8 March 2005 · Minister for Local Government and the Environment via Chief Executive (appeal decision confirming Planning Committee refusal)
Garden Of No. 4 Adjacent To Donore The Crofts Castletown
The proposal sought Approval in Principle for one dwelling and garage on a detached rear garden area of No.4 The Crofts, accessed via a narrow private lane off The Crofts in Castletown. The site is designated 'Private Woodland and Playing Field' in the 1991 Castletown Local Plan, though a nearby house was permitted in …
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 found the proposal in conflict with the 1991 Castletown Local Plan's Policy 13.4 to 'safeguard this area from development', noting appellant's cited policies 5.4 and 5.12 were taken out …
Castletown Local Plan Policy 13.4
Explicit policy to protect designated 'Private Woodland and Playing Field' from development; site within this area despite lacking trees, retains undeveloped character policy seeks to preserve. Inspector dismissed arguments that designation outdated due to 1992 permission nearby, not treating as precedent; draft plan weight low as discontinued, opposed piecemeal vs comprehensive development.
Policy 5.4 A policy of refurbishment and amalgamation of existing properties in the Conservation Area will apply
Appellant cited to support infill, but Inspector ruled selectively out of context—not applicable to designated open space, only general encouragement where not conflicting with specific protections.
Encouragement for residential on vacant/gap sites not for open space or essential town character (Castletown Local Plan 1991)
Appellant argued site qualifies as gap; Inspector rejected as not vacant land/gap site but designated open space, general housing policy does not override explicit safeguarding.
Encouragement for vacant plots in residential/mixed areas if in keeping and no amenity harm (Draft Castletown Local Plan 2001)
Draft designates area (incl site) for residential in parkland; policy supports if appropriate, but plan discontinued early (little weight), envisages comprehensive not piecemeal development of larger area.
No objection in principle subject to conditions: access width to permit two vehicles to pass; sight splays per Manx Roads 1; turning space within site to emerge forward
Castletown Commissioners object to the application on grounds of tandem development, lack of zoning, amenity impacts, and sewer infrastructure; DOT Highways raise no objection subject to specific access conditions; multiple local residents object citing access, traffic, and amenity concerns.
Key concern: tandem development without proper road frontage and not zoned for residential development
DOT Highways Division
Conditional No ObjectionNo adverse traffic impacts, subject to the imposition of the following conditions
Conditions requested: The width of the access adjacent to The Crofts shall permit 2 vehicles to pass each other.; Sight splays/sight lines shall be provided at the junction with The Crofts in compliance with Manx Roads 1.; The access drive arrangements shall comprise a turning feature to permit a motor car to turn round within the site, so that the vehicle can emerge from the site in forward gear.
Castletown Commissioners
ObjectionThe Commissioners recommend that the proposed development be refused for the reason that it constitutes tandem development without a proper road frontage and the area of land is not zoned for residential development in the Castletown Town Plan and would injuriously affect the amenities of the area.
The Society
ObjectionThe Society OBJECTS. The Crofts is a Conservation Area and anything that seriously devalues property therein is objectionable.
The original application 04/02578/A for erection of a single dwelling and garage was refused by the Planning Committee for reasons including backland development on non-designated land, increased usage of a narrow lane with poor visibility, and loss of private amenity space for 4 The Crofts. The appellant argued the site designation was out of date, cited supportive local plan policies for infill housing, existing access rights, minimal traffic impact, ability to improve visibility, and adequate remaining amenity space. The inspector found conflict with adopted Local Plan Policy 13.4 safeguarding the area from development, dismissed selective policy citations and precedents, rejected access improvements as unfeasible and harmful to the conservation area, and gave little weight to amenity loss. The appeal was dismissed on 9 August 2005.
Precedent Value
Dismissal emphasises primacy of explicit safeguarding policies over general encouragements, even in outdated plans. Applicants must demonstrate control over access land and conservation-compliant improvements; piecemeal development on designated open space areas risks refusal to avoid inequity/precedent for larger sites.
Inspector: Andrew D Kirby
