Officer Report

Application No.: 24/91112/B Applicant: Dr Ram Singh Bhadouria Proposal: Erection of three tourist camping pods, star-gazing platform, sauna and associated drainage and car parking Site Address: Bridge House West Baldwin Isle Of Man IM4 5HA Photo Taken: 06.12.2024 Site Visit: 06.12.2024 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 18.07.2025

Conditions and Notes for Approval: 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.

C 2. he glamping pods hereby approved shall be used solely for short-term holiday accommodation and shall not be occupied as a person's sole or main residence.

Reason: To ensure the development remains consistent with the policy framework for non-serviced tourist accommodation and to prevent permanent residential use, in accordance with Business Policy 14, General Policy 3, and Spatial Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

C 3. No guest or customer of the glamping pods shall occupy any part of the accommodation for a period exceeding 28 consecutive days in any three-month period. Prior to the first use of the pods, a management plan detailing the booking system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The plan shall include:

a. The maximum permitted stay in each pod;
b. A system for maintaining a register of customer bookings; and
c. A mechanism by which the Department may inspect the register to verify compliance.

The register shall be retained for a minimum of two years from the date of the last entry and shall be made available for inspection by the Department upon reasonable request. The pods shall be operated strictly in accordance with the approved management plan.

Reason: To ensure the development is used solely for short-term holiday accommodation and to maintain its availability for tourism purposes, in accordance with Business Policy 14 and General Policy.

C 4. In the event that the development ceases to operate for a period exceeding 18 months, all structures and hardstanding areas shall be removed, and the land shall be restored to its original state suitable for farming.

A restoration plan detailing the steps to be taken to achieve this shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department within one month of the cessation of operations. The approved restoration plan shall be implemented in full within three months of its approval.

Reason: To ensure the reversibility of the development and to secure the restoration of the land to a condition suitable for agricultural use, thereby preserving its long-term agricultural potential, in accordance with Tourism Proposal 6 and Environment Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan.

C 5. Within one month of this decision becoming final, a detailed plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. This plan shall clearly define the curtilage of the glamping pod development, in accordance with the boundary established under PA 14/00901/B.

The plan shall show the subdivision and layout of the site, ensuring that Field 320411 remains outside the residential curtilage of Bridge House and is not used for domestic purposes.

All boundaries shall be clearly demarcated on site using either a post and wire fence, planted hedge of native species or a traditional Manx hedge, in accordance with Planning Circular 1/92.

The development shall not be brought into use unless the site has been laid out in accordance with the approved plan, and it shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the curtilage of the development is clearly defined and appropriately bounded, in the interest of protecting the character of the countryside and preventing encroachment into agricultural land, in accordance with General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan.

C 6. No development (including site clearance or groundworks) shall commence until a habitat protection plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The plan shall include specific measures to safeguard species-rich grassland (including smooth-stalked sedge), woodland, and the stream corridor during the construction phase. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plan.

Reason: To ensure that sensitive habitats and species are protected from damage or disturbance during construction, in accordance with Environment Policies 4 and 5 and General Policy 2(d) of the Strategic Plan.

C 7. No development shall commence until a habitat management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The plan shall set out long-term measures for the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity on the site, including the maintenance of newly planted areas, protection zones, and ecological features. The site shall thereafter be managed in full accordance with the approved plan for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To ensure the long-term protection and enhancement of biodiversity and ecological value of the site, in accordance with Environment Policies 4 and 5 and Strategic Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.

C 8. No development shall commence until a pond creation plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The plan shall demonstrate how the construction and

operation of the pond will avoid adverse impacts on the adjacent stream, including surface water and sewage runoff. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plan.

Reason: To ensure that the pond does not negatively impact nearby watercourses or biodiversity, in accordance with Environment Policies 4 and 5 and Environment Policy 22 of the Strategic Plan.

C 9. The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use unless the bird and bat boxes have been installed in accordance with the 'Nestbox and Feeders Strategy' prepared by Tim Earl (Island Biodiversity Consultant), submitted in support of application. The boxes shall be installed in the locations and of the types illustrated in the strategy, including but not limited to provisions for house martins, swifts, barn owls, kestrels, treecreepers, sparrows, robins, and bats. The boxes shall be retained and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the delivery of biodiversity enhancements and support for local species, in accordance with Environment Policies 4 and 5 and Strategic Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

C 10. The external lighting shall be implemented in full accordance with the approved Lighting Schedule (dated 13 December 2024) and Lighting Plan Drawing P2111240116-01P. All luminaires shall be installed and operated in accordance with best practice guidance from the Bat Conservation Trust and the Institute of Lighting Professionals (GN08/23). No upward light emission shall be permitted, and PIR sensors shall be used to minimise light duration and spread. The lighting scheme shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the ecological species existing on the site.
C 11. No structures, including accommodation units, ancillary buildings, drainage ponds, or treatment infrastructure, shall be erected or installed within 9 metres of the watercourse that runs through the site. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment (Axis Consulting Engineers Ltd, dated 21/05/2024, ref: AX0388_FRA), and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To prevent development in areas at risk of flooding and to protect the integrity of the watercourse, in accordance with Environment Policy 13 and General Policy 2(l).

C 12. The development shall not be brought into use until the approved drainage strategy (Drainage Strategy by Simon and Liz Charter, dated August 28th, 2024) has been fully implemented. This includes the installation of the Vortex sewage treatment system, hot tub water treatment pond, and the drainage field located more than 10 metres from the watercourse. The drainage system shall thereafter be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure adequate drainage, protect water quality, and prevent pollution, in accordance with Environment Policies 10 and 22.

C 13. The access, visibility splays, and parking layout shown on the approved plans (Drawing Nos. APL 102 Rev 3 and APL 108) shall be implemented in full prior to the first use of the development and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure safe and adequate access and parking provision, in accordance with Transport Policy 4 and General Policy 2.

C 14. Prior to the commencement of construction of any pedestrian routes or ramps, detailed drawings and specifications demonstrating compliance with DDA-compliant gradients shall be

submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and implemented prior to first use.

Reason: To ensure accessibility for all users, in accordance with General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 6, which emphasise the importance of safe, convenient, and inclusive pedestrian infrastructure.

C 15. The access to the site shall be constructed with a bound and consolidated surface for a minimum distance of 5 metres from the adopted highway boundary, in accordance with the details shown on the approved plan (Drawing Nos. APL 102 Rev 3). The surface shall be implemented prior to the first use of the development and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure a durable and stable surface that prevents loose material from being carried onto the public highway, in the interest of highway safety and in accordance with Transport Policy 4 and General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.

C 16. Prior to the first use of the glamping pods, full details of the refuse storage and collection arrangements shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The details shall include:

a. The location, design, and materials of all refuse and recycling storage facilities;
b. Measures to ensure the facilities are screened from public view and neighbouring properties;
c. A management plan for the ongoing maintenance and collection of waste.

The approved refuse storage facilities shall be implemented in full prior to the first use of the development and shall be retained and maintained thereafter for the sole purpose of refuse and recycling storage.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory provision of refuse storage facilities and to safeguard the visual amenity and character of the surrounding rural area, in accordance with General Policy 2 and Strategic Policy 5.

C 17. No above-ground development shall commence until a schedule of materials and finishes, including samples of all external materials to be used in the construction of the glamping pods and associated structures (including cladding, roofing, and any hard surfacing), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The schedule shall include details of colour, texture, and finish. The development shall thereafter be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out to a high standard of design and materials, in the interests of visual amenity and to ensure the development integrates sensitively with the surrounding rural landscape, in accordance with General Policy 2 and Strategic Policies 4 and 5

This decision relates to the following documents and plans: Documents 12 Feb 2025

o Proposed Pod Exterior Illustration 12 Feb 25
o Readvertised Site Notice
o Readvertised Letter To Applicant 12 Feb 25

18 Dec 2024

o Lighting Schedule 12 Nov 2024
o Waste Water Management Plan
o Topographical Survey
o Sustainability Statement

o Sewage Treatment Brochure
o Response To Ecosystems
o Recycling Plan
o Preliminary Ecological Assessment
o Planning Statement
o Nestbox And Feeders Strategy
o Low-Zero Carbon Assessment Quote
o Ground Screws
o Green Small Business Certificate
o Flood Risk Assessment
o Environmental Policy
o Environmental Action Plan
o Drainage Strategy
o Directors Statement
o Cover Letter - Document List
o Cascades Information Sheet
o Air Source Heat Pump Information Sheet

