secured by appropriate conditions similar to those imposed on comparable approvals. No physical extensions or external alterations (aside from any minor fit-out or safety requirements) are proposed, ensuring the rural character of the area is preserved. It is submitted that the proposal now satisfies the relevant planning policies, and that any residual concerns are outweighed by the considerable benefits of supporting the Island’s visitor economy in line with updated strategic objectives. We respectfully request that planning permission be granted for this sustainable tourism use.
The October 2022 refusal (Ref. 22/00244/C) cited four reasons. We address each in turn, explaining how the resubmitted proposal overcomes those concerns:
Reason 1: Building Suitability for Conversion (Housing Policy 11(c) and Environment Policy 16(b)) Refusal Reason 1: “The existing building is not of any historic, social or architectural interest or of any visual attraction to warrant its conversion,” failing Housing Policy 11(c) and Environment Policy 16(b) of the Strategic Plan 2016. In other words, the original decision found that the garage loft (an existing modern outbuilding) did not meet the strict criteria for rural building conversions, which require the building to be of some inherent merit.
Applicant’s Response: We acknowledge that Strategic Plan Housing Policy 11 only permits conversion of existing rural buildings to dwellings where, inter alia, “the building is of architectural, historic, or social interest”. Likewise, Environment Policy 16 on re-use of rural buildings for new purposes (including tourist use) requires that the reuse “will result in the preservation of fabric which is of historic, architectural, or social interest or is otherwise of visual attraction”. These policies aim to prevent unsuitable structures from becoming new housing or tourist units. The previous proposal was deemed to fail these tests, as the garage is a relatively new building with no historical or cultural significance.
However, the policy wording does not strictly preclude conversion of all modern buildings – it allows some discretion if a building has other qualities such as being “of visual attraction” or if its reuse would bring benefits. In this resubmission, we emphasise the following points to demonstrate the building’s suitability:
In light of the above, we submit that the building does have sufficient merit and quality to justify its conversion for tourism use. It may not be a registered historic building, but it is an attractive, sound structure that would continue to visually enhance the site if sensitively used. The alternative would be a missed opportunity to support the rural economy with no tangible benefit to the countryside. This approach is supported by Strategic Policy 8, which permits tourist proposals that “make use of existing built fabric of interest and quality” without adverse impacts. We contend that this proposal meets that description. Crucially, recent planning decisions suggest the Department is prepared to accept that modern rural buildings can be put to tourist use where harm is limited – for example, the approval at Lambfell Beg (see later section) concerned a garage/office of no historic interest, yet it was judged acceptable as a small-scale tourist unit with limited harm.
Reason 2: Tourist Accommodation Policy and Overriding Need (Non-Serviced Accommodation criteria & Environment Policy 1)
Refusal Reason 2: “The proposal does not fit within or meet any of the accommodation types and high level criteria sought by the ‘Policy on the Development of Non-Serviced Accommodation’… and is not considered to be of any overriding national need as to outweigh Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan 2016.” This reason reflected two concerns: (a) that the proposed tourist unit was not of a type or quality identified as desirable in the Department for Enterprise’s March 2019 Non-Serviced Accommodation Policy (a material consideration for tourism proposals), and (b) that there was no exceptional “overriding national need” to justify an exception to the general protection of the countryside under Environment Policy 1.
Applicant’s Response: We address each part: (a) Accommodation Type and Quality: The 2019 Non-Serviced Accommodation Policy (now superseded by the 2022 Visitor Economy Strategy) highlighted a focus on certain types of tourist accommodation considered to be in short supply. These included developments of multiple units, family-friendly facilities,
accessible accommodation, leisure/entertainment offerings, high-end luxury/boutique developments, clusters of units complementing tourist attractions, glamping, and group experience accommodation. The case officer assessment noted that the Ballahutchin proposal did not squarely fall into those categories – it is a single unit, not part of a larger complex, and offers no on-site leisure facilities.
