Inspector's Report

Report on a Planning Appeal by the Written Procedure

Site Inspection: Monday 27 October 2025

Appeal made by Ballaheaney Properties Limited against the refusal of a planning application for approval for extension to the curtilage of an existing health spa to create a landscaped garden spa with terraced decking, external sauna, spa pools and glazed garden pod and creation of a service yard and erection of a prefabricated service building to house the filtration equipment for the proposed spa pools, at Brightlife, Ballaheaney House, Andreas Road, Andreas, Isle of Man, IM7 4EN. _________________________________________________________

Note

This Report is issued to replace that dated 21 November 2025 in order to correct a typographical error in paragraph 17.

Description

• 1. The Brightlife Spa and Conference Facility is located approximately one mile south east of Andreas Village, set within a rural landscape characterised by open agricultural fields.
• 2. The complex includes a varied series of traditional and contemporary converted outbuildings and dwellings in landscaped grounds. The present spa pool and treatment room is located at the south west corner of the property with expansive views across a terrace and the fields beyond.
• 3. The appeal scheme would incorporate about 510sqm of current agricultural land outside the present property curtilage, extending some 6.5m from the west boundary and 3m from the southern boundary.
• 4. The upper level of the terraced area would measure about 100sqm and be raised by about 1.4m with a glass balustrade along its southern edge. It would accommodate an outdoor spa pool and a 1.8m by 2m glazed vestibule. The 4.4m x 3.5m sauna and a further 2.7m x 2.8m spa pool would be set at the lower level, along with a garden area, board walk and a 4m by 2.3m glazed garden pod.
• 5. The service building would measure 8m by 4.5m by 3.3m and would be of prefabricated timber construction set on a concrete base and located to the north of the terrace and new spa facilities.
• 6. A new low boundary wall in Manx stone would be erected to redefine the southern site boundary with the adjoining field, together with new screen planting.

Planning Policy

• 7. Policies of most relevance to this appeal are contained in the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP), wherein the overarching strategy is to direct development mainly to existing defined sustainable urban settlements and to protect the countryside.

• 8. General Policy 3 (GP3 ) of the IMSP provides exceptions to the general presumption against rural development but none of them apply in this case. GP2 sets a range of criteria for development when permitted. These include (b-c), respect for local surroundings and character and (d), protection of wildlife.
• 9. Environment Policy 1 (EP1) protects the landscape of the countryside for its own sake. EP3 protects woodland areas. EP4-5 together protect ecology from the effects development and provide for mitigation where appropriate. EP14 resists the loss of high-quality Class 1-2 agricultural land.
• 10. Business Policies 1 and 11 (BP1,11) support economic growth in the tourism sector, subject to the same criteria as other development.
• 11. Transport Policy 4 (TP4) safeguards highway safety. The Case for the Planning Authority Planning Issues
• 12. The key considerations are:

• i. the principle of the proposed development;
• ii. visual and landscape impacts;
• iii. highway safety;
• iv. ecology; and
• v. loss of agricultural soils.

• 13. It is not considered that the scheme, as currently proposed, would result in adverse impacts on neighbouring amenity, given the separation distances to nearby properties of 230-250m. Intervening vegetation would also help to mitigate any potential concerns regarding neighbouring amenity.

Principle

• 14. The appeal proposal must be assessed with regard to the presumption of GP3 of the IMSP against development in the countryside.
• 15. It has not been demonstrated that the spa garden and associated structures could not be accommodated within the existing curtilage of the Brightlife complex. The site has sufficient land within its current boundary to support modest expansion, and no operational or spatial constraints have been identified that would necessitate encroachment into the surrounding field. The development would thus fail to make efficient use of the land as encouraged by the IMSP.
• 16. The proposed extension of the curtilage represents a material change in land use, extending the operational boundary of the spa facility into previously undeveloped agricultural land.
• 17. The proposed curtilage extension does not therefore align with GP3 or the overarching strategy of the IMSP, which seek to protect the countryside from incremental development and to direct new development to designated areas.
• 18. Accordingly, the proposed development is not acceptable in principle.