Plans 14 Jul 2025

o DWG 102 REV 3 - Master Plan 12 Feb 2025
o Dwg. APL 104 - Elevation
o Dwg. APL 103 Rev 1 - Ground and Level 1 Floor Plan
o Dawg. APL 113 - View From the Side Road 18 Dec 2024
o Dwg. P2111240116-01P - Lighting Plan 12 Nov 2024
o Dwg. 111 - Path
o Dwg. 110 - Pond Section
o Dwg. 109 - Star Gazing Platform
o Dwg. 108 - Visibility Splay
o Dwg. 105 - Site Section
o Dwg. 100 - Tree Constraints
o Dwg. 001 - Location Plan _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal on the basis that they have submitted a relevant objection:

o Marown Commissioners

It is recommended that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal on the basis that they have submitted a relevant objection:

o DOI Highway Services - No objection subject to conditions which have been applied.
o DOI Flood Risk Management - No objection subject to conditions which have been applied.
o Visit Isle of Man Agency (Department for Enterprise) - No Objections

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:

o Glenside Cottage, West Baldwin
o The Cottage, West Baldwin

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should NOT be given the Right to Appeal because:
o Mona House, West Baldwin - Objection identifies land that is owned or occupied by the
objector that would be impacted on, but such land is not within 20 metres of the site (and no Environmental Impact Assessment is required) (A10(2)(b))
o Annie's Cottage, West Baldwin - Objection identifies land that is owned or occupied by the
objector that would be impacted on, but such land is not within 20 metres of the site (and no Environmental Impact Assessment is required) (A10(2)(b))
o Crofton, West Baldwin - Objection identifies land that is owned or occupied by the objector that would be impacted on, but such land is not within 20 metres of the site (and no Environmental Impact Assessment is required) (A10(2)(b))
o 3 Sunnybank, West Baldwin- - Objection does not set out in relation to material planning considerations, an impact of the proposal on the lawful use of their land (A10(2)(c))
o 2 Sunnybank, West Baldwin - Objection does not set out in relation to material planning considerations, an impact of the proposal on the lawful use of their land (A10(2)(c))
o Tillyloss, West Baldwin - Objection does not set out in relation to material planning considerations, an impact of the proposal on the lawful use of their land (A10(2)(c))

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site comprises the existing residential curtilage of a detached dwelling Bridge House, West Baldwin and the adjoining field (Field 320411) which sits on the western side of the road and opposite the bridge crossing over to St Luke's Church and East Baldwin. The site slopes towards the southeast section and dwelling with the topography rising towards the northwest boundary. - 1.2 The dwelling is non-traditional property finished with a red roof and painted render and red coloured timber cladding to the upper part of the gables. There are two gables facing the main road, one two storey and the other one and half storey. The dwelling is set back slightly from the road with a detached garage to one side with parking in front. - 1.3 The site, except its frontage is enclosed in mature trees and shrubbery which run along its entire boundary providing screening from the surrounding area, although there are gaps within these parts of its perimeter when uninterrupted views can be obtained on the garden area and the adjoining field area. - 1.4 A water course cuts through the site and connects to the River Glass, running from the northwest end of the site to the southeast boundary and flanking the dwelling on the north elevation. This water course which has mature trees running along its boundary separates the large outbuilding situated within the residential curtilage from the rest of the site area. A stone footbridge provides access to the outbuilding from the southern section of the curtilage.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Planning approval is sought for the erection of three tourist camping pods, star-gazing platform, sauna and associated drainage and car parking.

2.2 The glamping pods would have a footprint measuring about 56sqm, with the longer elevations measuring 7.4m and 7.3m, the other elevations being stepped in due to the design. The pod which would get narrower as you move upwards towards the roof would be about 3.5m to the eaves and 5m tall to the top of its roof which would have a roof window to serve a star gazing area. On the ground floor, the pod would be served by two bedrooms, a bathroom, and a lounge/kitchen area, while the stargazing area measuring 15sqm would be provided as a loft space with headroom at the highest point set at 2m. This loft area would be served by a stairway. A patio area measuring about 8sqm would serve a hot tub in front of the pod entrance. These glamping pods would be served by new ASHP's. - 2.3 The proposed star gazing platform which would sit northwest of the pods and on the northern edge of the field would be a timber structure measuring 2m x 2m, have its floor level set at 1.5m above the ground level, with 1m tall balustrades. Flag steps would lead to the top of the platform. - 2.4 Other works proposed would include:

a. A hut tub water pool.
b. A sewage plan water pool.
c. Sewage plant
d. A cap parking area with turning area for four cars.
e. A timber path that would connect all the facilities on site (given parts of the site is waterlogged).
f. A new bridge to link to the existing path north of the water course with the new timber path.
g. A new playground north of the existing barn.

2.5 The proposal previously included a timber sauna structure, measuring approximately 4.3m by 2.35m and standing about 2.48m tall. It was to be located just south of the watercourse that cuts through the site, and northwest of the proposed pods. However, this element has since been removed in response to concerns raised by the Department of Infrastructure's Flood Risk Management (DOI FRM) team. - 2.6 The applicants note that all material will remain on site and any material excavated for the creation of the pods will be re used to level those areas and if there is excess, used in landscaping around the site. The section drawing demonstrates the small amounts involved. - 2.7 The applicants have provided a Director's statement which addresses a number of issues by stating the following (summary provided here):

a. Parking & Traffic Management

i. Side-lane parking reduced to four spaces to minimize impact.
ii. Guests discouraged from arriving by car with discounts for non-drivers.
iii. Taxi service available via local provider, including hybrid and wheelchair-accessible vehicles.
iv. Exploring an onsite driver with an electric vehicle to reduce car use.
v. Safety mirrors planned for pedestrian and vehicle safety at parking exits.
vi. Side-lane condition improvements funded through parking revenue donations.
vii. Staff parking concerns addressed—only one staff member will be employed and living onsite.
viii. Measures taken to meet visibility splay guidelines for safe access.

b. Environmental & Wildlife Protection

i. Expert-reviewed measures submitted for pollution, water quality, and flooding prevention.
ii. Ecological surveys conducted for wildlife and habitat conservation.
iii. Bird spotting area proposed with a fixed telescope (will remove if concerns arise).
iv. Plans to install bird nests with webcam streaming to support local species.
v. Grassland protected by cordoning off areas from guest use.
vi. Tree and shrub planting plan developed to enhance biodiversity.

c. Noise & Guest Behaviour Management

i. Strict house rules: no outdoor parties, loud music, or noise after 9 PM.
ii. Deposits required; refunds withheld if rules are violated.
iii. Targeted marketing for eco-conscious guests (families, couples, walkers, cyclists).
iv. Onsite monitoring by owner to prevent disturbances.
v. Exploring installation of soundproofing and noise monitoring devices.
vi. Tourist stays will be short-term, not long-term residences.

d. Pod Design & Visibility Considerations

i. Pods reduced from five to three and placed behind bushes for minimal visibility.
ii. Pods positioned lower than neighbouring properties to prevent overlooking.
iii. Blurred glass rear windows for added privacy.
iv. Shielding between pods to prevent guests from seeing each other.
v. No two-story pods—lofts included for stargazing with a glass ceiling.

e. Public Transport & Accessibility

i. No public transport in the village, but popular among walkers and cyclists.
ii. Guests encouraged to use taxi or company car service initially.
iii. Long-term vision for site to become a go-to destination for outdoor tourists.
iv. Lighting & Dark Sky Protection.
v. Minimal lighting plan developed with expert consultation to enhance stargazing.
vi. Existing streetlight and reflective road sign already at lane entrance.

f. Local Community & Tourism History

i. Bridge House historically popular with tourists; efforts underway to find documentation.
ii. Property previously hosted a model railway open to visitors.
iii. Village known for attracting walkers and nature lovers.
iv. No advertising or signage in the village, only at Bridge House.

g. Construction & Infrastructure

i. Pods prebuilt and assembled onsite to minimize disruption.
ii. Bin storage located for easy collection.

h. Future Project Viability
i. Project will be built in stages, starting with one pod. ii. If unsuccessful, the initial pod will be used for personal stays only.

2.8 The application is supported by the following documents:

1. Directors Statement
2. Planning Statement prepared by Sarah Corlett Town Planning Consultancy Ltd
3. Waste Water Management Plan
4. Sustainability Statement
5. Sewage Treatment Brochure
6. Response to Ecosystems (Correspondence dated)
7. Recycling Plan (Recycle Collect Limited)
8. Preliminary Ecological Assessment prepared by Elizabeth Charter and Timothy Earl, Island Biodiversity Consultants
9. Flood Risk Assessment prepared by Axis Consulting Engineers Ltd.
10. Environmental Action Plan
11. Drainage Strategy
12. Nestbox and Feeders Strategy prepared by Timothy Earl, Island Biodiversity Consultant
13. Low-Zero Carbon Assessment Quote
14. Green Small Business Certificate

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 Site Specific:

3.1.1 The application site sits in an area that is not designated for development on the Area Plan for the East 2020 and sits directly southwest of a registered tree area separated by the highway, although none of the tree on site are within the registered tree area. There are no registered trees on site, but the northwestern boundary of the site adjoins the Glion Darragh Nature Reserve site which is predominantly a monoculture conifer plantation. The site is recognised as being at high surface water flood risk. The site falls within Class 3 Soil Classification on the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map of the Isle Of Man.

