12 August 2004 · Planning Committee (on review)
Ballaclucas Cottage, Top Road, Crosby, Isle Of Man, IM4 4hn
The proposal sought amendments to the design of one of two new dwellings previously approved at appeal to replace existing structures at Upper Ballaclucas and Ballaclucas Cottage. Changes included relocating the garage and link to the south-eastern elevation, re-routing the driveway, moving garage doors to the front, c…
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 judged the amendments to be relatively minor alterations that did not affect the traditional proportions and form of the previously approved dwelling.
Time limit
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
Approved drawings
Subject to Conditions 3-10 below, this approval relates to the drawings numbered 411/01, 411/02 and 411/03.
Residential use only
The building may only be used as a private residence.
Roof materials approval
The roof(s) must be finished in natural slate or a high quality imitation slate which must be approved by the Planning Authority PRIOR to the commencement of works.
Window type
The windows on the front and side elevations including the garage must be vertical sliding sash. This opening method must be retained in perpetuity unless planning permission is granted for an alternative opening method.
Glazing bars
All glazing bars must be externally fitted on installation.
Exterior stonework
The exterior stonework must be of a traditional nature. NOTE: Split stone on a backing render is not acceptable as an external finish.
Landscaping scheme
The landscaping must be carried out in accordance with drawing number 208/08 as previously approved under PA 02/451.
Landscaping implementation and maintenance
All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwellings, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.
Vehicular access
The layout of the vehicular access shall be completed to the satisfaction of the planning authority after consultation with the highway authority before being brought into use, and shall thereafter be so retained.
No adverse traffic impacts, subject to vehicular access condition
no objections
DOT Highways raised no objection subject to a condition on vehicular access layout; Marown Parish Commissioners had no objection; a private representation from Guy Thompson on behalf of neighbours objected due to privacy loss, overlooking, and design issues.
Key concern: loss of privacy and amenity from overlooking by principal rooms, garden, and conservatory
DOT Highways
Conditional No ObjectionNo adverse traffic impacts, subject to the imposition of the following conditions; To ensure the provision of satisfactory vehicle parking arrangements for occupied dwellings.
Conditions requested: The layout of the vehicular access shall be completed to the satisfaction of the planning authority after consultation with the highway authority before being brought into use, and shall thereafter be so retained.
Marown Parish Commissioners
No Objectionmy Commissioners determined that they had no objections to the following numbered Planning Applications; 04-1124
Guy J. Thompson (on behalf of Mr. Ingham and Miss Baxter)
ObjectionI herewith formerly object to the above application on the following grounds.; The applicant of this latest application already has a valid planning application and that approval and conditions, as recommended by the Planning Appeals Inspector, should represent the only development permitted on this site.
Marown Parish Commissioners
No Objectionmy Commissioners have no further comments to add to those previously submitted.
Guy J. Thompson (on behalf of Mr. Ingham and Miss Baxter)
Objectionthis increase in height now affords full second floor accommodation, serviced by a proper staircase.; My Clients would not object to an application if the dwellings were sited further to the west upon the approximate footprint of the two dwellings that are to be removed.
DOT Highways
No CommentThe Highways Division does not wish to make further representation to the forthcoming review, beyond the response in the initial letter.
The first appeal (PA02/451) was against the Planning Committee's grant of detailed approval for two replacement dwellings following approval in principle (PA01/1005), with the neighbour objecting to privacy loss, overbearing impact and light reduction from a closer 2-storey dwelling on plot 1. The inspector found minor amendments from the approved plan acceptable, with landscaping mitigating impacts, recommending dismissal. The second appeal (04/01124/B, Appeal 2444) challenged amendments to plot 1 including garage relocation, attic conversion, roof lights and 0.225m ridge increase, with appellants citing overlooking and non-compliance with prior conditions. The inspector assessed changes as minor improvements reducing proximity and overlooking, relying on prior precedent, recommending dismissal. Both appeals upheld the permissions in a High Landscape Value area.
Precedent Value
Establishes that amendments to appeal-won permissions are liberally allowed if minor and amenity-neutral/improving; appellants cannot re-challenge core elements post-approval; focus evidence on changes only, leverage prior inspector findings.
Inspector: G Farrington (first); David G Hollis (second)
