26 April 2010 · Senior Planning Officer (delegated under Article 3(13) of the Town and Country (Development Procedure) Order 2005)
The Croit, Barrule Road, Foxdale, Isle Of Man, IM4 3es
The application proposed replacing existing slim single-light casement windows with top-opening casements over fixed lower lights in three windows, and plastic-framed windows with internal glazing strips in wood colour, plus a new glazed panel door.
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 assessed against Planning Circular 1/98, which requires replacement windows in pre-1921 buildings visible from public roads to retain originals where possible or replicate pattern, glazing…
Time limit
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
Approved plans
This permission relates to the replacement of windows as shown in the submitted drawings and the replacement of the front door with an FP67 style included in the submitted information all received on 8th March, 2010.
Do not object
Malew Parish Commissioners have no objection to the planning application for replacement windows and door.
Malew Parish Commissioners
No ObjectionThey do not object to this planning application.
The original application for detailed approval to renovate a tholtan into a dwelling was granted in 1997 (PA 96/1805) following approval in principle (PA 95/1718), but included a note that no approval was given for replacement fabric in case of collapse. During preliminary works, the gable collapsed after chimney removal, leading to unauthorised demolition of unsafe walls, necessitating a rebuild application (98/0022) which was refused by the Planning Committee on policy grounds under Circular 3/89 prohibiting replacement buildings. The appellant argued the proposal would be indistinguishable from the approved scheme, the collapse was accidental, and it had support from parish and advisory council. The Council defended refusal citing strict policy against rebuilding where residential use was abandoned outside designated areas, risk of precedent, and distinction between renovation and rebuild. The inspector concluded that while 'renovate' does not cover 'rebuild', prior approvals implied acceptance of significant replacement, the situation warranted flexibility due to misadventure, and the environmental impact favoured a replica cottage over a derelict site. The appeal was recommended allowed, reversing the refusal.
Precedent Value
Appeal shows flexibility possible under Circular 3/89 for tholtan rebuilds where collapse accidental, prior approvals contemplated major works, and harm minimal; future applicants should secure structural reports, use reliable builders, and obtain local support to argue against strict policy.
