13 April 2010 · Planning Committee - signed by Mrs C Dudley, Deputy Secretary to the Planning Committee
Waterfall Hotel, Shore Road, Glen Maye, Isle Of Man, IM5 3bg
The proposal involved adding a modern single storey glazed enclosure spanning the front facade of the Waterfall Hotel, replacing an open outdoor seating area, with a flat roof, powder coated aluminium fascia, glazed timber sliding doors, and recessed entrance.
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 the main issues as impact on the existing building, surrounding area, and adjacent properties. Despite acknowledging Parish concerns that the modern glazed enclosure contrasted wi…
Time limit
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
Approved plans
This approval relates to the erection of a glazed enclosure to front, external fire escape staircase to the side and alteration to rear elevation, Waterfall Hotel, Shore Road, Glen Maye, Patrick as shown by (EX)01, (PE) 10, (PE)22, (PE)13, (PE)21, (EX)10, (EX)12, (PE)20 and (PE)21 all received 23rd December and (PE)22, PE(13)A and (EX)10 A all received 1st March 2010.
Do not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications
No objection subject to no discharge of surface water to foul drainage and verification of existing drainage
Patrick Parish Commissioners opposed the application due to aesthetic incompatibility and potential noise impacts, while Drainage Division and Highways Division raised no objection (Drainage with conditions on surface water).
Key concern: The submitted design is not in keeping with the area or with the building itself which essentially comprises a terrace of two Manx Cottages
Patrick Parish Commissioners
ObjectionThe Commissioners earnestly hope that the Planning Committee refuse the Application.
Patrick Parish Commissioners
ObjectionThe Commissioners earnestly hope that the Planning Committee refuse the Application.
Conditions requested: Should the Planning Committee be minded to approve this Application, the Commissioners would recommend a condition forbidding the use of the rear of the property as part of the licensed premises or for the provision of "smoking accommodation".
Drainage Division, Department of Transport
Conditional No ObjectionNo Objection subject to the following conditions:-
Conditions requested: There must be NO discharge of surface water (including that from roofs and paved areas) from this proposed development to any foul drainage system(s) so as to comply with the requirements of the Department of Transport Drainage Division and the Sewerage Act 1999.; The applicant is required to establish where the existing surface water from the property is disposed and discuss this matter with the Drainage Division prior to work commencing on site.; The applicant is requested to supply the Division a copy of any Building Control Application in relation to the surface water discharge from this development.
Highways Division
No ObjectionDo not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications
Patrick Parish Commissioners
No CommentThe following Applications by Jim Limited have a consultation period that ends before the Commissioners are next due to meet. The next meeting is on Monday February 8th when the matters will be considered, and it would be helpful if consideration could be deferred until after the end of that week.
The original planning application 09/02097/B for erection of a glazed enclosure to front, external stair to side, and rear alterations at Waterfall Hotel was approved by the Planning Committee despite objections from Patrick Parish Commissioners. The Commissioners appealed the approval, arguing the modern design failed to respect the traditional building and village setting, contrary to policy. The applicant (Jim Limited) and planning authority defended the design as complementary, visually subservient, and beneficial for tourism and amenity. The inspector agreed the front extension did not fully respect the building's form under GP2(b) but found it acceptable on balance given the lack of conservation designation, practical constraints, and economic benefits, recommending approval with conditions restricting rear use. Illuminated signage was deemed inappropriate under GP6. The Minister accepted these recommendations on 17 August 2010, confirming planning approval subject to conditions.
Precedent Value
Appeals can succeed where designs conflict with GP2(b) if non-designated sites, site constraints limit alternatives, and economic benefits (tourism) apply; avoid illuminated signage in villages under GP6; conditions essential for amenity control.
Inspector: Graham Self MA MSc FRTPI
