9 June 2004 · Minister for Local Government and the Environment (on appeal, following Inspector David Ward's report)
Tamarisk, Main Road, Kirk Michael, Isle Of Man, IM6 1aj
The application sought retrospective permission for a sun lounge replacing a conservatory, repairs to existing dormers, a new roof dormer, and rebuilding the front boundary wall at the bungalow Tamarisk on Main Road in Kirk Michael, near a sharp bend and opposite the school.
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 Inspector identified the main issue as whether the wall above the 1m permitted development height was unacceptably out of character with the street scene in this semi-rural locality characterised …
Permitted Development Order 1982
Allows walls up to 1m adjacent to highway without permission. Lower wall generally within limits and acceptable; elements above (pillars >1m, railings, pineapples) require permission and tested against street scene character, found over-detailed for semi-rural locality.
Scheme for wall alterations
Within 3 months of the date of this notice, there must be submitted to the Planning Committee for approval a scheme for the alteration of the wall in accordance with the principles set out in paragraph 23 of the appointed person's report; the approved scheme must be implemented in full within 3 months its being approved.
no objection, no adverse traffic impacts
no objection subject to conditions on surface water disposal
Drainage Division raised no objection subject to surface water drainage conditions; Michael Commissioners had no objection to the sun lounge and dormers but objected to the front wall design due to its incongruous appearance and proximity to the TT course; Highways Division had no views.
Key concern: Front wall design out of character, health & safety issues near TT course
Drainage Division
Conditional No ObjectionNO OBJECTION In principle subject to:; 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
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; If this "existing drainage" discharges (directly or indirectly) to the foul sewerage system then it should be noted that an alternative means of surface water disposal must be provided; 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; These comments could be incorporated in the approval notice
Drainage Division
Conditional No ObjectionNO OBJECTION in principle, but subject to:; 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
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; If this "existing drainage" discharges (directly or indirectly) to the foul sewerage system then it should be noted that an alternative means of surface water disposal must be provided; 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 above comments could be included in the schedule of Conditions
Michael Commissioners
No ObjectionNo Objection; In view of this retrospective application, the Commissioners feel that they cannot state their disapproval to the type of wall, which has been built. Had this been an original application, the Commissioners would have rejected it due to the fact of the type of wall that has been built being unsuitable for the positioning of the property abutting the TT course with its high railings.
Michael Commissioners
ObjectionObjection; Michael Commissioners feel that they wish to state their original objection to the type of wall, which has already been built as it is completely out of character with its neighbouring properties.; Michael Commissioners would like to see the wall rebuild in such a way that is more in keeping with the village
Michael Commissioners
ObjectionObjection; the Commissioners feel that they wish to state their disapproval also to the type of wall, which has already been built.; A style more in keeping with the village should have been submitted
Michael Commissioners
ObjectionObjection; Michael Commissioners feel that they wish to state their original objection to the type of wall
Michael Commissioners
Objectionthe Board feel that they cannot object at this time as the proposal has already been built without the benefit of planning approval; the Commissioners feel that their original objections should be submitted to the Appeal Committee; a compromise could be found by removing the non-descriptive fruit from the pillars and to ensure that the railings are removed during race periods
Conditions requested: Removing the non-descriptive fruit from the pillars; Ensure the railings are removed during race periods
Highways Division
No CommentThe Highways Division of the Department of Transport has no views on the following application, the application having been considered and having no adverse traffic impacts.
The original application PA 04/00617/R sought retrospective approval for a sun lounge, dormer repairs, additional dormer (approved 9 June 2004) and rebuilding of front wall (refused same date, confirmed on review 13 August 2004). The appellant argued the wall replicated local traditional features, improved safety at a TT bend, and was supported by neighbours. The Planning Committee and Michael Commissioners objected due to incongruous appearance in the semi-rural streetscene dominated by Manx hedges and unsuitability near TT course. The inspector found the wall above 1m permitted height unacceptably out of character due to over-detailed design (pillars, pineapples, wrought iron), commended appellant's efforts but prioritised Manx hedge character, and recommended allowing the appeal with conditions requiring removal of pineapples, wrought iron, intermediate pillars and adjustments to retain only compatible elements.
Precedent Value
Highlights importance of prioritising dominant local vernacular (Manx hedges/walls) over eclectic 'traditional' mixes in non-designated areas; inspectors may allow appeals with strict modification conditions and recommend PD rights removal to protect heritage features. Future applicants should avoid replacing hedges with ornate walls without clear policy support.
Inspector: David Ward