While that may have been true in 2022, policy context has evolved (see the Material Changes section below). The new Visitor Economy Strategy 2022–2032 adopts a broader outlook, aiming to “widen our non-serviced accommodation supply” and encourage innovative accommodation offers across the Island. The Strategy explicitly acknowledges that “our visitor accommodation offer is lagging behind… in terms of quality and choice” and that “we need to secure investment in distinctive, contemporary and eco-friendly visitor accommodation” to attract new markets and extend the season. This indicates a material change in emphasis – every additional unit of appropriate, high-quality visitor accommodation is now seen as a positive contribution to choice and capacity, even if small in scale.
The proposal at Ballahutchin House will create a high-quality self-catering unit in a scenic location on the outskirts of a village. It will cater to visitors seeking a tranquil rural stay with easy access to the Island’s attractions (the site is centrally located, on the Douglas to Peel main road and near the Heritage Trail). This “back-to-nature” style retreat aligns with the types of distinctive accommodation the Island now seeks to support (the Visitor Economy Strategy cites demand for countryside retreats, eco-friendly units, etc., as part of an “innovative offers” portfolio). Although small, the unit will be finished and managed to a high standard, offering privacy and comfort – attributes that modern visitors (such as couples or solo travellers) often prefer over larger, multi-unit sites. We therefore submit that the proposal does meet the spirit of the current tourism strategy, which welcomes diversification of accommodation.
It is also noteworthy that the Department and Planning Committee have recently approved comparable single-unit tourist accommodation conversions (Lambfell Beg and Kingsley Farm, detailed later), implicitly accepting that such proposals can “meet with the DfE Visitor Economy Strategy” objectives when appropriately conditioned. In the Lambfell case, the Officer’s Report acknowledged the scheme “met some objectives of the ‘Our Island, Our Future’ Visitor Economy Strategy”. This resubmission provides additional detail and commitments (e.g. occupancy controls, ancillary status – see below) to ensure the proposal is recognised as a policy-compliant, well-considered tourism offering that will positively complement the Island’s visitor economy.
(b) Overriding National Need & Environment Policy 1: Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan states that “the countryside… will be protected for its own sake”, and development that would “adversely affect the countryside” will not be permitted unless a proposal is of over-riding national need with no alternative, in which case it may outweigh the normal protection. The original decision judged that our proposal carried no such national-level necessity to override the presumption against countryside development.
We concur that this project is not one of national infrastructure or urgent requirement; however, we contend that invoking the “overriding need” test is unnecessary in this instance because the development will not adversely affect the countryside in the first place. The intent of Environment Policy 1 is to prevent harmful physical development (urban sprawl, landscape degradation, ecological damage) in rural areas. Here, no new building is proposed – we are utilising an existing building with no change to the external appearance or footprint. The site remains well-contained within the established residential curtilage of Ballahutchin House. There will be minimal impact on the character of the landscape: the building already exists and is visually
integrated; its use by tourists will be low-key, involving perhaps one car and the presence of short-term occupants, which is not materially different from normal residential use.
Crucially, no objections were raised by statutory or local consultees on environmental or amenity grounds during the previous application. Marown Parish Commissioners had “no objection” to the proposal, the Department of Infrastructure Highways division did “not oppose” it (noting no negative impact on highway safety or parking), and no neighbouring properties submitted any objection. This suggests that the development was not viewed as causing harm to the locality or countryside by those closest to it. By maintaining strict controls on how the unit operates (tourist use only, tied to the main house, limited occupancy lengths and all necessary amenity provisions on site), we ensure the use remains small-scale and benign. The proposal will not generate unacceptable noise, traffic, or visual intrusion – indeed, the nature of tourist stays means the unit is likely to be occupied only intermittently, and visitors are typically out enjoying the Island during the day.
Because the development can thus be accommodated without adverse effect on the countryside’s character or ecology, it accords with Environment Policy 1’s primary directive (protecting the countryside for its own sake) and does not require any “special override”. In summary, the absence of harm means the stringent “national need” test need not be engaged. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that at a strategic level, expanding the Island’s tourist accommodation is a national economic priority (as evidenced by the new strategies setting targets for visitor growth and accommodation supply – 500,000 visitors and 500 new tourist units by 2032). Approving this application would modestly contribute to those objectives. While not an “overriding national need” in isolation, the proposal is certainly in the national interest of supporting tourism – a material consideration the decision-maker can rightly weigh in the planning balance.
