23 April 2013 · Planning Committee
Hill View, Sulby Glen, Sulby, Isle Of Man, IM7 2bb
The proposal involves demolishing a derelict existing dwelling of poor form (161.4 m² floor area) and erecting a new two-storey replacement dwelling of 242.1 m² (50% increase) within the existing curtilage on the eastern side of Sulby Glen Road in a rural countryside location designated as woodland and Area of High Lan…
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 principle of replacement was accepted under Housing Policy 12 as the existing derelict cottage is of poor form, unsuitable for modern living, and not of architectural/historic interest capable of …
Housing Policy 12
Permits replacement of existing countryside dwellings unless abandoned or of renovable architectural/historic interest. Officer concurred with Inspector that derelict cottage is poor form, not renovable, so principle accepted.
Housing Policy 14
Replacement must match siting/size unless environmental improvement; generally 50% max increase, on footprint, traditional design per Circular 3/91 P2-7; larger ok for poor form to traditional with less visual impact. Proposal exactly 50% increase, partial footprint overlap, no curtilage extension, traditional design satisfied tests unlike prior schemes.
Environment Policy 1
Protects countryside unless overriding need. Replacement falls under GP3/HP14 exception; no unwarranted encroachment as within curtilage.
Environment Policy 2
Protects AHLVSS character unless no harm. Traditional design, limited scale, and setback reduce visual impact vs existing.
Environment Policy 10
Requires FRA where flood risk. Submitted FRA with 28.3m floor level accepted by WASA.
Environment Policy 13
No unacceptable flood risk. Elevated design and location outside main floodplain mitigates.
General Policy 3
No development outside zoned areas except replacements (HP12-14). Proposal qualifies as exception.
Guide to the Design of New Residential Development in the Countryside, policies 2-7
Design guide for countryside dwellings: proportions, symmetry, fenestration. Proposal adopts intent with traditional form.
Time limit
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
Approved plans
This approval relates to drawing no.s Y/331/1, Y/331/2 and Y/331/4 date stamped the 8th March 2013.
Do not oppose; has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications
Flood Risk Assessment acceptable; do not oppose
Interest noted; condition requested for contact re underground cables/overhead lines
Three statutory consultees (MEA, Highways Division, Water Authority) raised no objections with MEA requesting a standard condition for cable safety; Lezayre Parish Commissioners objected due to the proposed building being too imposing and not in keeping.
Key concern: The proposed replacement building is too imposing
Manx Electricity Authority
Conditional No ObjectionThere are Underground Cables/Overhead Lines present in the area indicated in you Planning Application. Please contact our Network Operations Department...; The Authority wish to express their interest in the following planning applications, and request that a condition of planning be that the applicant must contact the Authority.
Conditions requested: The applicant must contact the Authority; Contact our Network Operations Department, Manx Electricity Authority, (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 M.E.A. for Electrical Site Safety 5 documents, (Tel. 687766), before any work is carried out on site; All work to be carried out with reference to Health and Safety Executive Guidance Notes HS(G)47 & GS6
Lezayre Parish Commissioners
ObjectionRefused 2-1 Majority. The proposed building is not in keeping. The property should be replaced but the proposed replacement building is too imposing.
Highways Division
No ObjectionDo not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications
Water Authority
No ObjectionThe Flood Risk assessment prepared by BB Consulting included with the Planning application is acceptable to the Authority.
The original application (11/01461/B) for erection of a replacement dwelling and garage was refused by the Planning Committee due to its excessive scale compared to the existing derelict cottage, harming the character and appearance of the area. The appellant argued the existing cottage was of poor form, unsuitable for modern living, and the proposal would provide an environmental improvement through traditional design, sustainable features, and reduced visual impact from the road despite a 100% floor area increase and curtilage extension. The Council defended the refusal citing non-compliance with Housing Policies 12 and 14 of the Strategic Plan and Planning Circular 3/91 due to greater massing, height, depth, and visual impact in an Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. The inspector agreed the principle of replacement was acceptable but found the proposal substantially different in siting and size, with excessive depth, complexity, and bulk causing material harm to the landscape, failing to meet policy requirements even for poor-form replacements, and the curtilage extension conflicting with countryside protection policies. The appeal was recommended to be dismissed.
Precedent Value
This appeal demonstrates strict enforcement of HP14 and C3/91 for countryside replacements: substantial size increases and curtilage extensions are unlikely to succeed without proven environmental gains and strict adherence to traditional proportions; appellants must prioritise on-footprint siting and minimal footprint expansion.
Inspector: Stephen Amos MA (Cantab) MCD MRTPI
