17 December 2025
Brightlife, Ballalheaney, Andreas Road, Andreas, Isle Of Man, IM7 4en
Appeal against the refusal for extension to the curtilage to create a landscaped garden with terraced decking, external sauna, spa pools and glazed garden pod. Creation of a service yard and erection of a prefabricated service building to house the filtration equipment for the proposed spa pools
Extension to the curtilage to create a landscaped garden with terraced decking, external sauna, spa pools and glazed garden pod. Creation of a service yard and erection of a prefabricated service building to house the filtration equipment for the proposed spa pools
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 Department of Infrastructure's Senior Planning Officer provides a rebuttal to the appellant's Statement of Case, maintaining objection to the proposal due to its location outside settlement boundaries on unallocated agricultural land without justification overriding countryside development policies.
Key concern: proposal located outside settlement boundary on unallocated agricultural land without policy-compliant justification or alternatives within existing curtilage
Department of Infrastructure
ObjectionThe subject site remains demonstrably outside any designated settlement boundary and is located on land unallocated for development within the 1982 Development Plan; this rationale does not satisfy the policy tests under the Isle of Man Strategic Plan; The diagrams fail to provide any comparative spatial analysis or evidence of operational constraints that would preclude alternative configurations
The original application for extension to the curtilage to create a landscaped garden spa with terraced decking, external sauna, spa pools, glazed garden pod, service yard, and prefabricated service building was refused by the Department, primarily on grounds of countryside protection, visual/landscape impacts, ecology, and loss of agricultural land under IMSP policies GP3, EP1, EP14. The appellant argued functional necessity adjacent to existing spa, no alternatives within curtilage, economic benefits to tourism, biodiversity net gain supported by ECT and Manx Bat Group, and no harm to countryside. The inspector found conflict with countryside policies but deemed harm modest due to small scale (510sqm), accepted appeal evidence resolving ecology concerns, found functional benefits persuasive for tourism/economy under BP1/11, and concluded benefits outweigh harm. The appeal was allowed with conditions limiting curtilage, requiring reversibility, lighting scheme, and noise control.
Precedent Value
This appeal demonstrates that modest-scale rural extensions for tourism/wellness can override GP3/EP1 countryside protections where functional necessity, ecology evidence, and economic benefits are evidenced at appeal, with strict conditions preventing creep. Future applicants should submit consultee-supported ecology/bat surveys upfront and quantify operational constraints vs alternatives.
Inspector: Brian J Sims
