11 December 2009 · Planning Committee
Fairy Bridge, Ballaglonney, Santon, Isle Of Man, IM4 1et
The proposal sought approval in principle to develop an undeveloped site adjacent to Fairy Bridge—a popular tourist spot—with a gift shop, tea rooms, and off-road parking to serve visitors and improve safety by reducing roadside parking.
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 concluded the site is not designated for development and fails General Policy 3 exceptions, as the proposal offers commercial facilities rather than heritage interpretation of the Fairy Br…
General Policy 3
Prohibits development outside zoned areas except specific cases (e.g. heritage interpretation GP3(h), overriding national need GP3(g)). Officer assessed proposal fails as commercial facilities, not true interpretation of Fairy Bridge (historical significance unproven); no overriding tourism need justifies countryside intrusion.
Environment Policy 1
Protects countryside/ecology unless overriding national need with no alternative. Site in unprotected countryside; tourism/cultural interest insufficient to outweigh harm.
Environment Policy 2
Prioritises landscape character in AHLV/Scenic areas unless no harm or essential location. Prominent roadside site in high landscape value; buildings/parking would urbanise rural valley.
Environment Policy 3
Prohibits unacceptable woodland loss. Access requires tree felling for visibility/opening; roadside trees part of Registered Woodland.
Environment Policy 4
Protects local habitats/species (e.g. frogs in pond, wildlife corridor). No surveys; potential harm to protected species under Wildlife Act.
Environment Policy 7
Protects watercourses (8m buffer, pollution assessment). Near Santon Burn (salmonid); no risk assessment or details.
Environment Policy 10
Requires flood risk assessment on flood-prone sites. Low-lying site near streams/burn; no assessment submitted.
Environment Policy 13
Prohibits unacceptable flood risk. Potential on/off-site flooding unaddressed.
Environment Policy 22
Prohibits pollution (water/air). Potential runoff to Santon Burn unmitigated.
Business Policy 11
Tourism development subject to same countryside protections. No relaxation for rural tourist facilities.
Fully supports the application; in sympathy with policy to encourage quality visitor facilities; benefits tourism economy
No objection but applicant must consult Department of Transport on road safety
No objection but requests sign for no public access to their property
Wildlife and Conservation Division raises concerns about ecological impacts including a protected pond and salmonid watercourse but does not outright object; Drainage Division objects due to lack of flood risk assessment; Manx National Heritage highlights potential tree felling for visibility; Tourism supports the proposal.
Key concern: Lack of flood risk assessment and information on site levels
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Wildlife and Conservation Division
Conditional No Objectionour immediate reaction is to object to any development here; It is therefore difficult to comment on this precisely without this information and we would therefore wish to comment once more detailed plans are forthcoming; A clear indication as to the impact on the pond that the development might have is needed before approval is given
Conditions requested: Pond should be conserved and protected; Clear indication of impact on pond required before approval; Surface or septic tank runoff not allowed to drain into pond, adjacent marshy grassland, small tributary or river; Maintain suitable grassland habitats adjacent if frog breeding site
Manx National Heritage
No Commentdevelopment may require felling of some of the trees that line the road at Fairy Bridge to create the requisite visibility splay; The Ballaglonney site could be said to have contemporary cultural interest because of its popularity as a tourist attraction
Department of Transport Drainage Division
ObjectionThe Department of Transport Drainage Division objects to the application as it has not received the information requested to enable the application to be assessed on flooding grounds
Conditions requested: Submit flood risk assessment including historical and anecdotal evidence and site levels
Department of Transport Drainage Division
Conditional No ObjectionThe Drainage Division would request that a flood risk assessment be undertaken; If this application can't be deferred and then the Drainage Division stance is objection
Conditions requested: Flood risk assessment including historical and anecdotal evidence, levels of site including watercourse bed levels and bank levels
Department of Tourism and Leisure
SupportThe Product Development team at the Department of Tourism & Leisure fully supports the above planning application; proposal is in sympathy with the Department of Tourism's policy to encourage the development of quality visitor facilities
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Forestry, Amenity & Lands Division
No CommentBecause of the location and sensitivity of the site, I thought you should be aware of the application and have the opportunity to comment before a decision is taken regarding a licence
The original application PA09/00862/A for approval in principle to develop Fairy Bridge Cottage and adjacent land into a gift shop/tea rooms and parking was refused by the Planning Committee for reasons including non-compliance with countryside development policies, deficient tree survey and access details, and inadequate flood risk and ecological assessments. The appellant argued the site is a major tourist attraction needing facilities to manage visitors safely, citing policy exceptions for tourism and heritage interpretation. The inspector found the proposal inadequately evidenced on access safety, ecology, flood risk, trees, and visual impact in protected countryside, rejecting policy exceptions due to lack of heritage importance and unresolved harms. Despite acknowledging tourism benefits, the inspector recommended dismissal, which was upheld by Hon. W. E. Teare MHK on 20 July 2010.
Precedent Value
Appeals require comprehensive, professional technical assessments (flood, ecology, access) even for Approval in Principle; cultural/tourism value alone insufficient without policy-compliant evidence of no harm in countryside. Future applicants must invest in surveys and qualified input before submission/appeal.
Inspector: David Ward BSc(Hons) CEng MICE FCIHT
