23 July 2014 · Minister for Infrastructure, the Hon P A Gawne MHK (appeal decision), by Order of N J Black, Chief Executive
Allotments, Mount Gawne Road, Port St Mary, Isle Of Man, IM9 5lx
The proposal involved the erection of multiple sheds and greenhouses across individual plots on an existing allotment site known as Sand Field (formerly Field 1540) on Mount Gawne Road in Port St Mary. This was a planning application (14/00713/B) submitted by the Port St Mary & District Allotment Society.
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 Minister considered the report of the appointed person and concurred with their conclusions that the appeal should be dismissed, confirming the Planning Authority's refusal.
Environment Policy 1
Environment Policy 1 protects the countryside. The proposal failed this policy as its scale, siting, and form would adversely impact the character and appearance of the area and conflict with countryside protection aims.
Environment Policy 15
Environment Policy 15 of the Strategic Plan 2007 was cited as contravened. The officer assessment found the proposal's impact on area character and residential amenity unacceptable under this policy.
Environment Policy 17
Environment Policy 17 relates to environmental protection. The development was refused for conflicting with this policy due to adverse effects on the countryside's character and residential amenity.
General Policy 2
General Policy 2(g) requires developments to respect area character and amenity. The proposal failed under 2(g) because its scale, siting, and form would unacceptably harm the area's appearance and nearby residents.
The original application (14/00713/B) for erection of sheds or greenhouses on individual allotment plots was recommended for approval by the Planning Officer but unanimously refused by the Planning Committee due to harmful visual impact on the outlook from nearby dwellings and conflict with countryside protection policies. The appellant argued that the refusal ignored the practical needs of allotment holders, cited precedents from other sites, highlighted screening planting since prior refusals, and claimed minimal environmental impact from small, non-permanent structures. The Council defended the refusal emphasizing unacceptable harm to residential amenities and countryside character under Strategic Plan policies, despite acknowledging changes like reduced plots and planting. The inspector found significant and unacceptable visual harm from up to 75 structures adding to the site's already disorderly appearance, serious intrusive impact on outlook from Highfield, and conflict with Environment Policies 1, 15, 17 and General Policy 2; prior appeals reinforced these concerns despite some mitigation planting. The appeal was recommended to be dismissed.
Precedent Value
Reinforces prior refusals: large numbers of allotment sheds in countryside harm character/amenities even with screening; applicants must provide exact designs and full native woodland mitigation scaled to proposal; small numbers on lower site may be viable per objectors/prior reports.
Inspector: Stephen Amos MA (Cantab) MCD MRTPI