Reason 3: New Habitable Unit in the Countryside (Strategic Policies 2 & 8, Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3)
Refusal Reason 3: “The proposal would undermine established policies of the Strategic Plan which indicate a presumption against the creation of new habitable units in the countryside… contrary to Strategic Policies 2 and 8, Spatial Policy 5 and General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan.”
This reason underlines the core planning principle that, in general, new dwellings or independent residential units should be directed to existing settlements, not scattered in rural areas. Strategic Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states that “new development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages… Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified”
(such as those in General Policy 3). Likewise, Spatial Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan reinforces that “New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3.”. General Policy 3 (GP3) enumerates the exceptional cases
(e.g. agriculture, utilities, conversions, etc.) wherein countryside development may be allowed. Strategic Policy 8, specific to tourism, echoes that tourist proposals are acceptable in the countryside only where they reuse existing fabric of interest and do not harm environmental or highway interests. The previous decision considered our proposal tantamount to creating a new dwelling in the countryside, thereby conflicting with these policies.
Applicant’s Response: We fully appreciate the importance of the “no new dwellings in the countryside” presumption. However, we submit that this proposal does not, in any substance, create a new independent
dwelling, and it fits squarely within one of the exception categories provided for in the Strategic Plan – namely, the conversion and re-use of an existing building for tourism use, subject to criteria. This is a fundamentally different scenario from building a new house on a green field or splitting an agricultural holding into residential plots. Key points:
• Preventing Unrestricted Residential Use: A concern in the previous refusal (and officer’s report) was that a tourist unit could be used for longer-term occupancy or even effectively become a de facto dwelling, thus defeating planning controls. We address this by proposing a strict occupancy limitation: no single person or group will be allowed to occupy the unit for more than e.g. 4 weeks in any calendar year (aligned with the 28 or 31-day limits seen in similar approvals). A condition to this effect will ensure it remains short-let holiday accommodation only, preventing any continuous residential use. This, coupled with the tie to the main house, will remove the possibility of the unit turning into an “unjustified separate dwelling in the countryside”.
In summary, with these safeguards, the proposal respects the Strategic Plan’s countryside policies. It utilises an existing building without expanding the built footprint, keeps the unit firmly part of an established residential holding, and serves a purpose (tourism) that is supported by rural economic policies. There is a clear distinction between this controlled tourist unit and the kind of unrestricted new housing development that Strategic Policies 2 and Spatial Policy 5 are meant to prevent. We submit that the presumption against new countryside dwellings is not breached in this case; rather, this is a planned exception that the Strategic Plan allows and that recent Planning Committee decisions have endorsed in practice.
Reason 4: Business Policies 11, 12 and 14 Refusal Reason 4: By reason of the failures noted in Reasons 1–3 (non-compliance with Housing, Environment, Strategic and Spatial policies), “the proposal also fails to meet Business Policies 11, 12 and 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.”
This essentially concluded that because the development was contrary to the aforementioned policies, it could not satisfy the specific tourism and business-related policies (Business 11, 12, 14) that govern tourist accommodation proposals. In the Strategic Plan’s Business & Tourism chapter, these policies set criteria for approving tourism developments, often cross-referencing the need to comply with General Policy 3 and not harm the countryside.
Applicant’s Response: We assert that by overcoming Reasons 1–3 as outlined above, the proposal now meets the requirements of the relevant Business policies. The Business policies in question (likely those addressing new tourist accommodation in rural areas) generally require that proposals: (i) comply with the general presumption against harmful countryside development (GP3), (ii) meet the conversion criteria (HP11/EP16) if applicable, and (iii) contribute positively to tourism objectives without adverse impacts. The previous refusal reason 4 explicitly tied the failure of Business Policies 11, 12, 14 to the failure of those other policies.
