31 March 2014 · Planning Committee
Ard Na Mara House, Quines Hill, Port Soderick, Isle Of Man, IM4 1ba
The proposal sought retrospective approval for retaining four tourist units (reduced from seven) in a large F-shaped building behind Ard Na Mara house, with part demolition and single-storey conversion of the adjoining wing for private garaging, plus aesthetic changes like stone cladding, timber, grey render, and remov…
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 assessed the proposal against Strategic Plan policies restricting countryside development, concluding it represents new build (not conversion of redundant barns) outside GP3 exceptions, in…
General Policy 3
Prohibits development outside zoned areas except listed exceptions (a-h); proposal new build tourist units/garaging not qualifying under (b) conversions, (c) previously developed land (excludes ag buildings), or (g) national need; officer: no acceptable justification despite history/tourism benefits.
Environment Policy 1
Protects countryside/ecology for own sake; development adversely affecting not permitted without overriding national need/no alternative; site countryside/AHLV; revised buildings still harm landscape despite reduced scale.
Environment Policy 2
Protects AHLV character unless no harm or essential location; site in AHLV; form/scale of buildings (even revised) harm quality despite amendments; officer notes harm 'not especially serious' but unacceptable.
Business Policy 14
Rural tourism (e.g. barn conversions) if complies with GP3/B11/B12; 'other quality accommodation' considered but must comply; proposal doesn't meet GP3 threshold.
no objection
Defer - due to increased vehicular movement along lane, recommend intervisible passing places; drawing needed
Fully supports; units graded 4-star self-catering with gold award; two fully accessible (scarce on Island); aids growth market, ageing demographic, Visitor Economy Strategy KPI for high-star accommodation
Braddan Parish Commissioners and Highways Division (final response) raised no objection to the retrospective tourist units application, while DED Tourism fully supported it citing tourism benefits; Highways initially deferred pending passing places but later approved without conditions.
Key concern: proposed increase in vehicular movement along the lane
Braddan Parish Commissioners
No ObjectionThe Commissioners had no objection to the following applications:; - PA13 91528 - Mr and Mrs Martin Marlow - Erection of 4No Tourist Units with ancillary laundry facilities (retrospective) including part demolition and alterations of adjoining building to provide private garaging - Ard Na Mara House Quines Hill
Department of Economic Development
SupportIsle of Man Tourism, Department of Economic Development fully supports the above planning application.; Ard Na Mara Holiday Homes can make a valuable contribution both to our bed stock and to the Visitor Economy.; independently assessed and graded as Four Star self-catering with a 'gold' award for excellence.; two of the units at Ard Na Mara were designed to be fully accessible and comply with the guidelines provided under the National Accessible Scheme; likely that the units would be rated as 'M3a' under the mobility scheme
Highways Division
No ObjectionDo not oppose
Highways Division
Conditional No ObjectionDefer; Due to the proposed increase in vehicular movement along the lane, it is recommended that intervisible passing places are created.; Drawing needs to be provided indicating such places.
Conditions requested: intervisible passing places are created; Drawing needs to be provided indicating such places
The original application for erection of four tourist units with ancillary laundry (retrospective) and alterations to provide private garaging was refused by the Planning Committee in March 2014 for being new development in open countryside contrary to General Policy 3, Business Policies 11 and 14, and Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the IoMSP, with detrimental impact on countryside character. Appellants argued material changes from prior scheme (reduced scale, cosmetic improvements), prior approvals, tourism benefits including disabled access, and support from DED. The inspector found the principle of development unacceptable as it breached countryside policies (Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3) with no exceptional circumstances, unsustainable location, and unpersuasive tourism benefits; visual impact remained harmful despite mitigations. The Minister accepted the inspector's recommendation on 26 June 2014, confirming the refusal.
Precedent Value
Reinforces strict application of countryside policies (SP2, SP5, GP3) to tourism developments regardless of economic/disabled access benefits; appellants cannot rely on unimplemented prior approvals or mitigations that fail to fully disguise new build scale/form in visible rural locations.
Inspector: Ruth V MacKenzie