Visual and Landscape Impacts

• 19. The proposed development would partly occupy currently open, undeveloped, agricultural land which is visually distinct from the operational area of the Brightlife spa.
• 20. The curtilage extension would introduce a suite of built structures, hard landscaping, and formalised garden features that would significantly domesticate the currently open and rural setting of the Brightlife built complex. The scale and intensity of the proposed use would go beyond what would reasonably be considered incidental to the existing spa and instead would constitute a substantive expansion of the developed estate.
• 21. The Appellant cites cases in precedent cases including under Ref 25/90339/C and 23/00884/C to support the principle of curtilage extension. However, those cases involved domestic garden extensions to private dwellings, where the land remained open, green, and visually permeable, for passive garden use or lawn space. These cases are not directly comparable because, in contrast, the current proposal introduces commercial activity, multiple structures, and a curated landscape that would materially alter the character and function of the land outside the present boundary.
• 22. The existing boundary between the spa complex and the surrounding countryside is clearly defined by a combination of open lawn, mature vegetation, and a simple postand-wire fence. There is a soft and legible transition between the developed curtilage and the adjacent agricultural fields. This would be overridden by a curated and semidomestic of terraces, spa structures, and formalised garden features. This would be inconsistent with EP1 of the IMSP to protect the countryside.
• 23. Although the proposal incorporates natural materials, native planting, and low-level lighting, and would not be readily visible from public viewpoints, the cumulative effect of the built structures and hard landscaping would significantly alter the character of the site. The Brightlife development would no longer read as a rural wellness facility integrated into its landscape setting, but as an intensively used garden environment. This would conflict also with GP2(b, c, f) of the IMSP, which require respect for the character of the site and surroundings in layout, scale, and landscape integration.
• 24. The visual and landscape impacts of the proposed development would not be acceptable in policy terms.

Highway Safety and Parking

• 25. The proposed development would not alter the existing access, circulation or parking arrangements. It is noted that guest numbers would remain capped at 12 per session with some increase in staff. However, there is sufficient space within the site to accommodate additional parking provision should it be required.
• 26. DoI Highways have advised that the development would have no significant negative impact on highway safety, network functionality, or parking provision.
• 27. In the circumstances, the proposal is regarded as compliant with TP4 of the IMSP with respect to highway safety.

Biodiversity Impacts

• 28. The appeal is not supported by any ecological appraisal or survey. Accordingly, the proposal cannot be said to comply with the requirement of GP2(d) of the IMSP to

• protect wildlife and locally important habitats. There are mature trees, including an ivycovered specimen, and dense boundary vegetation present on the site. These features are commonly associated with nesting birds, invertebrates, and potentially roosting bats. The proposed boundary wall around the service area would sit just 1.2m from a mature sod bank, further highlighting the proximity of the development to these sensitive ecological interests.
• 29. The submitted design statement acknowledges the potential for bat activity but proposes a survey only if deemed necessary at a later stage. This approach does not satisfy the precautionary principle embedded in EP4 of the IMSP, which requires that potential ecological impacts be assessed prior to the grant of planning permission.
• 30. While the trees and hedgerows on site may not be formally Registered, their ecological function and contribution to the rural character of the area are material considerations. The proposed development, including the service yard and lighting, would be located immediately adjacent to these trees, increasing the likelihood of disturbance or degradation. The absence of a tree survey or root protection plan undermines compliance with EP3 regarding the protection of woodland areas.
• 31. The proposed lighting scheme, whilst described as low-impact, has not been assessed in terms of its potential effects on nocturnal species, particularly bats. Without such assessment, it cannot be assumed that the development would avoid ecological harm or deliver meaningful biodiversity enhancement.
• 32. The use planning conditions to secure appraisal and mitigation of ecological effects is only appropriate where the likely impacts are understood and can be clearly addressed. In this case, the lack of baseline ecological information limits the ability to conclude that the proposal would comply with GP2(d) or EPs 3, 4 or 5 of the IMSP with respect to woodland and biodiversity