3.2 Area: Area Plan for the East

3.2.1 The following parts of the Area Plan for the East are relevant for consideration:

3.2.1.1 Landscape Character Area - West Baldwin (B7) Landscape Strategy: "Conserve and enhance:

a) the character, quality and distinctiveness of the valley with its dense deciduous woodland in lower valley bottom;
b) the traditional character of West Baldwin Village;
c) the rural and tranquil character of the valley;
d) the open views across the West Baldwin Reservoir to the surrounding upland areas. Key Views Enclosed views from the valley bottom. Glimpsed views between vegetation up the valley to the upland areas. Open views across the West Baldwin Reservoir. Glimpsed view of St. Luke's Church."

3.2.1.2 Other relevant parts of the Area Plan Written Statement:

1. Tourism Proposal 6: "The provision of low-key rural tourist accommodation such as small-scale camping pods in woodlands/plantations in the East will only be acceptable where it can be demonstrated that there will be no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the landscape and the environment generally. Planning conditions will be imposed seeking removal of buildings no longer required for such uses."
2. Tourism Proposal 7: "Camping bothies and bunkhouses in the East will only be acceptable where it can be demonstrated that they support the use of a national trail, such as the Raad Ny Foillan. Such structures must be designed so that they assimilate into the countryside. Planning conditions will be imposed seeking removal of buildings no longer required for such uses."
3.3 National: STRATEGIC PLAN (2016)

3.3.1 Relevant Strategic Plan Policies:

1. General Policy 3 - presumption against development outside allocated sites, other than specific exceptions.
2. General Policy 2 - 'Development Control' considerations.
3. Business Policy 1 - Supporting economic growth through business developments that benefit local employment and sustainability.
4. Business Policy 11: Tourism development must be in accordance with the sustainable development objectives of this plan; policies and designations which seek to protect the countryside from development will be applied to tourist development with as much weight as they are to other types of development.
5. Business Policy 14: Tourism development may be permitted in rural areas provided that it complies with the policies in the Plan.
6. Paragraph 9.5.3:

7. "It is considered that the Island's primary assets to tourists and visitors alike are its unique historical landscape, culture and heritage, as well as a wide range of specialist events and attractions. Many activities and facilities providing for the Island's tourists require no permanent development: the TT Races, for example which attract by far the most significant number of tourists to the Island of any event held here, require little but the Grandstand on Glencrutchery Road and a small number of modest marshals' shelters around the Course. Tourism can, however, require the erection of built structures - holiday accommodation being the most frequently requested form of new development required in association with the tourism industry. It is important that a balance be struck between the needs of tourism and the protection of these assets, and that tourism development should be sustainable in accordance with the objectives of this plan. There is no special reason why less demanding policies should be applied to tourism development than for other types of development in the countryside, and larger scale schemes may have to be the subject of an environmental impact assessment before planning permission is granted, as with any other form of large-scale development.
8. Strategic Policy 8: Tourist development proposals will generally be permitted where they make use of existing built fabric of interest and quality, where they do not affect adversely environmental, agricultural, or highway interests and where they enable enjoyment of our natural and man-made attractions.
9. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources.
10. Strategic Policy 2: New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions (2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3.
11. Strategic Policy 3 - Development to safeguard character of existing towns and villages.
12. Strategic Policies 4 and 5 relate to preserving the character of the landscape, preventing unacceptable environmental disturbance, and making positive contributions to the environment of the Island via design and visual impact.
13. Environment Policy 1 - Protection of the countryside and inherent ecology.
14. Environment Policy 3 - Seeks to prevent unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas.
15. Environment Policy 4 and 5 protects ecology (including protected species and designated sites).
16. Environment Policy 14 - Seeks to prevent the permanent loss of important and versatile agricultural land (Classes 1-2).
17. Environment Policy 22 - pollution.
18. Spatial Policy 5 - Development in countryside only in accordance with General Policy 3.
19. Transport Policy 4 - Highway capacity and safety considerations.
20. Transport Policy 7 - Parking considerations/standards for development.
21. Community Policies 7 - provide guidance in respect of minimising criminal activity and antisocial behaviour.

- 4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Policy on the Development of Non-Serviced Accommodation 2019.

4.1.1 This document is an offshoot of the Isle of Man Non-Serviced Accommodation Futures - Final Report (2017). It sets out governments priorities as it relates to tourism, provides a summary of the non-serviced study, whilst also outlining the current visitor economy strategy, in addition to articulating the Island Policy towards tourism development.

4.2 Isle of Man Visitor Economy Strategy 2022-2032

4.2.1 The Strategy's headline targets are to grow the annual visitor numbers to 500,000 by 2032 and increase the annual economic contribution of the Island's Visitor Economy to £520m. This will mean attracting an additional 170,500 visitors per year compared to 2019. The aim is to triple the holiday and short break market as well as grow all of the other visitor markets. Combined with an expected increase in average spending per visitor, driven by strong growth in longer staying and higher spending leisure markets, these visitor numbers should result in a more than doubling of annual visitor 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.

4.2.2 Programme 3: Visitor Accommodation Transformation A key aspiration is to widen our non-serviced accommodation supply with the introduction of the innovative offers that are finding a strong market in competitor destinations, such as back-to-nature retreats, lifestyle and wellness resorts, sea cabins, treehouses, sky huts and luxury glamping sites.

4.3 Planning Policy Statement (PPS): Planning & the Economy (A Consultation Document February 2012)

4.4.1 "In applying the provisions of the Strategic and Area Plans, particularly General Policy 1 and General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan, the Department will seek proposals to be supported by evidence that demonstrates that the proposed development would secure sustainable, long term economic growth of Island wide benefit, which meets the wider objectives of sustainable development by weighing market and other economic matters alongside environmental and social costs and benefits."

4.4 IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025

4.4.1 The Strategy seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary. Section 21 deals with Habitat loss actions through promoting a policy of 'no net loss' for semi-natural Manx habitats and species and to ensure that unavoidable loss is replaced or effectively compensated for.

4.5 Residential Design Guidance 2021

4.5.1 This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction. Section 2.0 on Sustainable Construction, Section 5 on Architectural Details, and 7.0 on Impact on Neighbouring Properties, are considered relevant to the current application.

- 5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 The application site has been the subject of six previous applications, one of which is considered relevant to the current application.

1. 14/00901/B for Installation of replacement roof tiles to dwelling and garage - Approved. This application included a plan which set out the extent of the curtilage associated with the dwelling, as well as the land associated with the adjoining fields which sits outside the curtilage (Fields 320411 and 524327).
2. PA 23/01155/B for Erection of three tourist accommodation pods, landscaping, drainage, formation of a car parking area and conversion of the existing shed into tourist accommodation and therapy facilities. This was withdrawn on 27.09.2024.

- 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS

Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.

6.1 Consultee Comments:

1. DOI Highways (14.02.25):

1. Confirm there is 4 spaces for the car parking adjacent to the glamping pods and the EV bays are not solely allowed to be used by EV vehicles. The visibility splay plan shows 6 spaces. 4 spaces has been confirmed on the updated plans dated 12th Feb 2025.
2. HDC require bound and consolidated material within 5m from the adopted highway boundary and should on a revised plan. A consolidated material has been shown on the updated plans dated 12th Feb 2025.
3. Provide detail of the proposed footpath gradients on the site from the car parking to the glamping pods to support accessibility by wheelchairs and mobility impaired - the Manual for Manx Roads provides recommended maximum gradients. - footways towards the glamping pods will be DDA compliant.

Accordingly, as the Applicant has addressed previous queries as outlined above, HDC now do not oppose (DNOC) the application subject to suggested conditions as follows:

1. Vehicle access layout, visitor parking and turning shown on the approved plans implemented before first use of the pods and retained thereafter. (Reason - highway safety)
2. Vehicle access visibility splays shown on the approved plans implemented before first use of the pods and retained thereafter. No obstructions above 1m allowed in the visibility splays. (Reason highway safety)
3. The ramps shown on the approved plans to be DDA compliant must be implemented as such before first use of the pods. (Reason - public amenity and safety).

2. DOI Flood Risk Management (11.11.24) Flood Risk Management note that they have the same concerns as in the previous application for this site (23/01155/B). The FRA does not mention the Sauna and its location to the river neither does it address the exact location of the "Hot Tub Water Pool" and "Sewage Plant Water Pool" in relation to the river. They note that to the best of their knowledge the applicant has not asked FRA for feedback, and that they cannot comment further until the above has been addressed.

2b. Following a review of the comments received from DOI Flood Risk Management (dated

11/11/2024), the applicants have amended the scheme to exclude the proposed timber sauna. They have confirmed their willingness to accept a condition to this effect, ensuring that no approval is granted for such a facility (05/07/2025).

2c. Following review of the amended scheme, DOI Flood Risk Management have provided

updated comments. They confirm that their previous concerns regarding the proximity of structures to the stream bank have been addressed. Subject to a condition ensuring that no structures are erected within 9 metres of the watercourse, they raise no objections to the proposal (17/07/2025).

