13 September 2005 · Minister for Local Government and the Environment
Heathfield Yard, Patrick Street, Peel, Isle Of Man, IM5 1bs
The proposal involved erecting four single-storey lock-up storage units (each 2.7m wide x 5m long with up-and-over doors) on part of Heathfield Yard, a previously commercial site with existing garages and workshops refurbished for storage, accessed via a narrow lane off Patrick Street.
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 retrospective application twice, arguing it would intensify non-conforming storage/garage uses in a residential area via an access with 'limited visibility to driver…
predominantly residential area
Site zoned residential but long-established non-residential (builders/haulage yard); designation interpreted as 'residential and other uses not harming residential amenities'. Committee saw new units as intensifying non-conforming use; Inspector accepted low-impact storage as compliant given history.
Removal of containers and keep yard open
Prior to the use of the permitted four private storage units, the existing five temporary metal storage containers in the yard shall be removed. Thereafter, the yard shall remain permanently open and shall not be used for the storage of any permanent or temporary items or structures.
no objection, supported the application
no adverse traffic impact (initial 18 May 2005 response)
low usage/frequency of visits, no access/traffic issues, contributes to local storage needs
Department of Transport Highways Division initially stated no adverse traffic impact but later objected on appeal due to poor visibility splays and traffic intensification; Peel Town Commissioners recommended approval; private objections from neighbours and Tynwald Woodcrafts raised highway safety, misuse as garages, and drainage concerns.
Key concern: poor visibility splays at access onto Patrick Street failing to meet required standards
Department of Transport Highways Division
ObjectionThe visibility from the yard access onto Patrick Street is poor and fails to meet the standards prescribed in the Departments policy for access onto the public highway. This document prescribes the use of Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 2.0 metres by 90 metres visibility splays.; The Department of Transport Highway Division objected to this development because this work and the development proposals in PA 05/00665 would intensify the volumes of traffic through the existing access with substandard visibility splay.
Department of Transport Highways Division
No ObjectionNo adverse traffic impact.
Peel Town Commissioners
SupportRECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
Department of Transport Highways Division
ObjectionThere are insufficient details given of the access, including sightlines, for a proposed road or drive onto the adopted highway, to serve the needs of the development.
Department of Transport Highways Division
ObjectionThere is very restricted visibility available at the access onto Patrick Street for vehicles emerging from the site, contrary to the interests of road safety.
The original application PA 05/00665/R for retrospective erection of four lock-up private storage units was refused by the Planning Committee due to intensification of non-conforming use and harm to highway safety via inadequate access. The appellant argued low traffic generation, site history of commercial use, support from tenants and Peel Commissioners, improved visibility from double yellow lines, and compliance with local plan designations allowing non-harmful uses. The inspector found no significant harm to road safety given low expected traffic and improved visibility, recommended allowing the appeal with conditions to remove temporary containers and keep the yard clear for manoeuvring. The Department of Transport initially supported but later raised concerns over cumulative traffic. Third parties expressed worries about increased traffic density.
Precedent Value
Demonstrates that inspectors prioritise site-specific assessments of highway safety over rigid application of prior refusals, especially with low-intensity uses and visibility improvements. Future applicants should secure DoT support, provide traffic evidence from existing tenants, and propose conditions for yard management.
Inspector: David G Hollis