Loss of Agricultural Soils

• 33. The area of additional domestic curtilage would occupy 510sqm of Class 2-3 agricultural land. This area is in a transitional category that may contain Class 2 soils, warranting a precautionary approach.
• 34. EP14 seeks to prevent the permanent loss of Class 2 soils unless there is an overriding need and no reasonable alternative. No soil survey has been submitted to confirm the quality of the affected land, and the Appellants have not demonstrated that the proposed development could not be accommodated within the existing curtilage.
• 35. The waterlogged condition of the site does not override the requirement to avoid unnecessary encroachment onto high quality agricultural land.
• 36. In the absence of a soil survey or clear justification for the selection of this specific area, the proposal does not demonstrate that the loss of potentially high-quality agricultural land has been avoided. The development therefore fails to comply fully with EP14 in this respect and the loss of agricultural land cannot be supported.

Conclusion

• 37. The appeal proposals present a number of positive attributes. The scheme supports the continued operation of a non-profit wellness facility that contributes to the local economy and employment. It aligns with the Isle of Man Visitor Economy Strategy by

• enhancing the Island wellness tourism offer and includes design features such as native planting, low-level lighting, and natural materials that aim to integrate the development into its rural setting. The Appellants have also demonstrated a willingness to accept planning conditions to limit future encroachment and mitigate potential impacts.
• 38. However, these benefits are outweighed by the identified significant and unresolved policy conflicts. The absence of ecological surveys, soil assessments, and a comprehensive lighting strategy undermines the ability to assess the impact on biodiversity and agricultural land.
• 39. At appeal, the spatial diagrams submitted by the Appellants do not demonstrate that the proposed location is functionally indispensable, nor do they show that reasonable alternatives within the existing curtilage have been explored or ruled out. The diagrams fail to provide any comparative spatial analysis or evidence of operational constraints that would preclude alternative configurations. Instead, they reinforce the submission of the Planning Authority that the proposal represents a substantive expansion into undeveloped land, driven by preference rather than policy-compliant necessity. As noted in examples from the UK cited by the Department, spa gardens can be successfully integrated without immediate adjacency.
• 40. On balance, while the proposal offers economic and operational benefits, it fails to meet key planning policy requirements relating to countryside protection, ecological safeguarding, and sustainable land use. The development represents an unjustified encroachment into the rural landscape and does not demonstrate compliance with the IMSP. Therefore, this appeal should be dismissed.

The Case for the Appellants – Ballaheaney Properties Limited

The material points are: Reasons for the Appeal

• 41. The Planning Officer misunderstood the nature of the Brightlife spa and site layout in suggesting that alternative locations are available within its present site boundary. It is incorrect to conclude that countryside encroachment is unjustified as there is no alternative location for the additional facilities required.
• 42. For self-evident practical reasons the proposed facilities would be incidental to the existing spa and require to be located close to the present spa pool and treatment facilities. This is evident from a submitted architectural zoning plan of the spa building.
• 43. There is a real and pressing need for the development to maintain the commercial competitiveness and viability of the Brightlife wellness facility and its continued contribution to the economy of the north of the Island.
• 44. The development would not result in domestication of the landscape due to its limited size, scale and context and no such harm is demonstrated. EP1 only resists development where it would adversely affect the countryside.
• 45. No soil survey was requested and is unnecessary due the land in question being waterlogged grazing. Neither was ecological information requested and the Ecosystem Policy Team has not objected. No lighting information was requested and this could be covered by a planning condition. Insufficient weight was given to economic benefits.

Design Considerations

• 46. The appeal site comprises a lawned area in front of the building and part of a sheepgazed field. An ecological survey was not deemed essential and nor was bat survey undertaken due to the limited potential for bat roosts. A planting scheme would complement the setting with native trees and plants, also providing some increase in insect and other wildlife biodiversity.

