14 August 2006 · Planning Committee
Mandarin Chinese Takeaway, 26, Church Road, Port Erin, Isle Of Man, IM9 6aq
The proposal sought retrospective permission for a flue installed on the flat roof of a ground floor hot food takeaway in a mixed-use area of Port Erin to address prior complaints about noise and fumes from an earlier rear-wall location. Neighbours at North View (28 Church Road) and J.J.
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 Authority refused due to 'insufficient information to satisfy [them] that a flue could be installed so as not to give rise to either smell nuisance which would warrant refusal of the appl…
No objection
Port Erin Commissioners formally objected to the flue due to its size and proximity to neighbouring windows; multiple neighbouring residents and businesses objected citing noise, fumes, late hours, litter, and anti-social behaviour; Environmental Protection consultation sought clarification but no substantive response provided.
Key concern: unneighbourly noise, fumes and late hours impacting residential amenity
Port Erin Commissioners
Objectionit was resolved to oppose the erection of the extractor flue on the grounds of its size and the fact it constitutes unneighbourly development being situated in such close proximity to the window of the adjoining premises; It was also resolved not to oppose the erection of the canopy
Environmental Protection Unit
No CommentThe original application 06/00132/R for full retrospective approval of a flue installation on the roof of 26 Church Road, Port Erin was refused by the Planning Committee due to lack of submitted drawings. The appellant argued unawareness of permission requirements, communication issues, and ongoing modifications with the Environment Protection Unit, requesting approval in principle with conditions. The planning officer insisted full approval required drawings, which were absent. Objectors raised concerns over noise, smell, litter, and late-night disturbances affecting residential amenity. The appellant withdrew the appeal at the inquiry after private consultation, undertaking to submit a new full application within 4 weeks incorporating consultations. The inspector noted the withdrawal confirms the refusal with no decision required, and recommended no enforcement if a new compliant application is progressed.
Precedent Value
This appeal demonstrates that withdrawing at inquiry when evidence is deficient confirms the refusal but preserves opportunity for resubmission; future applicants must ensure all technical drawings are submitted for full approval applications, especially retrospective ones, and engage early with consultees like Environmental Protection.
Inspector: John S Turner
