24 November 2005 · Planning Committee on review
Greensleeves, Douglas Road, Kirk Michael, Isle Of Man, IM6 1at
The proposal was for approval in principle to erect a dwelling with an indicative footprint of 21m x 10m, sited 37m from the front boundary, with a new access off the A3 Douglas Road. The site is in open countryside, an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, not zoned for development under the…
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 determined the site is in open countryside and an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, not zoned for development under the Isle of Man Planning Schem…
Planning Circular 1/88 Residential Housing in the Country
Circular states land allocated for residential development as extensions to towns/villages; remaining areas to remain substantially free from development. Manx countryside fragile; policy to discourage residential development except agricultural holdings. Site not zoned, no agricultural need shown; proposal would encroach and set precedent.
General Policy 3
Development not permitted outside zoned areas except specific exceptions (infill in identifiable groups, agricultural housing, conversions, replacements etc.); none apply here. Proposal in countryside lacks exception justifying release from zoning.
Environment Policy 1
Countryside protected for its own sake; development adversely affecting it not permitted without overriding national need. New dwelling would harm countryside character.
Environment Policy 2
Development control uses landscape classification; adverse effect on character/appearance in designated High Landscape/Coastal Value areas not permitted. Site designated; dwelling would detract from rural character.
Planning Circular 2/92
Paragraph 13 allows additional dwellings in settlements identified for study if not extending boundary, serviceable, non-prejudicial to plans. Site not in qualifying settlement; scatter of dwellings to south not a group justifying infill.
Multiple consultees including Highways Division and Michael Commissioners objected to application 05/01951/A primarily due to inadequate visibility splays and development outside zoned land; IoMWA requested water connection conditions.
Key concern: inadequate visibility splay from existing driveway on strategic A3/TT course road
SPMC&E
No CommentWell outside the residentially zoned land on the Local Plan and even outside the Plan area. Therefore this ranks as a new house in the countryside and the Society therefore STRONGLY OBJECTS.
IoMWA
Conditional No ObjectionThe 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 to ensure that a connection is obtained for water supply purposes, or an amendment to the existing supply under the terms of the Water Supply Byelaws.
Conditions requested: a condition of planning be that the applicant must contact the Authority to ensure that a connection is obtained for water supply purposes, or an amendment to the existing supply under the terms of the Water Supply Byelaws; For single connections to a water main (i.e. a single dwelling) the applicant should contact IoMWA Customer Services, tel. 69 59 49
Department of Transport Highways Division
ObjectionThe visibility splay from the existing driveway is inadequate to serve the needs of the development. The construction of a new access onto the TT course is not permitted by the Department of Transport’s policy.; A presumption against new access and the visibility splays for a new dwelling which utilises an existing access must comply with Planning Guidance Note 13 which stipulates a visibility splay of 2.0 metres by 295 metres for a derestricted road.
Michael Commissioners
ObjectionThe Commissioners object to this application because the proposal is shown to be built outside the zoned land as shown on the 1994 Kirk Michael Local Plan and therefore to develop this land would be contrary to Policy 5.9 of the Local Plan... and Policy 12.4...; it would set precedence to the other adjacent fields which would result in infill to the village.
Michael Commissioners
ObjectionThe Commissioners feel that this application would set precedence to extending the ribbon development, as there is a significant green belt around the village, which is very visible at this present time, and this proposal is proposed to be built upon non-zoned land and therefore is contrary to the planning principles to follow.
The original application (05/01951/A) for approval in principle for a dwelling in the garden of Greensleeves was refused by the Planning Committee on 20 February 2006, citing conflict with countryside policy in Planning Circular 1/88 and risk of precedent. The appellant argued the site was residential curtilage within a small settlement, compliant with Circular 2/92 criteria, and proposed access improvements for highway safety. The Council defended the refusal, asserting the site was open countryside in a High Landscape Value Area, not infill, and access inadequate. The inspector concluded the site was countryside, not within a qualifying settlement under Circular 2/92, development would harm rural character, and highway safety concerns persisted despite access changes. The appeal was dismissed.
Precedent Value
Appeals must prove site within specifically identified settlements for Circular 2/92 exceptions; loose clusters or curtilage extensions insufficient in designated countryside. Future applicants need robust evidence of plan-defined settlements or exceptional need; highway safety on TT routes requires full policy compliance.
Inspector: Michael Hurley
