22 August 2017 · Planning Committee
Field 234268, Douglas Road, Kirk Michael, Isle Of Man, IM6 1at
The proposal sought approval for a two-storey five-bedroom detached dwelling with white render and stone finishes, reconstituted slate roof, a detached double garage, and a timber stable block on an L-shaped grassy site between existing dwellings Cass A Lergy and Erinville, behind a tree-lined bank along Douglas Road.
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 officer emphasized that the dwelling's rearward siting directly contradicted the Planning Inspector's findings from PA 15/00815/A, where approval in principle for two dwellings was granted only on…
General Policy 3
Requires presumption against new development on land not zoned for such. The officer assessed the proposal as failing this due to harmful intrusion into countryside from rear siting, with no material grounds to set aside the presumption, especially given the inspector's prior balancing.
Environment Policy 1
Protects countryside from inappropriate development. Site in unzoned 'Open Space (Agriculture)' area; rear dwelling and access breach through visual intrusion, bank/tree loss, despite AiP for fronting dwellings.
Environment Policy 42
Protects landscape character. Proposal disrupts rural 'avenue' of fronting dwellings behind banks/trees; backland siting, design incoherence, and bank loss harm streetscene and transitional character between countryside and village.
General Policy 2
Requires appropriate design (b), protection of trees/landscape features (f), and orderly development avoiding backland (k). Dwelling design disordered and incoherent; tree/bank loss harmful; siting forces backland development. Noted as for zoned land but applied due to harms.
Environment Policy 21
Prohibits stabling buildings detrimental to countryside character by siting/design/size/finish. Stable sited deep into site, poorly related to surroundings; independently harmful if built without dwelling.
Amended plans received with a design that satisfies almost all of the highway issues. Offered no objection subject to conditions.
No objection following submission of tree survey and report.
Supportive of the proposal because the design will fit in well with the local environment, and it is essential for the school, shops and post office of Kirk Michael that young people are encouraged to live in the village.
Arboricultural Officer raised concerns about tree impacts and requested detailed tree surveys per BS5837:2012 before commenting further; Michael Commissioners objected to the back-to-back house layout; Highways deferred pending further information.
Key concern: insufficient tree impact assessment and potential damage to protected trees per BS5837:2012
DEFA Arboricultural Officer (Andrew Igoea)
Conditional No ObjectionI expect the tarmac driveway is within the ‘Root Protection Areas’ as defined by British Standard 5837:2012.; Until this information is provided I will not be able to comment further. If the applicant fails to provide this information I would have to object on the grounds that there is insufficient information for the impact on trees to be properly assessed.; the frontage bank and trees, contribute significantly to the street scene and rural character
Conditions requested: A plan showing position of every tree (or group) on site or adjacent that could influence or be affected, indicating trees to be removed; Schedule listing information per paragraph 4.4.2 of BS5837:2012 and proposed pruning/felling; Details of proposed ground level alterations and excavation affecting root protection area per paragraph 4.6 of BS5837:2012; Tree protection measures per paragraphs 5.5 and 6.2 of BS5837:2012; Arboricultural method statement due to proximity of trees to vehicular access
Michael Commissioners
ObjectionThe Commissioners feel that the two back to back houses are not acceptable. The two side by side that had been recommended by the Inspector and Minister, which are fronting onto the A3 road and carrying on the building line, would be far more in keeping for the area.
Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division
No CommentHighways input deferred pending further information/input; DEFER on 24/01/17
The original application for full planning approval for a detached dwelling, garage, and stables on land not zoned for development was refused by DEFA Planning on 22 August 2017 for reasons including countryside intrusion, backland development, poor design, tree/bank impact, and stables policy conflict. The appellants argued the proposal accorded with prior Approval in Principle for two dwellings, design was appropriate and eco-friendly, access improved safety, and impacts were minimal with conditions. The inspector found designs acceptable but siting caused significant harm by intruding into countryside and requiring unnatural hillside excavation, outweighing positives on access, trees, and highway safety. Policies GP3, EP1, and EP42 were not met. The Minister accepted the inspector's recommendation on 8 January 2018, dismissing the appeal.
Precedent Value
Reinforces that prior Approval in Principle does not guarantee full approval for any layout; siting must avoid countryside intrusion and respect established frontages. Future applicants should prioritise road-fronting positions and avoid deep-site or excavatory designs on sloping unzoned land.
Inspector: Anthony J Wharton BArch RIBA RIAS MRTPI
