25 July 2005 · Planning Committee (on review)
Workshop & Boat Yard, Access To Holmcorft And Work Shop And Boat Yard From Derbyhaven Road, Derbyhaven, Isle Of Man, IM9 1tr
The application sought full planning permission to remove existing garages and boat storage buildings on a small site in Derbyhaven, within an existing residential area, and replace them with a two-storey, three-bedroom dwelling of traditional design, including parking for two vehicles.
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 reversed an initial approval after review, focusing solely on highway safety. They determined that 'the proposed development would result in drivers of emerging vehicles having …
no objection, applicant to contact for water supply connection per byelaws (Note 2)
seems acceptable in principle as site already has buildings and reads as part of settlement
no objection, recommend smoke detection to BS standards
SPMCE found the proposal acceptable in principle but below standard for space and amenity; Highways Division objected due to insufficient parking and visibility; Drainage Division had no objection subject to drainage conditions; IoM Water Authority requested water connection condition.
Key concern: insufficient parking spaces and visibility splays compromising highway safety
SPMCE
Conditional No ObjectionSeems acceptable in principle in that the site already has buildings on it and reads as part of the settlement. However it is a very small site and the design submitted will be seriously below standard in terms of space and amenity land around the dwelling.
Department of Transport Highways Division
ObjectionThe space allocated for off street parking in this application does not offer the 9.6 metres minimum to provide the two spaces requirement for a new two bedroom property.; The Department of Transport recommend this application is refused to ensure highway safety is maintained at this location.
Department of Transport Drainage Division
Conditional No ObjectionNO OBJECTION In principle subject to...; All drainage works must conform to the requirements of the Department of Transport’s “Manx Sewers for Adoption”
Conditions requested: line of foul sewer must be identified before development and fully protected; no development within 2m of public sewer; dwelling must be connected to public foul sewer per terms agreed with Division prior to works; conform to 'Manx Sewers for Adoption' with inspections/surveys/CCTV at developer expense; communication fee payable; NO discharge of surface water to foul drainage systems per Sewerage Act 1999; provide copy of Building Control application for surface water discharge
IoM Water Authority
Conditional No Objectionrequest that a condition of planning be that the applicant must contact the Authority to ensure that a connection is obtained for water supply purposes
Conditions requested: condition that applicant must contact Authority to ensure water connection obtained per Water Supply Byelaws; for single dwelling contact Customer Services tel. 69 59 49
Planning permission was refused by the Planning Committee on review for inadequate visibility for emerging vehicles. The appellant argued the existing hobby use generates comparable or greater traffic than the proposed retirement dwelling, with adequate parking and no material amenity impacts. The Council defended the refusal solely on highway safety grounds, acknowledging the residential principle and dismissing neighbour amenity concerns. The inspector found the proposal carefully designed to avoid unacceptable overlooking or overshadowing but concluded the access posed an unacceptable hazard due to limited visibility, reversing requirements, and failure to improve a substandard existing access, despite low traffic flows. Better design alternatives were recommended to be explored. The appeal was dismissed.
Precedent Value
Dismissal emphasises that infill redevelopment must improve existing substandard accesses rather than perpetuate hazards; appellants should proactively design compliant visibility splays or alternative layouts (e.g. setbacks) and provide robust traffic data comparisons.