Response to Refusal

• 47. It is accepted that the site is not designated for development but the actual impact of the development and the manner of its incorporation into the landscape compared with the existing post and wire fence boundary, as well as the ecological benefits should be understood.
• 48. The Ecosystem Policy Team (ECT) has separately confirmed no objection and recognises a potential biodiversity enhancement due to new native planting whilst noting that the ecological value of the improved grassland of the agricultural land is low. The ECT also considers that bat survey was unnecessary.
• 49. Even so, the Manx Bat Group has undertaken a survey, confirming that the site is not an important feeding location for bats, owing to its small size and the nature of its vegetation, and that the development would not impact bats in any way. These findings are also documented.
• 50. The rationale for the location of the development is that other areas are not appropriate.

Planning Conditions

• 51. The Appellants are willing to accept the suggested conditions for such as external lighting. However, suggested condition 4, requiring an ecological appraisal, is unnecessary, taking into consideration the post decision comments of the Governments ecological adviser. Suggested condition 6, requiring a soil survey, is disproportionate to the scale of the proposed development and is not justified.
• 52. Suggested condition 8 would require a site-specific surface water strategy. However, the existing surface water system is designed to accommodate the Brightlife spa building and hard landscaping as well as the attenuation tank from the existing main spa pool. Surface water discharges to an existing field drainage ditch under an approved licence. The additional increase from the small hot tubs and any hard landscaping would have minimal impact and therefore condition 8 is also unnecessary.

Conclusions

• 53. The refusal on biodiversity grounds is unjustified in view of the ecological information provided with the appeal. The remote and unobtrusive location of the site means that the development would not harm the character or appearance of the countryside.
• 54. The ability for Brightlife to accommodate outdoor wellbeing facilities is essential to its continued success as the primary, if not the only wellbness centre in the north of the Island.

• 55. The business generates employment and offers a facility which attracts custom from local people and visitors alike. Its continued successful operation is considered to be an important element of the economy of the north of the Island.
• 56. The Appellants have demonstrated that the outdoor spa facilities are economically important to the business and that they could not reasonably be located elsewhere within the approved curtilage of the facility. It is clear that the curtilage of the site was extended when the spa was created and that the development proposed now is not excessive in area and it would not be publicly visible.
• 57. Care has been taken to design a scheme which, although not seen publicly, would be attractive and would contribute not only to the landscape but also to the biodiversity of the area. The Ecosystem Policy Team has confirmed that the proposal would result in a biodiversity net gain.
• 58. The development would enhance the site and the surrounding area and the multiple benefits would outweigh the general presumption against development in this location, given the land is not designated for development. The beautiful, natural setting of the Brightlife spa adds to its attraction as a wellbeing facility that could not be accommodated in a town without significantly changing its identity.
• 59. It is submitted that the proposed development would result in no harm, would enhance the biodiversity of the site and would improve the facilities available on the site for the benefit of the Island generally and the north particularly.
• 60. It is submitted that an exception to the presumption against development here is justified and that the appeal should be allowed and the Brightlife spa permitted to expand as proposed.

Other Representations

• 61. DOI Highway Services find the proposals to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality or parking, as the existing accesses, proposed internal layout and parking provision on-site would remain acceptable with the appeal proposals in place.
• 62. The owner-occupiers of Clareville, Andreas Road, comment that site lies within a designated Dark Skies area such that no floodlighting should be permitted and external lighting should be restricted to low-level, downward-facing fixtures. Also that additional landscaping should be introduced to mitigate visual and environmental impact. Any new filtration or mechanical equipment should not generate noise that negatively affects neighbouring properties and sound levels should remain consistent with rural ambient noise levels, particularly during the night.

Assessment by the Inspector

Planning Issues

• 63. The main issues are: the principle of the development in the light of planning policy; its effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside; its implications regarding biodiversity and the loss of agricultural soils; and the degree of planning need and benefit due to the development.

