5 June 2015 · Planning Committee
Homefield, The Level, Colby, Isle Of Man, IM9 4al
The proposal involved extending the modern bungalow Pineview to form a second dwelling by subdividing the existing house, adding a ground floor extension with living spaces and bedrooms in the roofspace, and extending the residential curtilage 14m east into a former vegetable plot.
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 that the majority of the site is designated for residential use on the Area Plan for the South, with the built structure contained within this area and the extended garden already…
Environment Policy 1
Protects countryside outside settlements or designated areas from development unless overriding national need. Officer found no countryside intrusion as built structure within residential designation and garden extension already in garden-like use.
Strategic Policy 4
Development in remaining villages like Colby should maintain settlement character and scale for local housing needs. Proposal accepted as appropriate scale within the Croit-e-Caley group envelope.
Spatial Policy 5
Supports SP4 for village development boundaries. Aligned with Area Plan's residential shading for the group of houses.
Housing Policy 4
Supports village housing. Met local family housing need without conflicting with countryside protection.
Housing Policy 16
Restricts extensions increasing impact of non-traditional dwellings. New design considered improvement with appropriate materials.
General Policy 3
Directs development to sustainable locations. Officer distinguished from prior refusal, finding compliance due to designation.
General Policy 2
General development principles. Cited in objections but officer found proposal acceptable in context.
Time limit
The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Tree replacement planting
Notwithstanding the submitted drawings, no approval is granted for the removal of trees identified as T12, T8, T9, T11 and T10 unless and until a planting scheme for the introduction of new trees or shrubs to replace those lost which are appropriate for the location alongside and in front of existing and proposed living accommodation. Such planting must be undertaken in accordance with such a scheme in the first planting season following the removal of the original trees. Reason: in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.
Eastern boundary treatment
Prior to the commencement of works, a drawing showing how the eastern boundary of the new property will be formed must be approved by the Department and undertaken in accordance with this drawing prior to the occupation of the dwelling. The boundary must be formed by a natural sod hedge or planting to form a visual boundary with the open agricultural field to the east. Reason: in the interests of the rural character of the area and to ensure that residential development does not expand further to the east beyond the area identified in the Area Plan for the South.
do not object but express concern that visibility splays of 2.0m x 45m must be provided
do not object to the application
Rushen Parish Commissioners submitted two consultation responses for application 15/00357/B, both stating no objections to the proposed alterations, extension, and landscaping.
Rushen Parish Commissioners
No ObjectionNo objections.
Rushen Parish Commissioners
No ObjectionNo objections.
Original application 15/00357/B for alterations to existing dwelling at Pineview, The Level, Colby, to create an additional semi-detached dwelling with landscaping and curtilage extension was permitted by Planning Committee on 5 June 2015 despite part of site outside residential designation. Neighbours at Bayrnell and Lhagagh appealed on grounds of countryside intrusion, design incompatibility, tree loss, parking, amenity harm and precedent. Appellant/agent (Simply Architectural) and Council defended via written representations, emphasising scheme fits within settlement boundary after boundary clarifications, uses appropriate materials, improves existing non-traditional bungalow, and includes tree retention/replacement conditions. Inspector Stephen Amos conducted site visit on 7 September 2015, found proposal acceptable in principle within residential designation, no harm to character/appearance, living conditions or highway safety, and recommended dismissing appeal while adding a condition restricting permitted development rights.
Precedent Value
Demonstrates flexibility on imprecise Area Plan boundaries for infill in village envelopes if building contained within designation and garden use long-established; conditions can secure landscape mitigation without full screening of acceptable designs.
Inspector: Stephen Amos MA(Cantab) MCD MRTPI