3. Visit Isle of Man Agency - Dept for Enterprise (2.12.24):

a. They clarify that the comments provided are from Visit Isle of Man Agency Officers and do not represent the official stance of the Visit Agency Board or political members.
b. They advise that the proposal aligns with the Visitor Accommodation Strategy (2022-2032) by supporting the development of eco-friendly rural visitor accommodation, contributing to expanding non-serviced accommodation, such as retreats and wellness resorts, and represent a significant investment in the Island's visitor offerings.

c. They note that the application includes three glamping units, each accommodating up to four occupants, with a contemporary design that integrates well with the environment and offers high-value visitor features. They further observe that this type of accommodation aligns with the strategy's goal of attracting target markets, particularly Experience Seekers and Curious Explorers.
d. They highlight additional features of the project, including star-gazing platforms, a sauna, and the location along Millennium Way, which enhance the visitor experience and contribute to visitor product development.
e. They support the application based on its strategic alignment with tourism development and eco-friendly tourism initiatives, while reiterating that their stance reflects agency officer opinions rather than an official policy position.

4. DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team (2.12.24):

a. They state that they have no objection, provided the specified conditions are met.
b. They confirm that the Island Biodiversity Consultant's (IBC) Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report (July 2022, revised September 2024) and their Response to the Ecosystem Policy Team (dated January 8, 2024) are in order and that a suitable level of assessment has been conducted.
c. They note that the area is locally important, particularly for its grassland, stream, and woodland.
d. They advise that measures must be implemented during and after construction to ensure that these habitats and their species are protected from damage or destruction.
e. Conditions for Approval

- They require that no external lighting be installed unless a sensitive low-level lighting plan following best practices set out by the Bat Conservation Trust and Institute of Lighting Professionals

(2023) has been submitted to Planning and approved in writing.

- They state that all bird boxes must be installed as per the Nestbox and Feeders Strategy.
- They request that no works commence unless a habitat protection plan detailing specific measures to safeguard species-rich grassland (smooth-stalked sedge), woodland, and stream during construction has been submitted and approved in writing.
- They require that no works commence unless a pond creation plan has been submitted and approved, ensuring that pond construction does not negatively impact the nearby stream through surface water or sewage runoff.
- They require that no works commence unless a habitat management plan has been submitted and approved in writing. Reason for Conditions
- They state that these conditions are necessary to avoid and mitigate ecological impacts.

5. DEFA EPU (15.11.24): They requests clarification from the applicant regarding effluent discharge from the hot tub and sewage water ponds, specifically:

a. They ask whether the effluents are proposed to be discharged into a full soak-away that is more than 10 metres from the River Glass Tributary. They state that if the discharge meets this condition, no discharge licenses will be required from DEFA.
b. They state that if any discharge to the watercourse is necessary, the applicant must submit a discharge license application. They state that this application would be needed to assess whether the watercourse can accept the effluent from the ponds without lowering water quality classification.

6. Marown Commissioners (16.11.24/03.01.25):

They object to the application on the following grounds:

1. The size of the "pods" - they are not small camping pods, they are substantial two storey cabins, which appear to be only slightly smaller than a new-build 2-bed dwelling house
2. There is concern regarding the potential future use of the "pods"
3. The size of the proposed structures would be detrimental to the surroundings
4. The structures would constitute overdevelopment of the countryside
5. There is a presumption against development in the countryside
6. There is concern regarding the flooding risk.

6.2 Representation from Neighbours:

1. Glenside Cottage, West Baldwin (28.11.24 / 16.12.24 / 08.01.25 / 07.03.25): Object to the application for the following reason:

a. The development is too large and visually intrusive for a quiet rural village, with pods resembling small houses that are out of character with the area.
b. The pods are positioned too close to Glenside Cottage, directly overlooking private bedrooms and bathrooms, raising serious privacy concerns, especially for a young child. The inclusion of telescopes and glass roofs for stargazing intensifies these concerns.
c. The relocation of pods and stargazing platforms closer to neighbouring properties is unexplained and increases the visual and privacy impact.
d. The development would cause disruption through noise, light pollution, and increased human activity, affecting both residents and local wildlife. The lighting plan includes illumination around an unused barn, raising concerns about future use and further light intrusion.
e. The site lacks adequate infrastructure: there is no public transport, poor mobile reception, only one streetlight, and no footpaths.
f. The single-track lane is in poor condition, prone to flooding, potholes, and treefall, and is unsuitable for increased traffic or construction vehicles. The proposed entrance and car park are dangerously close to Glenside Cottage's driveway, with a blind bend and no passing places.
g. There are inconsistencies in the applicant's statements regarding transport, parking, and guest access, raising doubts about the actual traffic impact and management. The proposed parking area is too large and includes a space dangerously close to St Luke's Bridge and the river.
h. The development could disturb local wildlife, including birds, bats, owls, frogs, and hedgehogs. The ecological assessments may be outdated, and the layout appears to breach the 12m buffer zone recommended in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA).
i. The applicant's previous land management has been poor, with overgrown vegetation and lack of maintenance affecting the lane.
j. There are concerns that the pods may be used for long-term residential accommodation, especially given the applicant's current overcrowded living situation.
k. The area already has a high concentration of tourist accommodation and a nearby stargazing site, making this proposal unnecessary.
l. The applicant allegedly offered the objectors a free stay and drafted letter of support in exchange for not objecting, which was declined.
m. The development infringes on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to private and family life).
n. A site visit is strongly requested to allow planning officers to fully understand the scale, layout, and impact of the proposal.

2. Mona House, West Baldwin (19.12.24): They object to the application and raise the following issues:

a. The application appears to reuse outdated content from the previous submission without proper updates or checks, leading to inconsistencies, particularly in parking arrangements and references to unrelated elements like barn conversions.
b. Submitted photographs do not reflect the current overgrown and poorly maintained condition of the site.
c. The applicant's summary of resident concerns omits several key objections raised in the previous application.

d. There is no evidence of consultation with emergency services, and no fire risk assessment has been provided.
e. Waste management and lighting arrangements are unclear, raising concerns about safety, bin access, and adequacy of infrastructure.
f. The road infrastructure is poor, narrow, and has not been resurfaced in over 20 years. Increased traffic from construction and visitors would worsen conditions and raise safety concerns, especially with no traffic management measures proposed.
g. Parking provision is unclear and appears unrealistic given the scale of the development and expected visitor numbers.
h. The lack of public transport, mobile phone signal, and nearby amenities makes the site unsuitable for tourist accommodation, particularly for families without private vehicles.
i. Frequent road closures in the area could hinder access to the site during peak tourist seasons.
j. There are concerns that the accommodation may be used for long-term residential or business purposes if the tourist model fails.
k. The ecological appraisal lacks local expertise, and the site lies within a wildlife corridor. The development could significantly disrupt local habitats and species, with no evidence of consultation with the Manx Wildlife Trust.
l. Comparisons made by the applicant to other approved tourist sites are misleading due to differences in location, scale, and proximity to residential properties.
m. The applicant allegedly offered the objector a free holiday in exchange for a letter of support, which was refused. Similar offers may have been made to other vulnerable residents.
n. While supportive of eco-tourism in principle, the objector believes this project is too large, inappropriately located, and risks causing irreversible harm to the Baldwin Valley.
o. A site visit is strongly recommended before any decision is made.
p. The objection was submitted late due to the objector being off-Island and unaware of the new application, but supporting evidence of travel can be provided

3. The Cottage, West Baldwin (13.12.24):

a. They maintain that their previous objections to application 23/01155/B remain valid, as the new application reuses much of the same content and fails to address earlier concerns.
b. The term "pods" is misleading; the proposed buildings are effectively three two-bedroom, two-storey apartments with full amenities, not small-scale tourist units.
c. The development is considered inappropriate for West Baldwin, a quiet rural village. It would increase traffic, noise, and pollution, disrupting the peaceful character of the area.
d. There is scepticism about the true purpose of the development, with concerns it may be used for long-term residential lets rather than short-term tourism.
e. They state that they were not consulted as indicated by the applicant.
f. The development would involve digging, drainage, lighting, and hard surfacing, which would disturb local ecology and contradict claims of enhancing biodiversity.
g. The planning statement relies on recycled arguments from the previous application and includes unsubstantiated claims about ecological benefits.
h. The site is accessed via a single-track road near a floodplain, with no traffic management or pedestrian safety plans, and the area lacks lighting.
i. There is no tree survey, fire safety management plan, or clarity on campsite regulations. The absence of a waste management plan raises concerns about vermin and road obstruction.
j. The application uses terms like "biodiversity net gain" and "eco-friendly" without providing evidence, which the objectors view as misleading.
k. There are concerns that the developer may not follow through on commitments once approval is granted, and there is no clear mechanism for monitoring compliance.
l. The development could devalue nearby homes, disrupt residents' retirement plans, and undermine the strategic planning protections that influenced their decision to move to West Baldwin.
m. The objectors urge the Planning Committee to reject the application and uphold protections for the unique character and beauty of the area.