Principle

• 64. There is no question that, by extending the curtilage and built development of the existing Brightlife spa into the adjacent field, the development now proposed would in principle run contrary to the spatial strategy of national planning policy to resist rural development and safeguard the countryside. In particular the development would be in conflict with GP3 of the IMSP which broadly directs new development to settlements.

Character and Appearance

• 65. The location of the several elements of the proposed development would overlap the present property boundary where there is currently a clear distinction between the built development of the Brightlife spa and the open, undeveloped agricultural fields adjacent.
• 66. Although public views of the development would be limited, EP1 of the IMSP expressly protects the countryside for its own sake and GP2 seeks respect for the surrounding area. Where there is currently an existing open terrace making a transition between the spa building and its rural surroundings, the spa development and service building would introduce a denser layout of multiple features, causing a starker contrast at the revised field boundary. This would result in a degree of physical and visual impact on the character and appearance of the rural surroundings and countryside landscape, in strict conflict with EP1 and GP2.

Biodiversity and Agricultural Soils

• 67. Again, the application was strictly in conflict with EP4-5 and EP14 of the IMSP, in that the proposals are not accompanied by an ecological appraisal, lighting strategy or soil or tree surveys, albeit there was no comment from the DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team.
• 68. At appeal however, the ECT explains that it had no objection on grounds that it recognises a potential biodiversity enhancement due to the new native planting proposed, whilst the ecological value of the grassland to be occupied is low. The ECT also considers that a bat survey is unnecessary. The latter is confirmed by the Manx Bat Group, which confirms that the small site is not important for bat feeding due to the nature of its vegetation, such that the appeal development would be unlikely to affect bats.
• 69. I acknowledge that trees and hedges on the site are important to the ecology of the site but it appears to me that the proposed works would be sufficiently far from them to avoid harmful direct impact.
• 70. The 510sqm of the agricultural field affected may include Class 2 agricultural land protected by EP14 but is evidently subject to waterlogging and in any event represents a very small part of the field.
• 71. In the circumstances, I consider that ecological matters can properly be addressed by planning conditions to ensure compliance with EP4-5 of the IMSP on ecology and mitigation whilst any conflict with EP14 concerning potential loss of Class 2 soil would be of a very low order.

Planning Need and Benefit

• 72. The chosen location of the proposed spa facilities is no doubt driven in part by personal preference and convenience which carry no planning weight. There are plenty of examples of such attendant facilities being provided within space already available within the boundaries of spa properties but not directly adjacent to spa facilities of a similar kind.
• 73. Each case is for consideration primarily on its individual merits. In this case it is clear that the location of the new facilities next to the existing spa pool and terrace is functionally highly desirable from a practical point of view as well as from the point of view of spa clients who can be expected to demand an increasingly sophisticated and convenient environment for their treatments and relaxation.
• 74. Whilst no documentary evidence is available as to the present or predicted viability of the Brightlife business, with or without the enhancements now proposed, it is reasonably to be anticipated that the development would be beneficial in this respect.
• 75. It follows that the proposed development would provide a degree of improvement in the wellbeing and tourism offer in support of the economy in the north of the Island and thus in line with BP1 and BP11 of the IMSP in respect of economic growth, including within the tourism sector.
• 76. There would also be some net benefit to biodiversity, as identified by the ECT in connection with the appeal.

Other Matters

• 77. I am satisfied on the evidence that the proposed development would not generate significant additional road traffic to affect road safety, noting no objection from DoI Highways.
• 78. Neither do I consider there to be potential for a significant increase in surface or foul water effluents, in view of the present drainage facilities operating on the site. This is also a matter for building control.
• 79. I have considered every other matter raised. The points made by local residents essentially regarding amenity are covered by planning conditions or separate legislation. Otherwise, I agree with the Planning Authority that the proposed development would have no harmful effect on neighbouring residential amenity, given the significant distances between properties.

