31 January 2006 · Planning Committee
Ballacregga Farm, Peel Road, Kirk Michael, Isle Of Man, IM6 1ap
The application sought full approval for erecting a detached double garage measuring 14.2m wide by 6.85m deep with 7m ridge height, storage above, dormer windows on the northwest elevation, and rooflights on the southeast, using natural slate roof, stone cladding on one elevation, and render elsewhere.
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 considered the proposed garage sited 45m from the main dwellinghouse and too far from the existing group of buildings including tourist units, contrary to the 1982 Development P…
General Policy 3
GP3 prohibits development outside zoned areas except specific exceptions like infill in identifiable dwelling groups or essential agricultural buildings; the officer assessed the garage as ancillary residential but Committee found it did not qualify as it extended into agricultural field beyond curtilage, creating isolated structure.
Environment Policy 1
EP1 protects countryside for its own sake, permitting development only if maintaining/enhancing it or overriding national need; Committee found proposal adversely affected countryside despite low visibility, due to isolated siting in high landscape value area.
Environment Policy 3
EP3 prioritises landscape character protection in designated areas, allowing development only if essential location and no harm to character/quality; no essential need demonstrated for 45m separation, harming rural grouping.
Policy EP18 (Isle of Man Strategic Plan Modified Draft)
EP18 requires new countryside buildings sited close as practicable to groups, appropriate scale/form sympathetic to landscape; Committee ruled 45m too far, scale excessive for garage (large storage unjustified), no exceptional circumstances for isolation.
no adverse traffic impacts, response unchanged for amended plans
initial objection withdrawn after additional information; proposal is part of existing complex and cannot be sited closer without removing trees, walls, hedges, re-siting services; stipulate condition for garage/storage only if approved
Michael Commissioners initially objected due to the proposed garage appearing remote from existing buildings but withdrew their objection after additional information clarified its position within the complex, recommending conditional approval restricting use to garage/storage; H…
Key concern: inadequate visibility from existing driveway
Michael Commissioners
ObjectionThe Commissioners feel that the proposed garage seems to be a little remote from the existing property.
Highways Division
No ObjectionNo adverse traffic impacts.; The visibility from the existing driveway into the public highway is inadequate to serve the needs of the existing traffic. The applicant should contact the Department of Transport to improve the safety of traffic leaving the existing dwelling.
Highways Division
No ObjectionThe above amended plans have been considered by the Network Planning Section and the Department’s response is unchanged.
Michael Commissioners
Conditional No ObjectionIn light of this information, the commissioners, in hindsight feel that their initial observation was made in respect of what could be seen from the submitted architect's plan.; the proposal is part of the existing complex.; the garage cannot be placed any closer to the main house because: a) 5 mature trees would have to be removed b) an old dry stone wall would have to be taken down c) a mature hedge would have to be removed d) the oil tank would need to be re-sited e) there would be problems with the septic tank and serving pipe work f) all services would have to be re-laid; the commissioners would stipulate that should approval be given, a condition should be made that this application should remain strictly as a garage/storage building.
Conditions requested: should approval be given, a condition should be made that this application should remain strictly as a garage/storage building
The original application (05/01508/B) for erection of a detached double garage with storage accommodation above was refused by the Planning Committee on 31 January 2006 and confirmed on review on 21 April 2006, citing the building as too remote from existing structures and tantamount to a substantial new building in the countryside contrary to the 1982 Development Plan and emerging Strategic Plan policies. The appellants argued the site minimises impact on natural features, is ancillary to the dwelling, not visible publicly, and comparable to permitted development or approved nearby schemes. The Planning Committee defended the refusal on siting, scale, and policy non-compliance. The inspector, following a public inquiry and site visit, found the building too large, high, and remote, causing harm to rural character contrary to policy, and recommended dismissal. The appeal was dismissed.
Precedent Value
This appeal demonstrates strict enforcement of 1982 Development Plan requiring countryside buildings to closely relate to existing groups and be appropriately scaled; personal needs or invisibility alone insufficient. Future applicants should propose compact designs clustered tightly with main buildings, ideally not extending curtilage.
Inspector: David G Hollis