4. Annie's Cottage, West Baldwin (27.11.24), object to the application for the following reasons:

a. The property is located close to the proposed development and shares the same single-track access road, raising concerns about day-to-day impact.
b. The objectors chose to live in West Baldwin for its quiet, rural character, which they believe the development would undermine.
c. The proposed "glamping pods" are described as being the size of small houses and are considered unsuitable for a site not zoned for development, especially in the centre of a quiet residential village.
d. The existing field entrance has poor visibility, and the lack of clarity about the proposed access point raises safety concerns due to increased traffic.
e. Potential noise from the development remains a concern, with anticipated negative effects on nearby residents.

5. Crofton, West Baldwin (26.11.24) object to the application on the following grounds:

a. The proposed "pods" are too large and substantial to be considered tourist pods, resembling small bungalows with rooftop viewing areas, and are unsuitable for the location.
b. The access lane is a narrow, poorly maintained single-track road with blind corners, making it unsafe and inappropriate for increased traffic.
c. The proposed parking provision (four spaces) is considered inadequate. With potential for up to 12 occupants and additional visitors, the objector anticipates overflow parking in the village, leading to congestion and safety issues.

6. 3 Sunnybank, West Baldwin (26.11.24) object to the application for these reasons:

a. The proposal is considered inappropriate for a small, quiet village of just 16 residential properties. Its scale, comprising large, two-storey, two-bedroom pods, resembles permanent dwellings more than tourist accommodation and would significantly alter the peaceful rural character of West Baldwin.
b. The development would increase traffic, noise, and pollution during both construction and operation. The local roads are narrow, partially one-way, and already used by agricultural vehicles, making them unsuitable for additional traffic. Claims of minimal impact, selective clientele, and noise restrictions are seen as unenforceable and unreliable.
c. Objectors are concerned about the potential for future expansion (e.g. tents or more pods), signage, and advertising, which would further detract from the rural setting. They also question the legitimacy of the proposal, noting that extended family members already reside at Bridge House and suggesting the pods may be used for permanent housing or business purposes.
d. The site is not zoned for development and is unsuitable for either tourism or residential expansion. The grounds of Bridge House have been poorly maintained, contradicting the aesthetic claims made in the application. Frequent changes to the application raise concerns about transparency and the applicant's long-term intentions, especially given statements about potential "personal use" of the pods and employment of a driver.
e. Finally, the suggestion of payments to local authorities for road repairs is viewed as inappropriate and potentially coercive. A map is included to show the objector's proximity to the proposed site, just one field away.

7. 2 Sunnybank, West Baldwin (26.11.24) object to the application on these grounds:

a. They purchased their property in June 2020 specifically for its quiet, rural location outside Douglas, free from traffic and noise, which was reflected in the property's market value.
b. They maintain that their previous objections to the earlier application (23/0155/B) remain valid, despite amendments in the new application (24/91112/B), and do not intend to repeat them in detail.
c. They believe the proposal is inappropriate for a small village of just 16 properties, all located close to the proposed development site.

d. Approval of the application would disrupt the peace of the area, increase traffic, and introduce noise from camping/glamping activities, negatively affecting the village's tranquil character.
e. The local roads are narrow, partially one-way, and poorly lit, with infrastructure already inadequate for current residents, making increased traffic a safety concern.
f. They question how the planning authority intends to address the increased risks to the community if the application is approved.
g. They urge the Planning Committee to take their objections seriously, especially considering the potential negative impact on property value and community safety.

8. Tillyloss, West Baldwin (22.11.2024) object to the application on the following grounds:

a. The land is not zoned for development and is located in a designated area of natural beauty, scenic significance, and a Wildlife Site and Corridor, where preservation of the rural and tranquil character is emphasized.
b. The proposed "pods" are misleadingly named; they are large, two-storey structures comparable to bungalows, not small-scale tourist units.
c. The development threatens ecologically significant habitats, including rare grasslands and biodiversity corridors, as identified in the Preliminary Ecological Assessment.
d. The placement of the pods, sauna, hot tub, and sewage plant violates DEFA guidelines and endangers sensitive ecological features such as hedges and sedge patches.
e. The site's wet, sloping terrain and history of flooding raise concerns about water management and the risk of contaminating nearby streams and the River Glass.
f. The area is not a known tourist destination, and the development is considered incompatible with the peaceful, natural character of West Baldwin.
g. There are concerns about the developer's intentions, including the possibility of residential use disguised as tourism and questionable offers of profit-sharing incentives to local authorities.

7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The fundamental issues to consider with the current application are:

1. The principle of the proposed development (GP3, GP2, STP1, STP2, STP8, SP5, BP1, BP11, BP14, and Paragraph 9.5.3);
2. The visual impact of the proposed campsite (EP1, SP3, SP4, SP5, GP2, GP3, EP2, Paragraph

9.5.3);

3. Amenity impacts (GP2, EP 22, CP7);
4. Impacts on biodiversity (EP1, EP4, EP5, SP4, GP2);
5. Impact on parking and highway safety (TP4, TP7, GP2, STP1); and
6. Flood risk and drainage impacts (EP10, EP13, GP2, Appendix 4)
7. Loss of Agricultural Soils (EP14 and Section 7.13).

- 7.2 THE PRINCIPLE OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

7.2.1 The application site lies outside any designated development boundary and is not allocated for development in the Area Plan for the East 2020. As such, the proposal must be assessed against the presumption against development in the open countryside, as set out in General Policy 3 (GP3) and Environment Policy 1 (EP1) of the Strategic Plan 2016, which seek to protect the countryside for its own sake and only permit development in exceptional circumstances. Strategic Policy 2 (STP2) reinforces this by directing new development primarily to existing towns and villages, with countryside development permitted only in limited, justified cases. Spatial Policy 5 (SP5) further confirms that development in the countryside must comply with the criteria of GP3.

7.2.2 Notwithstanding the policy proposition against development in the countryside, the Strategic Plan also recognises the importance of tourism to the Island's economy. Paragraph 9.5.3 acknowledges that while tourism development should not be treated more leniently than other countryside development, it may require built structures such as holiday accommodation. The paragraph stresses the need to strike a balance between supporting tourism and protecting the Island's landscape, heritage, and environmental assets.

7.2.3 In this context, Business Policies 11 and 14 (BP11, BP14) provide a framework for permitting rural tourism development, provided it aligns with the wider objectives of the Strategic Plan. These include ensuring that development is sustainable, appropriately located, and does not harm the countryside. Strategic Policy 8 (STP8) supports tourism development where it utilises existing built fabric, avoids adverse environmental or highway impacts, and enhances enjoyment of the Island's natural and man-made attractions. The proposal's siting adjacent to an existing dwelling, within a defined and screened area of the field, and in close proximity to a small cluster of existing houses, is consistent with these principles. This spatial relationship reinforces the policy aim of minimising landscape intrusion and integrating new development with the existing built environment.
7.2.4 The proposal is further supported by the Policy on the Development of Non-Serviced Accommodation (2019), which identifies a strategic need to expand the Island's supply of highquality, eco-friendly, non-serviced accommodation. The policy specifically supports the development of glamping units and small-scale clusters that complement existing tourism activity and enhance the Island's visitor offer. The proposed development aligns with the policy's emphasis on diversifying the accommodation offer, appealing to eco-conscious visitors, and contributing to the Island's year-round tourism economy.
7.2.5 The proposal aligns with the Visitor Economy Strategy 2022-2032, which seeks to grow the Island's visitor numbers and spending by diversifying the accommodation offer and attracting "Experience Seekers" and "Curious Explorers." The inclusion of a stargazing platform and naturebased experiences supports this strategic direction. It also complements the Policy on the Development of Non-Serviced Accommodation (2019), which identifies a need for high-quality, ecofriendly glamping units that enhance the Island's tourism offer. Furthermore, the site's proximity to the Millennium Way, a recognised long-distance trail, adds weight under Tourism Proposal 7 of the Area Plan for the East, which encourages accommodation that supports national trails.
7.2.6 Although the site lies within the open countryside and is not allocated for development in the Area Plan for the East 2020, the proposal demonstrates a strong alignment with national and local tourism strategies, including the Strategic Plan's support for sustainable rural tourism, the Area Plan's guidance on low-key visitor accommodation, and the Non-Serviced Accommodation Policy. Its siting adjacent to existing buildings and within a defined, screened area minimises landscape intrusion and reinforces the policy aim of integrating new development with the existing built environment. These factors provide a reasoned basis for an exception to the general presumption against countryside development under GP3, EP1, SP2, and SP5.
7.2.7 However, this policy alignment does not override the need for the proposal to meet all other relevant criteria. It must be demonstrated that the development will not result in unacceptable harm to the countryside, landscape character, biodiversity, flood risk, infrastructure, or neighbouring amenity. The principle of development is therefore acceptable, subject to compliance with these detailed policy requirements and the imposition of appropriate safeguards.
7.2.8 It is acknowledged that the design and scale of the pods, particularly their two-level configuration and domestic-style layout, has raised concerns among neighbouring residents and consultees. Several objections highlight the resemblance of the pods to small dwellings and question whether they could be used for permanent residential occupation. These concerns are not unfounded, particularly given the internal layout, the inclusion of full amenities, and the stargazing lofts, which are large enough for occupation. While the application is for short-term tourist use, the potential for future residential use must be carefully controlled through appropriate planning conditions and monitoring.
7.2.9 To ensure the development remains consistent with the policy framework for non-serviced tourist accommodation, it is essential that it is clearly defined and managed as such, and not as quasi-residential dwellings. Conditions restricting occupancy, requiring availability for short-term letting, and prohibiting permanent residential use will be necessary to safeguard the integrity of the

