11 December 2003 · Planning Committee on review
5, Close Rushen, Castletown, Isle Of Man, IM9 1nj
The proposal sought approval to block off a shared rear pedestrian lane serving six two-storey terraced dwellings at 5-10 Close Rushen by incorporating it into their rear gardens, primarily via walls already erected behind No.6 without permission.
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 refused because 'the development precludes pedestrian access to the rear of Numbers 5-10 Close Rushen...
No adverse traffic impacts (on basis Nos 6-10 can manage without rear access)
Police advised closing lane to reduce vandalism to oil tanks; similar terraces (1-4 Close Rushen) have no back lane; wheelie bins in front/garage with kerbside collection; encourage composting
Highways Division raised no objection to the proposal after confirming no adverse traffic impacts, while local residents Robert Bagshaw and Andre Hopps objected strongly due to loss of rear access and privacy impacts.
Key concern: loss of rear access detrimental to residential amenity
Department of Transport Highways Division
No ObjectionNo adverse traffic impacts. NB This is on the basis that the applicant can confirm that Nos 6-10 can manage without a rear access.
Robert Bagshaw
ObjectionThis forced intrusion I find completely objectionable and totally unnecessary.; NO PRIOR DISCUSSION WITH OR NOTICE TO TENANTS HAD OCCURRED; the provision of something such as a gate with individual keys for the tenants might be DISCUSSED
Conditions requested: locking gate across pathway with keys for affected tenants
Andre Hopps
ObjectionAs a result of the lane being blacked people help themselves through our garden (10 close Rushen) to access 7,8, and 9 which disrupts the little privacy we had.; He hadn't asked for planning before erecting the wall.
The original application (03/01165/B) sought to incorporate a rear pedestrian laneway into the gardens of six terraced dwellings, effectively blocking it with walls (already erected at No 6 retrospectively). The Planning Committee refused permission on 5 December 2003 (confirmed on review 2 February 2004) due to loss of rear access harming residential amenity, particularly for waste removal and deliveries through dwellings. The appellant argued for closure based on police advice against vandalism to oil tanks, similarity to other estate properties without rear access, and wheeled bins mitigating waste issues. The inspector, after a site visit, found the existing rear access a long-standing useful amenity for ladders, tradesmen, and privacy, rejecting vandalism claims due to lack of evidence and preferring a locked gate alternative. The appeal was dismissed, with the Minister confirming the refusal and directing removal of walls at No 6 within three months.
Precedent Value
This appeal shows inspectors prioritise retaining established residential amenities like rear pedestrian access in terraces, especially where alternatives (e.g. locked gates) address concerns without full loss. Applicants must provide concrete evidence for security claims and avoid relying on inconsistent estate precedents.
Inspector: R S Hawthorne
