13 June 2012 · Planning Committee
Hill View, Sulby Glen, Sulby, Isle Of Man, IM7 2bb
The proposal involved demolishing an existing modest cottage of poor form (155 sq m including attached garage, 5.5m ridge height, sited 8m from the road) and replacing it with a larger dwelling of 323 sq m floor area (108% increase), 8.3m ridge height, set back 14m from the road on an expanded residential curtilage (54…
Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.
See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.
The Planning Committee overturned the officer's recommendation for approval, determining that the proposed dwelling was significantly larger (323 sq m vs existing 155 sq m, 108% increase excluding det…
Housing Policy 12
Permits countryside dwelling replacement unless abandoned or architecturally/historically valuable and renovatable. Officer confirmed existing retains habitable status, no abandonment evidence, principle acceptable despite poor condition hampering renovation due to roadside location/flooding.
Housing Policy 14
Requires replacements not substantially different in siting/size (generally on footprint, ≤50% larger floor area excluding attic/outbuildings) unless environmental improvement; design per Planning Circular 3/91 policies 2-7; exceptions for poor form to traditional or reduced visual impact. Committee found proposal substantially different (108% larger, resited, expanded curtilage), no overall improvement, excessive even for poor form exception; officer argued flexibility justified but overturned.
Policies 2-7 (inclusive) of Planning Circular 3/91
Guides countryside residential design (frontage length, proportions, traditional form). Officer found amended design (7.2m core depth, 40° pitch, balanced frontage) largely compliant though wider/deeper than ideal, marginally more massing acceptable for replacement. Committee disagreed, citing non-accord especially core depth, greater impact.
no objection
The original application 11/01461/B for erection of a replacement dwelling and detached garage was refused by the Planning Committee primarily due to non-compliance with Housing Policy 14 and Planning Circular 3/91 over scale, massing, siting, and design in an Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. The appellant argued the existing derelict cottage was of poor form warranting a larger replacement of traditional character with environmental improvements, supported by amendments and policy flexibility. The inspector agreed the principle of replacement was acceptable under Housing Policy 12 but found the proposal substantially exceeded Policy 14 limits with 100% floor area increase, minimal footprint overlap, excessive depth and complexity versus Circular 3/91 guidelines, and curtilage extension conflicting with Environment Policy 1. Curtilage expansion into agricultural land was a further conflict without overriding need. The Minister accepted the inspector's recommendation to dismiss the appeal on 22 October 2012.
Precedent Value
Demonstrates strict enforcement of HP14 and PC3/91 metrics (footprint, 50% size, 5.5m depth) even for poor existing dwellings; curtilage expansions for replacements conflict with EP1. Future applicants must prioritise exact dimensional compliance and avoid agricultural land loss.
Inspector: Stephen Amos MA (Cantab) MCD MRTPI
