14 September 2012 · Minister for Infrastructure (decision by I I Thompson, Chief Executive by order of the Minister)
Curlew Cottage, Scarlett, Castletown, Isle Of Man, IM9 1tb
The application sought to extend the garden of Curlew Cottage, a two-storey detached dwelling in open countryside, by incorporating part of adjacent Field 433155, increasing the curtilage from around 500m² to 1250m² through new boundaries up to 22m east and 8m south.
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 refused, finding the curtilage extension into countryside contrary to Environment Policy 1 (EP1), which protects countryside and ecology 'for its own sake', and undermining open…
General Policy 3
Restricts development outside zoned areas except specific exceptions (e.g. agriculture, conversions); proposal lacks exception but officer assessed curtilage extension as not significantly harmful visually, though Committee saw policy conflict. Inspector noted principle issue but found site-specific compliance via EP1/2.
Environment Policy 1
Protects countryside/ecology 'for its own sake'; no overriding national need, but proposal assessed for adverse visual effect. Officer/inspector found no significant public view loss due to screening/topography; Committee disagreed, seeing intrusion into 'countryside setting'.
Environment Policy 2
Prioritises landscape character in AHLCVSS; development permitted if no harm or essential location. Officer recommended approval as no adverse impact; inspector concurred post-site visit, noting limited views, blending boundaries, and appropriateness for garden use in this location.
Time limit
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision.
Approved plans
This approval relates to the extension of the curtilage only as shown on the submitted documents which are date-stamped 13 July 2012.
No permitted development
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order), no extensions to the dwelling house, no greenhouses, garden sheds, walls, gates, fences, (other than those expressly approved by this approval), summerhouses, flagpoles, decking, or tanks for the storage of oil for domestic heating shall be erected on the land without the express written approval of the Planning Authority.
Boundary treatments approval
Prior to any development commencing, details of all proposed boundary treatments, (shown on the submitted drawings) including walls, fencing and landscaping shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
no objection
Do not oppose; has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications
The original application to extend the residential curtilage by around 750m² into adjacent agricultural field was refused by the Planning Committee on 3 September 2012 despite officer recommendation for approval, primarily due to policy presumption against development in countryside, harm to openness and rural character of AHLCVSS, and conflict with EP1. Appellants argued the limited existing curtilage, minimal visual impact due to boundary treatments and topography, no harm to landscape character, and consistency with officer advice. The inspector agreed with the officer, finding the extension appropriate for garden use, not harmful to landscape character in this location due to limited viewpoints and blending with surroundings, overriding strict policy in principle but justifying on visual merits. Appeal allowed with conditions removing permitted development rights and requiring boundary details.
Precedent Value
Demonstrates that curtilage extensions into countryside/AHLCVSS can succeed on appeal if officer-supported and evidenced as visually harmless due to topography and limited views, even against strict policy; future applicants should prioritise officer engagement and landscape character evidence over general need arguments.
Inspector: Anthony J Wharton BArch RIBA RIAS MRTPI
