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
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
