15 September 2008 · Minister for Local Government and the Environment
Sea Croft, Dreemskerry Road, Ballajora, Ramsey, Isle Of Man, IM7 1bl
The proposal was for a four-storey detached replacement dwelling with six bedrooms, terraces on the east elevation, a three-car garage, paved turning area and new vehicular access on a sloping site in open countryside. The site had no existing dwelling but had prior approvals for replacements.
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 Minister considered the Inspector's report but did not concur, noting the proposal 'would harm the rural character and appearance of the area'.
General Policy 3
Restricts development outside zoned areas except specific exceptions including replacement of existing rural dwellings (HP12-14) or previously developed land with significant building. Site lacks existing dwelling or significant building, so does not qualify; treated as new countryside housing.
Environment Policy 2
In Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV), landscape character protection paramount unless no harm shown. Proposal harms character through visibility and scale.
Housing Policy 4
New countryside housing only in exceptional cases like agricultural need or rural replacements (HP12-14). No exceptions apply as no existing dwelling.
Housing Policy 12
Replacement permitted unless abandoned or historic; site has no dwelling, so policies inapplicable.
Housing Policy 14
Replacements must match existing in siting/size (max 50% larger floor area), traditional design or high-quality modern without visual harm, reuse stone/slate. Even if 'replacement', proposal substantially different in size/siting; modern east glazing causes adverse impact.
Environment Policy 36
Development near Conservation Area only if no detriment to important views; east elevation harms views from Maughold Conservation Area.
Do not oppose subject to visibility splays of 2.4m x 25m and contact for highway works
Does not sufficiently conflict with Housing Policy 14 to warrant refusal
Maughold Parish Commissioners object to the proposal due to adverse visual impact on the landscape character of the Lower Maughold area; Highways Division has no objection subject to visibility splay and access conditions; Andrew Jessopp has no objection.
Key concern: adverse visual impact on landscape character of Lower Maughold area per Housing Policy 14
Maughold Parish Commissioners
ObjectionThe effect of this proposal on the landscape character of the Lower Maughold area is of great concern to the Commission, particularly regarding the size and visual appearance of the nontraditional eastern aspect.; The Commission objects to the proposals, and believe that this application should be assessed in relation to the original building that formed the dwelling on this site, rather than on the proposal as approved against PA07/00401/B.; Seacroft is a part of an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance.
Andrew Jessopp
No ObjectionAlthough the proposal does not conform to 3/91, overall I do not believe the proposal sufficiently conflicts with HP14 to warrant refusal.
Highways Division
Conditional No ObjectionDo not oppose subject to the imposition of the following conditions
Conditions requested: Visibility splays of 2.4 metres x 25 metres shall be provided for the new access.; The applicant shall contact the Network Operations Section of the Department of Transport prior to carrying out any works within the highway, including the installation of dropped kerbs. Telephone 686665.
The original application for a replacement dwelling was approved by the planning committee despite no existing building on site after demolition. Maughold Parish Commissioners appealed citing visual impact on the Maughold Conservation Area, conflict with Housing Policy 14, Environment Policy 36, and Landscape Character Assessment. The applicant and planning authority argued the proposal complied with policies, had a smaller footprint than the extant approval, and limited landscape harm. The inspector found no existing dwelling to replace, treating it as new countryside housing contrary to policies like Housing Policy 4, but recommended dismissal of the appeal due to the fallback of an equally harmful extant permission. Conditions from the officer's report were suggested if approval confirmed.
Precedent Value
Establishes that extant permissions can justify approval of non-compliant schemes if harm not significantly worse (fallback principle). Future applicants should secure/activate permissions early and provide demolition timelines/evidence for replacement claims.
Inspector: Graham F Self MA MSc FRTPI