Strategic Plan's countryside protection policies. Without such controls, the development risks undermining the policy framework that protects the countryside from inappropriate residential encroachment. Furthermore, the cumulative scale of the development, when viewed alongside the site's proximity to neighbouring dwellings and its location within a tranquil rural valley, reinforces the need for robust safeguards to ensure the use remains consistent with that of a non-serviced tourism facility.
7.2.10 In conclusion, the proposed development is acceptable in principle, based on its alignment with national and local tourism policies and the Strategic Plan's support for sustainable rural tourism. However, this acceptability is conditional upon the use being strictly limited to short-term tourist accommodation. The design and scale of the pods necessitate clear and enforceable controls to prevent their use as permanent dwellings and to address the legitimate concerns raised by neighbouring residents.

- 7.3 DESIGN, VISUAL AND LANDSCAPE IMPACT

7.3.1 The application site lies within the West Baldwin Landscape Character Area (B7), as defined in the Area Plan for the East 2020. This area is characterised by its tranquil, wooded valley setting, glimpsed views to upland areas, and open views across the West Baldwin Reservoir. The landscape strategy seeks to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the valley, the traditional character of West Baldwin village, and the rural and tranquil qualities of the wider landscape. These objectives form the basis for assessing visual and landscape impact under the Area Plan and are supported by Strategic Policies 3, 4 and 5 (SP3, SP4, SP5) and General Policy 2 (GP2) of the Strategic Plan 2016, which collectively require that development respects local character, protects landscape quality, and contributes positively to the Island's visual environment.
7.3.2 The site is not allocated for development and lies within open countryside. In accordance with Environment Policy 1 (EP1) and General Policy 3 (GP3), development in such areas is only acceptable where it does not adversely affect the countryside and where there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative. The visual sensitivity of the site is heightened by its proximity to the Glion Darragh Nature Reserve and its location within a high surface water flood risk area, further reinforcing the need for careful visual and landscape assessment.
7.3.3 The proposal comprises three tourist accommodation pods, positioned within a visually contained part of the site. The pods are grouped behind existing vegetation and are set back from the road, with additional planting proposed to reinforce screening. The stargazing platform is modest in scale and sited to avoid visual intrusion. The removal of the sauna from the scheme further reduces the visual footprint of the development and addresses concerns raised by consultees. These measures are consistent with Strategic Policy 4 (SP4), which requires development to protect or enhance landscape quality and avoid unacceptable environmental disturbance.
7.3.4 The submitted plans confirm that each pod comprises two internal levels: a ground floor with full living accommodation and an upper-level stargazing space of approximately 15m². While the upper level is not a full second storey, it is clearly occupiable and accessible, with sufficient headroom for seated or limited standing use. This results in a building form more akin to a 1.5storey structure. The elevation drawings and visual references confirm a modest overall height of approximately 5m, with a domed roof form rather than a traditional pitched roof. The design incorporates natural materials, including timber cladding and shingle roofing. These choices align with Strategic Policy 5 (SP5), which encourages development that contributes positively to the Island's environment, and with General Policy 2 (GP2), which requires development to respect the site and surroundings in terms of siting, layout, scale, form, design, and landscaping.
7.3.5 The floor plans show two bedrooms, a kitchen/lounge, and a bathroom, with an upper-level stargazing space. While appropriate for high-quality tourist accommodation, this configuration contributes to the perception that the pods resemble permanent dwellings. This perception has been raised in a number of objections and is relevant to the visual assessment insofar as it affects

the perceived character and scale of the development in the landscape. However, the design avoids full two-storey structures and limits visual massing through the use of natural materials, low-profile domed roof forms, and strategic siting. These measures are consistent with Strategic Policies 4 and

5 (SP4, SP5) and General Policy 2 (GP2), which require development to protect landscape quality, contribute positively to the Island's environment, and respect the site and surroundings in terms of design and form.

7.3.6 In addition, the broader objectives of the Strategic Plan, as set out in paragraphs 4.3.4 to

4.3.7, emphasise the importance of protecting the Island's distinctive rural and heritage landscape. These paragraphs highlight that the Island's 'heritage identity' is derived not only from its historic buildings and monuments but also from the traditional rural landscape and its visual and cultural continuity. The cumulative effect of development in such areas, even where modest in scale, must therefore be assessed in terms of its contribution to or erosion of this identity. While the external appearance of the pods, featuring domed roof forms, timber cladding, and compact proportions, is consistent with glamping structures typically supported in the countryside, the internal layout (comprising two bedrooms, a kitchen/lounge, bathroom, and stargazing loft) has led to perceptions that the pods resemble permanent dwellings. This perception, raised in several objections, is relevant to the visual assessment insofar as it affects how the development is experienced in the landscape. In this context, the Strategic Plan's emphasis on safeguarding the Island's landscape character and sense of place remains a key consideration.

7.3.7 The masterplan also includes a low-impact network of timber paths, a small stargazing platform, and a bridge over the stream, all designed to integrate with the site's natural topography. These elements demonstrate a clear intention to minimise visual intrusion and landscape disruption, in line with the expectations of SP4, SP5, EP1, and EP2.
7.3.8 Paragraph 9.5.3 of the Strategic Plan acknowledges that tourism development may require built structures, such as holiday accommodation, but stresses that this must be balanced against the need to protect the Island's landscape and heritage. It explicitly states that tourism development should not be treated more leniently than other countryside development. In this context, the visual impact of the proposed development must be assessed to the same standard as any other form of development in the countryside.
7.3.9 The proposed pods are modest in height, use natural materials, and adopt a domed roof form that is visually recessive and consistent with the typology of glamping pods and bothies supported under Tourism Proposal 6. While the internal layout includes full amenities, the external appearance is clearly non-domestic and does not resemble a conventional dwelling. The pods are sited within a visually contained part of the site, behind existing vegetation, and additional landscaping is proposed to reinforce screening. Subject to conditions controlling external materials, lighting, and landscaping, the visual impact of the development is considered acceptable and compliant with SP4, SP5, GP2, and the landscape objectives of the Area Plan for the East.
7.3.10 A number of objections have raised concerns about the scale and appearance of the pods, particularly their resemblance to permanent dwellings. These concerns are not without merit in relation to internal layout; however, the external design, materials, and siting are consistent with the type of low-key rural accommodation supported under the Area Plan. The domed roof form, timber cladding, and modest scale ensure that the pods remain visually recessive and appropriate to their landscape setting. The Strategic Plan recognises that tourism development may require built structures, and the design here is considered acceptable in that context. The key issue in design terms is to ensure that the development is implemented as shown, and not subsequently enlarged or altered in a way that would increase its visual prominence or align it more closely with residential development. Subject to conditions securing the approved layout, external materials, landscaping, and lighting, the development is considered acceptable in visual and landscape terms. It complies with EP1, SP4, SP5, GP2, and Paragraph 9.5.3 of the Strategic Plan 2016.

7.3.11 In addition to securing the approved design and layout, it is also important to ensure that the development remains physically and functionally distinct from the residential curtilage of Bridge House, which is in the same ownership. Without clear separation, there is a risk that the pods could be visually or operationally subsumed into the domestic setting of the main dwelling, undermining their character as standalone tourist units. To prevent this, conditions should be imposed to define and maintain a clear boundary between the tourist accommodation and the residential curtilage, thereby safeguarding the visual identity and policy integrity of the scheme as a low-key rural tourism development.

