12 December 2006 · Minister for Local Government and the Environment (following appeal inspector report)
2, Bourne Place, Ramsey, Isle Of Man, IM8 1jw
The proposal sought permission to retain an existing flat-roofed timber shed (3.2m wide x 3.85m long x 2.6m high) in the rear yard of 2-3 Bourne Place, part of a terraced row of two/three-storey mixed-use properties (shops/residential) south of Market Hill in Ramsey town centre.
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 Minister accepted the inspector's recommendation to reverse the Planning Committee's approval after appeal. The inspector concluded the main issue was whether the shed preserved or enhanced the Ra…
Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man
Requires special attention to preserving or enhancing Conservation Area character, with higher design standards than normal developments. Assessed against shed's poor materials/appearance harming locality character despite limited visibility; officer found acceptable as not highway-visible but inspector/Minister disagreed, failing the test as all CA elements must meet standard.
Do not oppose
Highways Division has no opposition to the application, while Phoebe Trading Co and Ramsey Town Commissioners object strongly due to the poor quality, appearance, and impacts of the timber shed.
Key concern: detrimental to amenity within a Conservation Area
Highways Division of the Department of Transport
No ObjectionDo Not Oppose
Phoebe Trading Co
ObjectionWe strongly oppose the retention of this “shed” and urge the Planning Committee to reject this application.; It is in fact a shack, which would not be out of place in an overcrowded third world city.; The various “structures” are nothing short of vandalism to what is a tiny part of Ramsey’s heritage.
Ramsey Town Commissioners
ObjectionThe timber shed as existing is of poor quality and construction and its appearance when viewed from neighbouring properties is of a low standard. It is considered therefore that the timber shed as exists is detrimental to the amenity within a Conservation Area.
The original application (06/01644/R) for retention of a timber shed in the rear yard was permitted by the Planning Committee, who argued it had no significant impact as it was not visible from the public highway. The appellant (Ramsey Town Commissioners) argued the shed's poor quality and construction were detrimental to the conservation area's amenity, visible to neighbours. The applicant defended its functionality for shop use in a derelict yard not publicly visible. Third-party objector Phoebe Trading Company highlighted its ugliness, poor construction, and practical issues like blocking access. The inspector, after written representations and a site visit, concluded the shed failed to meet higher design standards required in conservation areas under PPS 1/01, despite limited public visibility, and recommended reversing the approval with enforcement action if not removed.
Precedent Value
Even structures invisible from public views in conservation areas must meet elevated design and material standards; functional need does not override poor quality construction. Future applicants should prioritise high-quality materials and design for rear/invisible elements in CA.
Inspector: David G Hollis