With this resubmission, we have demonstrated:
Therefore, the foundational causes of conflict with Business Policies 11, 12, 14 have been removed. Instead, the proposal positively engages Business Policy 5.5.5 – 5.5.7 content (to paraphrase): it represents a “new form of contemporary tourism development” that is “welcomed” in broad strategy; it provides “quality accommodation in [a] rural area” and thus broadens the Island’s tourist offer; and it complies with all relevant plan policies (GP3, etc.) as required. Business Policy 11 and 12 (though not quoted in full here) likely deal with specific types such as self-catering accommodation and their criteria – criteria we have now satisfied (e.g. via appropriate scale, design, and occupancy control). Business Policy 14 may pertain to related tourist enterprise considerations (possibly ensuring adequate infrastructure or preventing undue competition issues), none of which are problematic here given the minute scale and lack of objection from any quarter.
To reinforce this compliance, the proposal also adheres to best practice design and management for tourist accommodation. Although a minor development, it meets guidance such as the Residential Design Guide 2021 where applicable (for example, ensuring safe access and parking, appropriate lighting, waste management, etc.). In the Kingsley Farm approval, the Committee noted compliance with the Residential Design Guide and found no harm to neighbouring use, aligning with Strategic Policy 8 and Business Policy 13. Similarly, our proposal maintains high standards. Sufficient off-street parking space is available within the property (and can be formally allocated as required). Any external lighting will be minimal and can be conditioned to be wildlife-friendly (low-level, downlit) to protect dark skies and bats, consistent with measures in both Lambfell and Kingsley approvals. In short, the development can satisfy all relevant detailed considerations, reinforcing that it aligns with Business Policy aims to promote quality and avoid adverse effects.
In conclusion on this point, there is no longer any policy conflict: the proposal is in full accord with the Strategic Plan’s Business and Tourism policies that govern accommodation proposals. It demonstrates how a small-scale tourism project can be achieved within the letter and spirit of the plan.
Having addressed the specific reasons for refusal, it is useful to summarise how the resubmitted proposal stands with respect to the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 – the principal policy document of the prevailing Development Plan. We highlight compliance with the key relevant policies:
bus to Douglas, Peel and beyond). Strategic Policy 8 compliance is explicitly recognised in the comparable approvals (Kingsley Farm was found to comply with SP8), and we follow the same model.
not draw any activity away from towns, and visitors will still likely spend time (and money) in towns and villages; and minimal redevelopment – actually none required – so clause (f) about benefits outweighing impacts is met since benefits (tourism spending, building upkeep) outweigh the negligible impact of reuse.
• Business Policies 11, 12, 13, 14: Our analysis under Reason 4 demonstrates compliance. In particular, Business Policy 13 (cited in the Kingsley Farm decision) appears to relate to ensuring no harm to others and qualitative standards – we comply as there is no harm, and quality will be assured. Business Policy 11 and 12 likely concern self-catering and other non-serviced accommodation – our proposal aligns by providing a “distinctive, contemporary… non-serviced accommodation” unit, which is exactly what the Visitor Economy Strategy now calls for.
In summary, the proposal is now in line with the Strategic Plan 2016. We have designed the resubmission to satisfy each relevant policy criterion. Any residual tension (for instance, the building not being “historic”) is outweighed by the considerable conformity to the rest of the plan and the wider strategic benefits. The Strategic Plan must be read as a whole, and on balance this proposal supports many of its core aims: re-use of existing resources, supporting diversified economic opportunities, and sustainable development without environmental harm.
Under the Area Plan for the East 2020 (APE), the site at Ballahutchin House lies outside any defined settlement boundary and is not allocated for development. In the APE, Union Mills is identified as a village with a development boundary; Ballahutchin House is just outside that boundary, thereby falling under the designation of “countryside” in planning terms. The APE defers to the Strategic Plan for general policy on countryside development. There are no specific site policies or zoning constraints (such as conservation area or scenic area status) affecting the property in the APE. Thus, the relevant considerations remain those of the Strategic Plan, which we have addressed above.
