23 November 2009 · Senior Planning Officer (delegated authority under Article 3(13) of the Town and Country (Development Procedure) Order 2005); decision notice issued by Mrs C Dudley, Deputy Secretary to the Planning C
Ballacallin Cottages, Postal Locality, Gordon, Peel, Isle Of Man, IM5 3ar
The site is on the eastern side of the A27 in an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value, hosting Ballacallin Cottage, a run-down two-storey dwelling with a footprint of approximately 10m x 5.5m and floor area of 156.75 sq.m.
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 officer concluded the proposed dwelling's design, particularly the 45° roof pitch and eaves-level gable windows, failed to represent a traditional dwelling as per Planning Circular 3/91 and Housin…
Housing Policy 14
Requires replacement dwellings not substantially different in siting/size unless improving environment; floor area ≤150% of original (external, excluding attic); design per Planning Circular 3/91 Policies 2-7; larger dwellings possible if traditional character or less visual impact. Officer assessed proposal as failing objectives despite ~52% floor increase (89% including roof space), due to steep roof/gable windows creating greater visual impact than modest existing cottage, not relating closely in countryside context.
Planning Circular 3/91 'Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside'
Provides guidelines on traditional footprints (e.g. 11x5.5m), 45° roof pitch examples, gable windows for roof lighting, rear extensions. Officer and Inspector found strict adherence insufficient; steep pitch/gable windows caused excessive height/intrusion and potential attic use breaching size limits, prioritising visual objectives over literal compliance as per prior appeal precedent.
Do not oppose; has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications
no comment
Department of Transport Highways initially recommended conditional no objection requiring visibility splays but later stated no opposition with no implications; Patrick Parish Commissioners consistently made no comment; private representations included one open-minded comment and one objection on design and curtilage grounds.
Key concern: design does not conform to the Planning Circular 3/91
Department of Transport
Conditional No ObjectionDo not subject to the imposition of the following condition as stated in previously approved application 07/01542/B | Visibility splays of 2 x 54 metres shall be provided for the access onto the A27
Conditions requested: Visibility splays of 2 x 54 metres shall be provided for the access onto the A27
Department of Transport Highways Division
No ObjectionDo not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications
Patrick Parish Commissioners
No Commentno comment would be made; 09/01064-Demolition and Erection of new dwelling at Ballacallin Cottage, Gordon
Patrick Parish Commissioners
No CommentNo Comment would be made in respect of the following Revised Plans: 09/01064 - Demolition and Erection of Detached Dwelling at Ballacallin, Gordon
Patrick Parish Commissioners
No Commentthe Commissioners resolved at their meeting last evening to make no submission in respect of the above
Ian K Bleasdale
No CommentThe design though, seems reasonable, so we remain open-minded.; This presumably supersedes A-i-P 07/1542 and Reserved Matters 07/2344?
G A Clark
ObjectionThis design does not conform to the Planning Circular 3/91 – design of residential houses in the Countryside. There also seems to be an extension of the residential curtilage, though this is unclear from the submitted plans.
The original application PA09/01064/B for demolition of Ballacallin Cottage and erection of a replacement dwelling was refused by the Planning Committee, primarily due to concerns over size and appearance breaching Housing Policy 14 and Circular 3/91. The appellant argued the proposal complied with guidelines, had a modest footprint increase, and offered to amend via conditions if needed. The Council defended the refusal citing excessive floor area from 45° roof and gable windows, leading to visual harm. The inspector agreed the principle of replacement was acceptable but found the design caused significant visual intrusion in the countryside, appearing as a three-storey dwelling, and rejected conditioning amendments without supporting plans. The Minister accepted the inspector's recommendation to dismiss the appeal, upholding the refusal.
Precedent Value
Appeals must prioritise visual amenity outcomes over strict guideline compliance in countryside; submit comprehensive plans proving condition viability upfront. Future applicants should design inherently lower profiles avoiding habitable roof spaces.
Inspector: David G Hollis