- 7.4 AMENITY IMPACTS

7.4.1 The proposed use of the pods for short-term tourist accommodation is not considered to result in materially greater amenity impacts than would typically arise from small-scale residential or rental use in a rural setting. In line with General Policy 2, the assessment focuses on the actual effects of development on neighbouring uses, including privacy, noise, and visual impact. The pods are modest in scale, designed for small groups or families, and are sited within a visually contained part of the field. Their positioning below the level of Glenside Cottage, combined with a sod bank and mature vegetation, provides a substantial visual and acoustic buffer. There are no direct lines of sight into neighbouring habitable rooms, and the use of obscured glazing on rear elevations further mitigates any potential for overlooking.
7.4.2 The proximity of the westernmost pod to Glenside Cottage (approximately 12.5 metres) warrants careful consideration in terms of potential amenity impacts, particularly noise. While there is no prescribed minimum separation distance in either the Strategic Plan or the Residential Design Guide (RDG) regarding noise thresholds, Environment Policy 22 explicitly requires that development must not result in unacceptable harm to nearby properties through noise, light, or general disturbance. This includes not only physical development but also changes in activity patterns associated with a site's use, as clarified in paragraph 7.17.2 of the Strategic Plan.
7.4.3 In this case, the pods are positioned at a lower elevation than Glenside Cottage and are screened by a sod bank and mature vegetation, which together provide a meaningful acoustic and visual buffer. The absence of communal gathering areas, combined with a design that avoids direct orientation toward neighbouring habitable rooms and incorporates obscured glazing, serves to mitigate both perceived and actual overlooking. These measures, alongside the physical separation, reduce the potential for noise transmission and visual intrusion. Taken together, the siting, design, and existing landscaping are considered sufficient to ensure that the development would not give rise to unacceptable impacts on privacy or amenity. This conclusion is consistent with the requirements of Environment Policy 22, which seeks to prevent harm from noise and disturbance, and with General Policy 2, which promotes well-integrated, context-sensitive design. The proposal also aligns with Community Policy 7, which supports sustainable tourism where it does not compromise residential amenity.
7.4.4 The Residential Design Guide recognises that changes in topography and existing screening can justify closer proximity where no material harm arises. In this case, the pods are single-storey in appearance, incorporate low-profile domed roofs, and are located within a visually self-contained part of the site. Their siting significantly below the level of Glenside Cottage ensures they would not appear overbearing or dominant. Specifically, the closest pod will sit approximately 500mm below the level of the sod bank on the opposite side of the highway adjoining Glenside Cottage. Its lower floor level would be set around 4.7 metres below the road level, with the upper stargazing level still positioned approximately 2.3 metres below the road. These level differences, combined with the intervening sod bank and vegetation, ensure that there is no anticipated loss of light, overshadowing, or visual intrusion. These locational and design-based factors demonstrate a high degree of contextual sensitivity and are considered to fully comply with the amenity protection objectives of General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 22.
7.4.5 The proposed use of the site for short-term tourist accommodation would differ considerably from its current use as a field associated with agriculture, introducing a more intensive pattern of

occupation and activity. However, the potential for frequent turnover of occupants is not unique to tourism. For example, a residential property in a similar location could be lawfully used for private rental accommodation without planning permission, potentially resulting in comparable levels of comings and goings. The Residential Design Guide advises that amenity assessments should be based on the nature and scale of the use, not assumptions about the user group. In this context, the proposed use is not considered to give rise to a significantly different or more intensive impact on neighbouring residential amenity than other forms of lawful occupation that could occur in proximity to existing dwellings.
7.4.6 The applicant has proposed a range of behavioural controls intended to minimise potential disturbance, including a 9 PM noise curfew, on-site monitoring, and targeted marketing to ecoconscious guests. While such measures are welcomed as part of a responsible management approach, it is acknowledged that controls relating to the timing of guest activity, such as curfews, would fall outside the scope of enforceable planning conditions and could not be relied upon in perpetuity. Nevertheless, the proposal does not include communal areas or features that would encourage congregation or late-night activity, and there is no evidence to suggest that the development would give rise to antisocial behaviour. These factors support the conclusion that the proposal is acceptable in amenity terms and aligns with the objectives of Community Policy 7, which encourages sustainable tourism that respects the amenity of nearby occupiers.
7.4.7 Taken together, the physical characteristics of the site, the scale and design of the pods, the absence of congregation spaces, and the applicant's proposed management measures, albeit not all enforceable through planning, support the conclusion that the development would not result in material harm to residential amenity. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the amenity-related provisions of General Policy 2, Environment Policy 22, and Community Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan.

- 7.5 IMPACTS ON BIODIVERSITY

7.5.1 The application site adjoins the Glion Darragh Nature Reserve and encompasses a combination of locally important habitats, including species-rich grassland, woodland edges, and a stream corridor that connects to the River Glass. These features contribute to the ecological integrity of the area and function as a habitat corridor, consistent with the types of landscape features identified under Environment Policy 4(c) of the Strategic Plan 2016. While the site is not formally designated as an ASSI or National Nature Reserve, its proximity to a recognised nature reserve and the presence of priority habitats elevate its ecological sensitivity.
7.5.2 The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Ecological Assessment, revised in 2024, which has been reviewed by the DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team. They confirm that the level of assessment is appropriate, subject to the imposition of conditions to secure the protection of sensitive habitats during construction, the creation of a pond system that does not compromise the adjacent stream, and the implementation of a long-term biodiversity management strategy. These requirements are consistent with Environment Policy 5, which provides that where development is permitted in exceptional circumstances, appropriate mitigation and compensation must be secured to minimise ecological harm and ensure no net loss of biodiversity.
7.5.3 The proposal includes a number of ecological enhancements that align with the objectives of the Visitor Economy Strategy 2022-2032, which promotes nature-based tourism and biodiversity net gain. These include the provision of bird spotting areas, the installation of webcam-enabled nest boxes to support local avian species, the cordoning off of sensitive grassland to prevent degradation, and the planting of native trees and shrubs to enhance ecological connectivity. These measures are also consistent with Strategic Policy 4(b), which requires development to protect or enhance the nature conservation value of both urban and rural areas, particularly where development is adjacent to designated or locally significant ecological sites.
7.5.4 While a number of objectors have questioned whether the ecological assessments remain sufficiently up to date, whilst also querying the adequacy of the proposed buffer zones, particularly

in relation to the 12-metre stand-off distance recommended in the Preliminary Ecological Assessment, it is noted that the DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team, who are statutory consultees with ecological expertise, has reviewed the Preliminary Ecological Assessment (July 2022, revised September 2024) and the applicant's response to their earlier comments, and has confirmed that a suitable level of assessment has been conducted. In the absence of an alternative professional ecological appraisal, it is appropriate to rely on DEFA's expert judgement in determining the adequacy of the submitted information. DEFA has raised no objection to the proposal, subject to the imposition of conditions to secure habitat protection, pond creation, and long-term biodiversity management. These conditions are considered necessary to avoid and mitigate ecological impacts, in accordance with Environment Policies 4 and 5 and General Policy 2(d) of the Strategic Plan 2016, which collectively require that development does not adversely affect protected wildlife or locally important habitats and that appropriate safeguards are secured where development is permitted. While the concerns raised by objectors are noted, no further action is considered necessary in respect of the ecological assessment itself.
7.5.5 Based on the froegoing, the proposal is considered to comply with the biodiversity protection requirements of Environment Policies 4 and 5, Strategic Policy 4, and General Policy 2(d) of the Strategic Plan 2016. The development avoids direct harm to protected habitats and species, incorporates a range of ecological enhancements that support biodiversity net gain, and reflects a proportionate and policy-compliant approach to nature conservation. The proposal also demonstrates an appropriate response to the site's ecological context and contributes positively to the wider objectives of sustainable land use as set out in the Strategic Plan and the Area Plan for the East 2020.
7.6 IMPACT ON PARKING AND HIGHWAY SAFETY

7.6.1 In assessing the impacts on highway safety and parking, it is considered that access to the site is taken from a narrow, single-track lane which feeds onto the B22. Concerns raised by neighbouring residents include the potential for increased traffic volumes, the adequacy of the existing infrastructure, and the safety implications of the proposed parking layout, particularly in relation to the proximity of the access to Glenside Cottage's driveway and the blind bend near St Luke's Bridge. Objectors have also highlighted inconsistencies in the applicant's transport statements and questioned the enforceability of proposed traffic mitigation measures.
7.6.2 In response to concerns raised about parking and highway elements, the applicant submitted revised plans showing a reduced parking provision of four spaces, a turning area, and improved visibility splays. The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division has reviewed the updated proposals and confirmed that previous concerns have been addressed. They raise no objection, subject to conditions securing the implementation of visibility splays, DDA-compliant ramps, and consolidated surfacing within five metres of the highway boundary. These measures are considered to satisfy the requirements of Transport Policy 4, which requires that development be served by highways capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian movements it generates in a safe and appropriate manner, and Transport Policy 7, which requires parking provision to meet current standards.
7.6.3 The applicant has also proposed measures to reduce car dependency, including incentives for guests arriving without private vehicles, a local taxi partnership, and the potential provision of an electric vehicle shuttle. These initiatives align with the broader sustainability objectives of the Strategic Plan, although their effectiveness will depend on implementation and uptake.
7.6.4 It is also worth noting that the site lies adjacent to existing infrastructure and within an area already served by residential development. No capacity issues have been raised by highways officers. As such, the proposal makes efficient use of land and existing access arrangements, consistent with Strategic Policy 1(b). Subject to the implementation of the approved access and parking layout, the impact on highway safety is considered acceptable and compliant with the relevant provisions of the Strategic Plan and the Area Plan for the East 2020.