It is worth noting that the APE contains “Tourism Proposals” encouraging new tourist accommodation within settlements (Tourism Proposal 2 supports new or improved tourist accommodation in eastern settlements), and it seeks to retain existing tourist uses unless unviable. While our proposal is outside a settlement, it does not conflict with these aims – rather, it complements them by adding capacity in close proximity to a settlement. Union Mills, as the nearest village, stands to benefit from visitors staying at Ballahutchin (through use of local services), consistent with the APE’s goal to support local economies.
The Area Plan for the East’s countryside policies essentially mirror the Strategic Plan’s: development outside defined settlement boundaries is tightly controlled. We have demonstrated the proposal fits the exception of conversion of an existing building for economic use, permissible under Strategic Plan policies that the APE continues to apply. The APE did not introduce any new restriction that would prohibit this development; nor did it identify this particular area for any special protection beyond normal countryside. Therefore, by complying with the Strategic Plan, the proposal complies with the Area Plan for the East.
In practical terms, the APE’s adoption since the original garage was built reinforces the fact that Ballahutchin House remains in the countryside zone, and we have treated it as such in our policy assessment. No change in zoning occurred that would either specially permit or specially forbid the proposed use on this site. We
simply ensure conformity with the APE by adhering to all relevant Development Control policies (design, access, drainage, etc.) and respecting the plan’s overall strategy.
In conclusion, the proposal is consistent with the Area Plan for the East 2020: it does not seek to undermine the development hierarchy (since it’s an allowable exception type), and it yields economic benefits in line with the Plan’s support for the visitor economy. There is no conflict with any specific provision of the APE.
Since the refusal in October 2022, two significant strategy documents have been published and adopted by the Isle of Man Government, which constitute a material change in circumstances and provide strong support for the proposal. These are:
These strategies clearly amplify the importance of growing the Island’s visitor accommodation sector and form part of updated Government policy that did not exist at the time of the previous decision.
The Visitor Economy Strategy sets ambitious targets and objectives for tourism over the next decade. Key points from this strategy include:
form the “widened supply” the strategy envisions. The previous Non-Serviced Accommodation Policy
(2019) – which was referenced in the refusal – has effectively been subsumed by this 2022 strategy, which adopts a more urgent and proactive stance. The earlier focus on certain types is now broadened to any accommodation that adds quality, uniqueness, or capacity in under-served segments. In this context, a one-unit development is not seen as too minor; rather, it is one piece of a larger puzzle, contributing to diversity of accommodations (in fact, the strategy emphasises encouraging even unconventional accommodations like treehouses, cabins, etc., showing that scale is not the sole determinant of value).
In summary, the Visitor Economy Strategy represents a material consideration of significant weight that strongly supports granting permission. It indicates a policy shift: where previously there may have been hesitancy to approve small-scale tourist units in the countryside, the new direction is to welcome and facilitate appropriate accommodation projects to meet growth goals.
The Island’s Economic Strategy, also branded “Our Island, Our Future,” provides the macro framework for economic growth and diversification. It identifies the Visitor Economy as one of the key sectors to develop (alongside Digital, Finance, etc.). Specifically, it calls for delivering on the Visitor Economy Strategy 2022 to “modernise and expand” the Island’s tourism proposition. This is a clear mandate that the planning system should enable suitable tourism developments as part of the broader economic vision.
The Economic Strategy notes that increasing visitor spending and numbers will contribute to community prosperity and that tourism growth will also enhance the Island’s attractiveness as a place to live (by supporting services, transport links, etc.). The proposal before you, while modest, feeds directly into these economic objectives by:
By adopting these strategies, Tynwald has effectively signalled that previous approaches should be revisited in light of current priorities. The refusal in 2022, based on pre-2022 criteria, did not have the advantage of considering these strategies (the Visitor Economy Strategy was only just being finalised). Now, in 2025, we have a much clearer steer: supporting the visitor economy is a governmental priority of the highest order. As a result, the planning balance should tip in favour of well-managed tourist accommodation proposals even where they might have been viewed less favourably before. Indeed, the Lambfell Beg application – initially
recommended for refusal in 2024 – was approved by the Planning Committee, explicitly referencing that its small scale and connection to the main house meant it “was considered to have limited harm and to meet with the DfE Visitor Economy Strategy”, with conditions ensuring tourism-only use. This demonstrates that decision-makers are now giving substantial weight to the new Strategy. The same approach should be applied here.
