23 July 2014 · Planning Committee
Site Adj To, Mountain View, Sound Road, Glen Maye, Isle Of Man, IM5 3bj
The proposal sought approval of reserved matters for a single-storey bungalow measuring 24.5m long, 10m wide, and 5.8m high, to be built in the southern part of the garden of an existing modern bungalow.
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 overturned the officer's recommendation for approval at their meeting on 21 July 2014. They determined that the proposed dwelling, due to its design, form, size, and positioning…
Environment Policy 5
Requires that development will not be permitted where it would result in unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially those with public amenity or conservation value. The proposal requires removal of nine trees for access; officer recommended a landscaping condition for replacement planting to protect rural character, but Committee refusal cited detriment to character partly in this context.
Environment Policy 1
Presumes against development in the countryside, protected for its own sake, particularly in areas of High Landscape Value unless no harm to landscape character. Site is in such an area; principle accepted via prior approval, but detailed design refused for harming character.
Environment Policy 2
Similar presumption against development in countryside/High Landscape Value unless essential or no harm. Officer found no adverse impact given context, but Committee found design/size/positioning harmful.
General Policy 2
Requires development to respect character and appearance of the area. Committee explicitly found proposal contrary due to design, form, size, and positioning.
General Policy 3
Sets out exceptions to presumption against development in undesignated countryside areas. Mentioned but not directly tested as principle already approved.
Spatial Policy 5
Cited in refusal alongside GP2 for harm to character and appearance; officer did not reference it directly but assessed landscape policies.
raise no objection to the application
provisions for flood mitigation are acceptable
do not object to the application
Highway Services, Manx Utilities, Patrick Parish Commissioners, and Flood Risk Management raised no objections to PA 14/00408/REM; a private individual objected on landscape and access grounds.
Highway Services
No ObjectionDo not object
Manx Utilities
Conditional No ObjectionSee Note 2; There are underground cables/overhead lines present in the area indicated in you planning application.
Conditions requested: Contact the Manx Utilities, Planning Department (Tel. 687781), to discuss the electricity supply for this application.; Contact our Network Operations Department, Manx Utilities (Tel. 687687) to discuss working practices around cables and overhead lines which may be required to be diverted before any work can be carried out on site.; Contact the Manx Utilities for Electrical Site Safety 5 documents, (Tel. 687766), before any work is carried out on site.; Manx Utilities requires 24 hours unrestricted access to the cables in the public highway
Patrick Parish Commissioners
No Commentno comment would be made; 14/00408 – Erection of detached dwelling Adjacent to Sound Road, Glen Maye (Reserved matters)
Patrick Parish Commissioners
No Commentno comment or no further comment would be made; 14/00408 - Erection of detached dwelling Adjacent to Sound Road, Glen Maye (Reserved matters) (Amended Plan)
Flood Risk Management
Conditional No ObjectionWe confirm that we accept BB Consulting assessment of the flood risk to the above development. The key element is the level of the finished floor being 600mm above the surrounding ground level.
Conditions requested: finished floor being 600mm above the surrounding ground level
The original application for approval in principle was refused because it would extend built development into the countryside on non-designated land and set an unfortunate precedent. The appellant argued the site is within the actual settlement due to post-1982 developments, the garden is domestic in character, and there are no highway, drainage or amenity issues. The council defended the refusal on countryside protection grounds, while third parties raised concerns over traffic, flooding, drainage and impact on farm use. The inspector found the settlement had extended since 1982, the site is within the current settlement extent with no harm to countryside policies, highway and drainage issues could be addressed at detailed stage, and separation distances were adequate. The inspector recommended allowing the appeal subject to conditions.
Precedent Value
Appeals can succeed by demonstrating factual settlement extension via post-plan developments and site-specific character, overriding strict zoning where no policy harm. Future applicants should emphasise on-ground reality over map lines and secure no-objection letters from consultees.
Inspector: Alan Langton