Planning Conditions

• 80. If approval is granted, conditions are necessary to define the development curtilage, require a return to agricultural use if the spa operation ceases, control lighting levels in the interest of biodiversity, and limit noise from filtration and mechanical plant.
• 81. However, in view of my findings above regarding ecology, agricultural soils and drainage, I agree with the Appellants that the related suggested conditions are unnecessary.

Planning Balance and Conclusion

• 82. There would be conflict with strategic and development management policies to protect the countryside but, due to the comparatively small scale of the intrusion into the open field within the countryside, I regard the resultant planning harm as modest, carrying weight accordingly.
• 83. The development would give rise to material planning benefits in terms of available wellbeing facilities, the Island economy and with respect to a net biodiversity gain. I also accord these benefits due planning weight.
• 84. Otherwise, the effects of the development can be neutralised by planning conditions.
• 85. On a final overall balance, I have reached the conclusion that the modest degree of planning harm in this case is overridden by the identified planning benefits and that this appeal should accordingly be allowed and the refusal overturned.

Recommendation

• 86. I recommend that the appeal be allowed, and planning approval granted for extension to the curtilage of an existing health spa to create a landscaped garden spa with terraced decking, external sauna, spa pools and glazed garden pod and creation of a service yard and erection of a prefabricated service building to house the filtration equipment for the proposed spa pools, at Brightlife, Ballaheaney House, Andreas Road, Andreas, Isle of Man, IM7 4EN, as shown on Drawings Nos 2202/01, 02A, 03, 04A, 06, 07, 08 and 09, dated January 2025, and subject to the conditions and for the reasons set out in the Schedule appended to this Report.
• 87. If accepted, this recommendation would have the effect of overturning the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application.

B J Sims

Brian J Sims BSc (Hons) CEng MICE MRTPI Independent Inspector

17 December 2025

APPENDIX Schedule of Recommended Planning Conditions and Reason for Approval Conditions

• 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.

• 2) The operational curtilage shall extend no further south than the area including the additional footprint and landscaped area shown on Drawing No 2202/02A, and shall not include the field to the south, which lies outside the red line boundary on the submitted plan. Prior to first use of the development, the boundary treatments shown on Drawing No 2202/04A, including stone walls, timber fencing, and hedging, shall be fully implemented and retained thereafter.

Within two months of this decision becoming final, a site-wide curtilage plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. This plan shall clearly define the full extent of the Brightlife spa curtilage, including the area approved under Drawing No 2202/02A, and distinguish it from surrounding agricultural land.

Reason: To prevent incremental encroachment into the countryside and ensure continued compliance with General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan, which seek to protect the rural character and spatial integrity of the countryside.

• 3) In the event that the Brightlife spa ceases operation for a continuous period of 12 months, all structures, terraces, and associated infrastructure approved under this permission shall be removed, and the land reinstated to agricultural use in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Department within 6 months of cessation.

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 Environment Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan.

• 4) Prior to the installation of any lighting within or associated with the proposed development, a detailed lighting scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The scheme must be designed in accordance with the recommendations of the BCT and ILP Guidance Note 8: Bats and Artificial Lighting (12th September 2018) to minimize disruption to nocturnal wildlife.

The lighting details shall include detailed drawings of the proposed lighting columns and fittings, information on the levels of luminance and daily duration and any measures for mitigating the effects of light pollution.

• continued -

The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To ensure artificial lighting within and around the development does not negatively impact wildlife, safeguarding biodiversity.

• 5) The filtration and mechanical equipment shall be housed and operated in accordance with the specifications provided in correspondence dated 24 February 2025. Operational noise levels shall not exceed 55 dB(A) at the site boundary during night time hours.

Reason: To ensure proper control of the development and to reflect the information provided in the application, as the Department has assessed the impact of the proposal on the basis of the specific use and the documents submitted.

Reason for Approval

Despite conflict with the overarching spatial strategy and General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 to protect the countryside, the practical planning harm due to the proposed development would be modest and overridden by the social, ecological, financial and employment benefits of the development.

End of Appendix