8 March 2005 · Planning Committee
Land Between The Smithy And New Access Road, Isle Of Man Business Park, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM2 4wd
The proposal was for retrospective permission to retain an erected advertising hoarding (1230mm x 2500mm) on a landscaped embankment strip adjacent to Cooil Road, at the entrance to the applicant's vehicle sales and hire site within the Barley Field Industrial Estate.
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 the application because the signage is intrusive due to its size and position in what is intended to be a landscaped strip to soften the impact of the development within…
The Department does not wish to make any further comments.
Braddan Parish Commissioners objected to the retrospective advertising hoarding due to detrimental visual impact from its location, size, and appearance; Highways Division had no objection or views on traffic impacts.
Key concern: detrimental visual impact due to location, size and appearance
Braddan Parish Commissioners
ObjectionThe Commissioners would recommend to the Planning Committee that the application be refused, as the sign would have a detrimental visual impact due to its location, size and appearance.; The Commissioners would have no objection to individual companies signage being erected adjacent to the internal roads within the overall development, subject to such signs being reasonable in size, location and incorporating the design principles of the overall development.; The Commissioners fully supported the Planning Committee's decision and in particular the reasons given for refusal.
Highways Division, Department of Transport
No ObjectionThe 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 Department does not wish to make any further comments.
The original application (05/0033/R) for a retrospective advertising hoarding to serve a vehicle sales and hire centre was refused by the Planning Committee due to its intrusive nature in a landscaped strip and the existence of approved comprehensive signage under PA 04/1415. The appellant argued the approved signage was inadequate for directing customers, created road safety issues, and that the industrial context made landscaping ineffective. The Council and Braddan Commissioners defended the refusal citing visual harm to streetscape, precedent risks, and sufficiency of the approved signage scheme, supported by prior objections. The inspector acknowledged businesses' advertising needs but prioritised preventing signage proliferation and maintaining an attractive estate entrance, finding the premises visible and the comprehensive signage approach correct. The appeal was recommended for dismissal.
Precedent Value
This appeal sets precedent that comprehensive signage approvals for estates override individual retrospective hoardings, even for visible frontline sites; future applicants must pursue implementation of approved schemes rather than acting unilaterally, with strong emphasis on precedent and streetscape protection in industrial areas.
Inspector: Terrence Kemmann-Lane
