2 March 2004 · Minister for Local Government and the Environment - on appeal, accepting Planning Inspector's recommendation to uphold Planning Committee refusal
Ballamodha House, Ballamodha Straight, Ballamodha, Ballasalla, Isle Of Man, IM9 3ay
The proposal was for approval in principle for a single storey retirement cottage on a vacant fenced plot (ref 1292) adjacent to Ballamodha House, Ballamodha Straight, Ballasalla IM9 3AY, surrounded on three sides by dwellings with frontage to the B30 road.
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 Planning Committee refused because the site is not zoned for residential development in the 1982 Development Plan Order and is outside a recognised settlement, making it contrary to 'well establis…
Planning Circular 1/88 - Residential Development - Houses in the Countryside
States land allocated as extensions to towns/villages to use infrastructure; remaining areas 'intended to remain substantially free from development'. Ballamodha lacks facilities like school/shop, leading to car dependency, failing sustainability test.
Planning Circular 7/91 - Island Strategic Southern Sector Written Statement
Applicant cited Malew Commissioners' recommendation for small dwellings in keeping with rural area at Ballamodha; Committee/Inspector dismissed as time-expired (5-year lifespan), not adopted by Tynwald, and merely recommendation not policy.
Policy C/P/1
No new residential development outside designated areas; rules against infill in unzoned gaps. Cited to counter applicant's Colby infill argument but site not comparable due to Ballamodha's smaller scale and lack of facilities.
no objection to this Planning Application
No adverse traffic impacts, subject to imposition of sight lines condition in compliance with Manx Roads 1
Isle of Man Water Authority objected due to lack of water supply capacity but offered to withdraw objection with a specific condition; Highways Division had no objection subject to sight lines condition; Malew Parish Commissioners had no objection; SPMCE objected citing policy non-compliance and precedent.
Key concern: Lack of water supply capacity
Isle of Man Water Authority
Conditional No ObjectionThe Authority considers the application to be premature as the Authority does not at present have the capacity to supply the proposed development with potable water; The Authority must register its objection to the application for the reasons set out above; The Authority would, however, be prepared to withdraw its objection subject to suitable conditions being imposed
Conditions requested: No construction of the proposed dwelling shall commence until such time as the Isle of Man Water Authority gives notice in writing to the Committee that the Authority will within six months of the date of such notice have the capacity to provide to the proposed dwelling a supply of wholesome water sufficient for the domestic purposes of the proposed dwelling
Highways Division
Conditional No ObjectionNo adverse traffic impacts, subject to the imposition of the following conditions; In the interests of road safety
Conditions requested: Sight splays/sight lines shall be provided in compliance with Manx Roads 1
Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment
ObjectionWe are opposed to this application which seeks to build a new dwelling in an area not zoned for development nor designated for 'possible infill'; This is still our position
Malew Parish Commissioners
No ObjectionThe Commissioners wish to notify you that they have no objection to this Planning Application
The original application (03/01995/A) for approval in principle for a single-storey retirement dwelling was refused by the Planning Committee on 20 February 2004 (confirmed on review 8 April 2004) for being on unzoned land contrary to countryside policies and unsustainable due to lack of services. The appellant argued Ballamodha is a small settlement suitable for infill, citing a nearby approval for Cronk Coar as precedent, Planning Circular 7/91, and available infrastructure. The Council defended refusal citing the 1982 Development Order, expired Circular 7/91, Policy C/P/1, and Circular 1/88, noting no village designation or facilities. The inspector found the site contrary to policy, acknowledged inconsistency with Cronk Coar but prioritised policy over precedent, rejected personal circumstances and other arguments as limited weight, and recommended dismissal.
Precedent Value
Demonstrates strict adherence to adopted plans (e.g. 1982 Order) and Circular 1/88 in countryside; precedents carry weight only if policy unchanged, but inconsistencies do not override policy. Future applicants must show zoning compliance or exceptional circumstances beyond infill claims in undesignated clusters.
