Loading document...
Application No.: 25/90792/C Applicant: Mr Andrew Dunn Proposal: Additional use of existing cottage as tourist accommodation (Class 3.6) Site Address: The Cottage At Keeil House West Baldwin Road Mount Rule Isle Of Man IM4 4HS Planning Officer: Vanessa Porter Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 10.10.2025 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
It is considered that there is no demonstrable harm arising from the proposal and, in view of the provisions of Paragraph 9.5.8 and Business Policy 13, the application is therefore recommended for approval.
This decision relates to the following plans and drawings, date stamped received on 19th August 2025;
_________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DOI Highway Services - No objection Malew Parish Commissioners - No objection
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given the Right to Appeal as they have submitted an objection that meets the specified criteria: Mount Rule Farm
_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is within the curtilage of Keeil House, West Baldwin Road, and is specifically for this application, "The Cottage," at Keeil House, West Baldwin Road, Mount Rule Road, which is an attached two storey attached cottage situated to the Southern end of Keeil House. - 1.2 The site includes two entrances one to the North of the site and one to the South of the site, the entrance to the North is within the applicants ownership and facilitates "Keeil House" and associated buildings. The entrance to the South of the site isn't within the applicants ownership but they do have permission to access, and facilities several properties including "Keeil House." THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The application seeks approval for the additional use of The Cottage at Keeil House as tourist. - 2.2 The application stated that the site has two parking spaces which are available for the cottage at the rear of the site and that the access used for the proposal will be the entrance to the South of the site. PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 The previous applications upon the site are not relevant in the assessment of this application. PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area recognised as "not zoned for development" under the Area Plan for the South, Map 4 - Douglas. The property is not within a Conservation Area nor a Flood Risk Zone.
spending on the Island to £310m, which will support an increase in Visitor Economy jobs to 5,000 and generate an annual Exchequer benefit of £49m.
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 The following representations can be found in full online, below is a short summery;
5.2 DOI Highway Services have considered the application and state, "After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as the proposed use would have a similar or less parking demand to the existing use." (26.08.25)
5.3 Malew Parish Commissioners have considered the application and state, "No Objection." (01.09.25) - 5.4 The Owner/ Occupier of Mount Rule Farm has written in to object to the proposal on the basis of legal access and covenant restrictions, access arrangements and alternative routes, mischaracterisation of the proposal as "no intensification," including the use of the property, residential amenity and rural character, highway safety, parking, lane use and maintenance, lack of neighbour consultation and impact on residential amenity and rural character (22.08.25 & 13.10.25)
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The site lies within an area zoned as "Not zoned for development" and as such is outside of a defined settlement boundary within the open countryside, with the proposal not meeting any of the criteria outlined within General Policy 3. Whilst this is the case, Business Policy 13 and Paragraph 9.5.8 both state that permission will generally be granted for the use of private residential properties as tourist accommodation providing it can be demonstrated that such a use would not comprise the amenities of neighbouring residents.
6.2 In the case of applications such as this, concern lies in the potential to cause discruptions to the immediate neighbouring properties. In terms of differentiating a tourist and a permanent resident it is often difficult to define how each would behave. As a tourist, a person may be out a lot of the time, but may also have a greater number of late nights and be disruptive on return. On the other hand, permanent residents may be at home more, and could be more likely to invite friends or family over for dinner or parties that may be noisy. In general terms, however, the majority of people tend to behave well and raise no concerns, although there will always be a percentage that might not, whether they are a permanent resident or otherwise.
6.3 The property is currently being used as a residential property, of which the proposal in this application would not remove this residential use but would add the additional use as tourist accommodation to the site. - 6.4 It is considered therefore that the use of part of the existing residential dwelling as tourist use would have a similar impact, whether it is used for tourist or permanent residential use and therefore would not have a significant impact upon the living conditions of the neighbouring properties. - 6.5 With regards to the parking to the site, the dwelling shows two car parking spaces situated to the rear of the property. It should be noted that the site has several car parking spaces situated in front of the property which will provide the two car parking spaces for the proposed tourist unit and the main dwelling as per Transport Policy 7 in connection with Appendix 7. Due to the location of the property within the countryside away from a main town centre and also away from a bus route the parking on site is deemed acceptable.
6.6 Turning towards the comments raised by the neighbouring property with regards to the use of the property, the impact on residential amenity and rural character, issues with regards to the access/right of way and with regards to highway safety. - 6.7 The matters with regards to the restrictive covenant, limitations on right of way, obligations to contribute to lane costs and legal access rights are civil matters between the applicant and land owners, as such these are not material planning matters that can be taken into account and therefore are not assessed within this application. - 6.8 The matters with regards to residential amenity & rural character and highway safety are planning issues. With regards to residential amenity, this has been assessed above, whilst this is the case, there is nothing which can inform you on how a tourist might use the property over a permanent resident. Whilst there might be a high turnover of visitors, the impact on neighbours would be the same as if the property was rented out for short term permanent use. - 6.9 Turning towards the comments regarding highway safety from the junction, Highway Services have considered the merits of the existing entrances with regards to the ingress and egress from the site, noting any visibility issues. As the transport professionals their comments are heavily relied upon and it's noted that they have no raised any issues with regards to the entrance and possibly more traffic nor have they objected to the application. Furthermore, the use of the property for tourist or as a permanent dwelling will have a similar if not the same impacts in terms of highway safety (i.e. traffic generation and type of vehicles using the access for example). Arguably, the two bedroomed property being used for tourist would likely have less traffic generation, less parking requirements as it is more likely that any visitors to this modest property would be a family/couple with a single vehicular; compared to a dwelling where even a couple or family may have a greater number of vehicles.
7.1 Whilst the comments raised from a neighbouring property are noted, Highway Services have not objected to the proposal and the impact with regards to neighbouring amenity would be the same whether the site was used for permanent residential or tourist use, as such it is considered that there is no demonstrable harm arising from the proposal and, in view of the provisions of Paragraph 9.5.8, Housing Policy 15 & 16, Business Policy 13 and Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the application is therefore recommended for approval. RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE - 8.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).
8.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:
8.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10. - 8.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 15.10.2025 Determining Officer
Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner
Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/ customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