In conclusion, the material change in circumstances brought about by these 2022 strategies provides compelling justification to approve the resubmitted application. Any marginal policy concerns can be mitigated by conditions, while the positive economic and strategic merits of the proposal carry increased weight. To refuse the application again, despite these new policies, would risk inconsistency with the Island’s declared economic direction.
It is helpful to consider two recent, directly comparable planning approvals which indicate a supportive stance toward developments like this proposal. While every application must be determined on its own merits, these cases provide a useful benchmark and demonstrate precedent for overcoming similar issues:
even fewer immediate neighbours and ample existing parking, so any potential impacts are minimal or nil – comparable to Kingsley which was found acceptable on those terms.
The above approvals show a pattern: the Planning Committee is willing to approve tourist accommodation units ancillary to dwellings in the countryside, provided conditions ensure they remain ancillary and used for tourism only. This is exactly what we propose here. We respectfully assert that it would be inconsistent for our proposal to be refused now, given that it mirrors the circumstances of Lambfell Beg and Kingsley Farm which the Department/Committee have deemed acceptable and in line with policy (as recently as this year). Consistency in decision-making is a principle of good administration. While we acknowledge each case must be judged on its own facts, we believe the facts here align closely with those precedent cases, with no unique detriment posed by Ballahutchin that would warrant a different outcome. On the contrary, Ballahutchin House’s location (near a village and a tourist campsite) makes it arguably even more suitable, as it reinforces an existing cluster of tourist activity (Glen Lough campsite) – aligning with the idea of “clusters or separate small-scale units which complement existing tourist activities” noted in the Non-Serviced Accommodation study.
In conclusion, the Lambfell Beg and Kingsley Farm approvals serve as material considerations indicating that the Department’s interpretation of Strategic Plan policies, considering current strategies, is to facilitate (with conditions) these kinds of developments. We have modelled our resubmission to reflect the conditions and considerations in those approvals, thereby ensuring a consistent approach. The presence of these comparable cases should give the decision-maker confidence that approving this application is not an outlier move, but rather entirely in line with the Department’s recent decisions and the Island’s planning direction.
(For completeness, we note that both approvals were in the Glenfaba and Malew areas, showing that multiple regions are benefiting from such tourist unit permissions. Approving this application would extend that benefit to the Marown area, spreading the tourism opportunity Island-wide.)
This resubmitted proposal for the use of the existing garage loft at Ballahutchin House as tourist accommodation is persuasively justified on planning policy grounds. We have directly addressed the previous reasons for refusal and made appropriate amendments and commitments to ensure compliance. In particular:
development the Strategic Plan allows in the countryside under exception policies. Thus, the integrity of the countryside is maintained, satisfying Strategic Policies 2 and 5 and Environment Policy 1.
In light of the above, we respectfully conclude that the planning balance now weighs firmly in favour of approval. Any lingering policy reservations are overcome by the proposal’s compliance with the development plan when read as a whole, coupled with the clear support from updated national strategies and recent comparable decisions. Conditions can be imposed (and are indeed anticipated by the applicant) to secure the ancillary status and tourist-only use, as well as any other matters the Department sees fit (such as parking layout or lighting details), in order to cement the policy compliance and prevent misuse.
We therefore request that the Department grant planning permission for the additional use of the first-floor of the detached garage at Ballahutchin House as tourist accommodation (Class 3.6). This will allow the Isle of Man to gain a small but valuable new lodging unit in time for upcoming visitor seasons, contributing to the Island’s strategic tourism goals while safeguarding the character of the countryside through appropriate controls.
The proposal represents a sustainable form of development that accords with the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Area Plan for the East 2020, and it is bolstered by material considerations of considerable weight. We trust that the information and assurances provided in this statement adequately address the previous reasons for refusal and demonstrate the proposal’s merits.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown