16 May 2011 · Director of Planning and Building Control (delegated authority under Article 3(13) of Town and Country (Development Procedure) Order 2005)
46, Ballachurry Avenue, Onchan, Isle Of Man, IM3 4bb
The proposal sought to convert an existing single-storey detached building (7.3m x 6.4m, 5.7m ridge height, ~44m² living area excluding garage) previously approved as ancillary garage/granny flat into an independent one-bedroom dwelling, sharing the driveway with the host house at 46 Ballachurry Avenue in a residential…
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 assessed the proposal as 'unacceptable backland development' and 'the worst aspect of backland development' due to the shared narrow driveway passing front/side windows and door of No.46, …
General Policy 2
Requires development to provide satisfactory amenity standards (h) including safe/convenient access, parking, manoeuvring; not adversely affect amenity of residents (g) or road safety/traffic (i). Officer found failure on (g),(h),(i) due to backland layout causing intrusion/disturbance to No.46/No.44 and unsafe narrow shared drive lacking turning, conflicting with residential character.
Environment Policy 42
Prohibits inappropriate backland development that ignores locality character. Officer deemed this 'unacceptable backland development' as hidden site lacks road frontage like neighbours, shared access harms amenity/safety, not fitting cul-de-sac residential pattern.
Policy O/RES/P/19 of Planning Circular 1/2000
Permits new dwellings fitting density/massing/design/character of adjacent. Noted as superseded but relevant; proposal fits scale but backland siting/access not in character with frontage dwellings.
Onchan Local Plan 2000 Policy O/RES/P/20
Requires 3 parking spaces/dwelling, no loss behind building line. Superseded by Strategic Plan (2 spaces met), but access issues noted.
Highways Division objects due to inadequate shared access width, lack of turning facilities, and increased road safety risks; Onchan District Commissioners object citing failure to meet amenity standards and suitable access under General Policy 2.
Key concern: inadequate shared access width and lack of turning facilities creating road safety risks
Highways Division
ObjectionThis proposal does not provide safe and convenient access or manoeuvring space as required by para (h) of GP2 of the SP and will create a situation that has a higher risk to existing road users than the one that currently exists in contravention of para (i) of GP2 of the SP.; Recommend refusal | The increase in vehicular traffic from the proposed access is considered as a road safety implication
Onchan District Commissioners
Objection"The use of this building as a separate dwelling is contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2 of the Island Strategic Plan in that it does not provide satisfactory amenity standards in itself nor is it capable of providing suitable access to the highway without being detrimental to 46 Ballachurry Avenue."; The Commissioners recommend that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons
Onchan District Commissioners
ObjectionThe Commissioners wish to continue their objections to the above application.; The Commissioners would therefore respectfully request that the appeal be dismissed and the decision to REFUSE the application be upheld.
The original application for change of use of existing ancillary accommodation to a dwelling was refused by the Director of Planning and Building Control on 16 May 2011 for reasons of unacceptable backland development harming private amenity and failing to provide safe vehicular access, contrary to General Policy 2 (parts g, h, i) and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. The appellant argued no material change in traffic or amenity impacts, adequate access for a small dwelling, and comparable shared drives elsewhere. The inspector, following a public inquiry and site visit, found significant harm to living conditions of occupiers at Nos. 44 and 46 from increased noise, disturbance, privacy loss, and unacceptable highway safety risks due to narrow shared drive, reversing needs, and pedestrian safety issues. The proposal conflicted with General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 as inappropriate backland development. The Minister accepted the inspector's recommendation to dismiss the appeal on 9 September 2011.
Precedent Value
Backland development via change of use requires robust evidence of prior ancillary use and detailed access solutions meeting standards; appeals will fail where shared drives harm neighbour amenity or safety, even in low-traffic areas. Future applicants must submit complete proposals avoiding conditions needing public input.
Inspector: Stephen Amos MA(Cantab) MCD MRTPI
