3 August 2005 · Minister for Local Government and the Environment (upholding Planning Committee refusal on appeal)
23, Falcon Cliff Court, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM2 4ah
The site is the curtilage of a mid-terraced house in Falcon Cliff Court, Douglas, with frontage to both the estate road and Palace Road, featuring an embankment down to the road. The proposal involved constructing a sunken garage built into this embankment with direct access from Palace Road, plus converting the existi…
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 the application citing that the roadside garage would adversely affect the appearance and character of Palace Road and set a precedent for similar garages, while the gar…
no adverse traffic impacts subject to sight splay condition
no objection
Douglas Corporation and Department of Transport Highways Division both raised no objections to application 05/00849/B, with Highways specifying a sight splay condition; a private individual objected on highway safety and design grounds.
Douglas Corporation
No ObjectionDouglas Corporation have no objection to the proposals listed below.; I do not wish to add to the comments already submitted on behalf of Douglas Corporation.
Department of Transport Highways Division
Conditional No ObjectionNo adverse traffic impacts, subject to the imposition of the following conditions.; The Highways Division does not wish to make further representation to the forthcoming review, beyond the response in the letter dated 7 June 2005.
Conditions requested: A vehicle/pedestrian sight splay of 2.1 x 2.1 metres must be provided for vehicles egressing the garage.
The original application 05/00849/B proposed a sunken garage accessing Palace Road and conversion of the existing integral garage to kitchen/dining with bay window, refused by the Planning Committee primarily due to adverse visual impact on Palace Road's appearance and character, and potential precedent. The appellant argued that intervening developments at 17-19 and 21 Palace Road represented material changes, making the proposal consistent with local character, and challenged the previous inspector's findings. The inspector found superficial similarities but fundamental differences in context (integral vs freestanding), no material change in planning circumstances, and endorsed the prior decision. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Committee's refusal.
Precedent Value
Re-applications identical to prior refusals face high bar; must demonstrate genuine material changes in planning circumstances, not just implementation of known permissions. Challenging prior decisions requires formal legal process, not re-argument at new appeal.
Inspector: David Ward