- 7.7 FLOOD RISK AND DRAINAGE IMPACTS

7.7.1 The application site lies within an area identified as being at high risk of surface water flooding and includes a stream that connects to the River Glass. In accordance with Environment Policy 10, a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted. Initial comments from the Department of Infrastructure's Flood Risk Management (DOI FRM) team raised concerns regarding the proximity of certain elements, specifically the sauna, hot tub water pool, and sewage plant water pool, to the stream bank. These concerns were consistent with Environment Policy 13, which prohibits development that would result in an unacceptable risk of flooding either on or off site.
7.7.2 In response, the applicant amended the scheme to remove the proposed sauna and confirmed their willingness to accept a condition preventing its future inclusion. Following this revision, DOI FRM confirmed that their concerns had been addressed, subject to a condition ensuring that no structures are erected within 9 metres of the watercourse. This approach is consistent with General Policy 2(l), which requires that development is not located on land subject to unreasonable risk of flooding.
7.7.3 The submitted Drainage Strategy confirms that the proposed drainage field is located downslope of the treatment ponds and more than 10 metres from the stream, consistent with the buffer zone required by DOI Flood Risk Management. Percolation testing has demonstrated suitable infiltration rates, and the calculated drainage field area of 35 square metres can be accommodated within the site, outside the flood-sensitive zone. DOI FRM has confirmed that, subject to a condition preventing development within 9 metres of the watercourse, the scheme is acceptable. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to comply with Environment Policies 10 and 13, General Policy 2(l), and the relevant provisions of the Area Plan for the East 2020.

- 7.9 LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL SOILS

7.9.1 The application site falls within Class 3 on the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map of the Isle of Man. As outlined in Section 7.13 of the Strategic Plan, Class 3 land is characterised by moderate limitations that restrict the choice of crops and/or demand careful management. It is not considered to fall within the category of important and versatile agricultural land, which is defined under Environment Policy 14 as comprising Classes 1 and 2. These higher-grade soils are afforded the greatest protection from development, and there is a general presumption against their release for non-agricultural use.
7.9.2 The Strategic Plan acknowledges that Class 3 land accounts for over 80% of the Island's agricultural soils and is not subject to the same level of protection as Classes 1 and 2. Accordingly, while the site is currently undeveloped and has historically been used for agricultural purposes, its classification does not trigger the policy presumption against development under EP14. There is no evidence to suggest that the site contains mixed Class 2/3 soils or any pockets of higher-grade land that would warrant further investigation or avoidance.
7.9.3 The proposal does not involve the construction of agricultural buildings or dwellings, nor does it seek to justify development on the basis of agricultural need. Instead, it represents a form of rural diversification through tourism, which is supported in principle under the Strategic Plan where it does not result in unacceptable harm to the landscape or environment. In this context, the loss of Class 3 agricultural land is not considered to conflict with Environment Policy 14, and the proposal is therefore acceptable in terms of agricultural land use policy.
7.9.4 In accordance with Tourism Proposal 6 of the Strategic Plan, which supports low-key rural tourist accommodation such as small-scale camping pods in woodland or plantation settings, the proposal has been designed to ensure that the development remains reversible. The pods and associated infrastructure are of a lightweight and non-permanent nature, allowing for their removal without significant disruption to the land. Should the tourism use cease, the site can be readily restored to its original agricultural use, consistent with the policy expectation that such structures be removed when no longer required. This approach safeguards the long-term agricultural potential of the land while supporting appropriate rural diversification.

- 7.9 OTHER MATTERS

7.9.1 Discharge of Effluents

7.9.1.1 The DEFA Environmental Protection Unit (EPU) has reviewed the proposed arrangements for the discharge of effluent from the hot tub and sewage water ponds. They advised that if effluent is discharged to a full soakaway located more than 10 metres from the River Glass tributary, no discharge licence would be required. However, if any discharge to the watercourse is proposed, a discharge licence application must be submitted to assess the potential impact on water quality classification.
7.9.1.2 It is important to note that the regulation of effluent discharge is governed by separate environmental legislation and falls outside the remit of the planning system. As such, no assessment has been made within this report regarding the acceptability of the discharge arrangements in regulatory terms. It will be the applicant's responsibility to ensure that all necessary environmental consents are obtained from DEFA prior to implementation and that the development complies with the relevant statutory requirements.

- 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 The proposed development represents a form of low-key rural tourism accommodation that aligns with the strategic objectives of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016), the Area Plan for the East (2020), and the Visitor Economy Strategy (2022-2032). While the site lies within the open countryside and is not allocated for development, the proposal demonstrates strong policy support through its contribution to sustainable rural diversification, its alignment with Tourism Proposal 6, and its compliance with Business Policies 11 and 14. The siting of the pods within a visually contained and screened area, their proportionate scale and design, and the inclusion of ecological enhancements all contribute to a scheme that is sensitive to its landscape and environmental context. The development's proximity to the Millennium Way also lends it partial support under Tourism Proposal 7, which encourages accommodation that supports national trails and assimilates into the countryside. - 8.2 Subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions, particularly those restricting occupancy to short-term tourist use, requiring removal of structures when no longer needed, and securing ecological, visual, highway, and flood risk safeguards, the proposal is considered acceptable in principle and in detail. It complies with the relevant provisions of the Strategic Plan, including General Policies 2 and 3, Strategic Policies 1, 4, 5, and 8, Environment Policies 1, 4, 5, 14, and 22, and Transport Policies 4 and 7. The development strikes an appropriate balance between supporting the Island's tourism economy and protecting the character, amenity, infrastructure, and biodiversity of the rural environment.

9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 9.1 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).

9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:

o applicant (in all cases).
o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and
o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.

9.3 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. - 9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):

o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant);
o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure, and the local authority for the area;
o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and
o in the case of a petition, a single representative.

9.5 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity, they cannot be given the Right to Appeal.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 11.08.2025

Signed :Mr Pieran Shen Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES See below

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.

Planning Committee Decision 11.08.2025

Application No. : 24/91112/B Applicant : Dr Ram Singh Bhadouria Proposal : Erection of three tourist camping pods, star-gazing platform, sauna

and associated drainage and car parking Site Address : Bridge House West Baldwin Isle Of Man IM4 5HA Planning Officer Paul Visigah Reporting Officer Pieran Shen Addendum to the Officer’s Report

Meeting Held on 28 July 2025: This application was considered by the Committee on 28th July 2025 and deferred for a site visit. The site visit was to be held on Monday 4th August 2025.

The Planning Committee also agreed with the recommendation to amend the Rights to Appeal section for DOI Highways, DOI FRM, and Visit Isle of Man Agency (Department for Enterprise), who had no oajections to the application. The revised Right to Appeal section shall read:

It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:

o DOI Highway Services - No objection subject to conditions which have been applied.
o DOI Flood Risk Management - No objection subject to conditions which have been applied.
o Visit Isle of Man Agency (Department for Enterprise) - No Objections

Meeting held on 11th August 2025: The Planning Committee, in the meeting on 11th August 2025, overturned the Case Officer's recommendation for refusal on the basis that:

Reason 1: The proposal is not considered to meet the overriding national need requirement or any exception as required through General Policy 3 to offset development in the countryside and therefore the proposal is contrary to General Policy 3 and Spatial Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
Reason 2: Given the proximity of the proposed camping pods and proposed hot tubs to neighbouring property Glenside Cottage, it is consider noise and general disturbance would result in an unacceptable impact upon the residential amenities of the occupants of Glenside Cottage contrary to General Policy 2(g) and Environment Policy 22 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016.
Reason 3: Given the size, scale and siting of the proposed camping pods on land not designated for development, it is considered that the proposal would result in an adverse visual impact upon the on the character and appearance of the countryside, which should otherwise be protected for its

own sake and therefore the proposal is contrary to Environmental Policy 1 and General Policy 2 & 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

Reasons for Refusal

R 1. The proposal is not considered to meet the overriding national need requirement or any exception as required through General Policy 3 to offset development in the countryside and therefore the proposal is contrary to General Policy 3 and Spatial Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 2. Given the proximity of the proposed camping pods and proposed hot tubs to neighbouring property Glenside Cottage, it is consider noise and general disturbance would result in an unacceptable impact upon the residential amenities of the occupants of Glenside Cottage contrary to General Policy 2(g) and Environment Policy 22 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016.
R 3. Given the size, scale and siting of the proposed camping pods on land not designated for development, it is considered that the proposal would result in an adverse visual impact upon the on the character and appearance of the countryside, which should otherwise be protected for its own sake and therefore the proposal is contrary to Environmental Policy 1 and General Policy 2 & 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

Officer Report

Source & Provenance