23 November 2009 · Senior Planning Officer (delegated authority under Article 3(13) of the Town and Country (Development Procedure) Order 2005); decision notice issued by Mrs C Dudley, Deputy Secretary to the Planning C
Ballacallin Cottages, Postal Locality, Gordon, Peel, Isle Of Man, IM5 3ar
The site is on the eastern side of the A27 in an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value, hosting Ballacallin Cottage, a run-down two-storey dwelling with a footprint of approximately 10m x 5.5m and floor area of 156.75 sq.m.
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 concluded the proposed dwelling's design, particularly the 45° roof pitch and eaves-level gable windows, failed to represent a traditional dwelling as per Planning Circular 3/91 and Housin…
Housing Policy 14
Requires replacement dwellings not substantially different in siting/size unless improving environment; floor area ≤150% of original (external, excluding attic); design per Planning Circular 3/91 Policies 2-7; larger dwellings possible if traditional character or less visual impact. Officer assessed proposal as failing objectives despite ~52% floor increase (89% including roof space), due to steep roof/gable windows creating greater visual impact than modest existing cottage, not relating closely in countryside context.
Planning Circular 3/91 'Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside'
Provides guidelines on traditional footprints (e.g. 11x5.5m), 45° roof pitch examples, gable windows for roof lighting, rear extensions. Officer and Inspector found strict adherence insufficient; steep pitch/gable windows caused excessive height/intrusion and potential attic use breaching size limits, prioritising visual objectives over literal compliance as per prior appeal precedent.
Do not oppose; has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications
no comment
The original application PA09/01064/B for demolition of Ballacallin Cottage and erection of a replacement dwelling was refused by the Planning Committee, primarily due to concerns over size and appearance breaching Housing Policy 14 and Circular 3/91. The appellant argued the proposal complied with guidelines, had a modest footprint increase, and offered to amend via conditions if needed. The Council defended the refusal citing excessive floor area from 45° roof and gable windows, leading to visual harm. The inspector agreed the principle of replacement was acceptable but found the design caused significant visual intrusion in the countryside, appearing as a three-storey dwelling, and rejected conditioning amendments without supporting plans. The Minister accepted the inspector's recommendation to dismiss the appeal, upholding the refusal.
Precedent Value
Appeals must prioritise visual amenity outcomes over strict guideline compliance in countryside; submit comprehensive plans proving condition viability upfront. Future applicants should design inherently lower profiles avoiding habitable roof spaces.
Inspector: David G Hollis
