30 September 2008 · Planning Committee
The Arches, Tower Road, Port Erin, Isle Of Man, IM9 6pp
The proposal sought retrospective permission for 21 minor works already carried out (e.g. render banding, Juliette balconies, solar panels, repositioned steps) and approval for 8 further variations to prior approvals (e.g.
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.
Officer report assessed proposal against General Policy 2 (GP2) of Strategic Plan, finding it compliant as changes were minor variations from prior unappealed approvals (fallback position), with no ma…
General Policy 2
Requires development to respect site/surroundings (b), not harm landscape/townscape character (c), not adversely affect neighbour amenity/locality character (g). Officer tested variations against prior approvals/fallback; found no material overlooking (oblique views, screening, levels), acceptable in varied hillside context exploiting views; Committee site visit upheld. No standards breached.
Time limit
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
Approved plans
This permission relates to the alterations and extensions shown in drawings PA 1G, -2G, -3E, -5A, -6, -7, -8, 928/1 and the schedule of variations received on 1st May, 2008 and PA 4H received on 16th July, 2008.
Do not oppose
Port Erin Commissioners object to specific retrospective works and new elements due to excessive glazing, massing, and out-of-character design in a rural area, while residents strongly object citing loss of privacy, overlooking, construction impacts, and policy breaches; Department of Transport does not oppose but notes utilities.
Key concern: excessive massing, glazing, stainless steel out of character in rural area and planning system abuse via retrospective works
Port Erin Commissioners
Objection"The Board are extremely concerned at the way the Planning System appears to have been abused"; "planning by stealth"; "proposed new works should be refused and the retrospective works detailed in Nos. 10, 12, 14 & 16 should also be refused and reconstructed"
Department of Transport
No ObjectionDo not oppose
The original application 08/00907/B for alterations and extensions to the dwelling at The Arches, including retrospective works and amendments to prior approvals, was recommended for approval by case officer Sarah Corlett and approved by the Planning Committee following a site visit on 26 September 2008. Mr J Maddrell, a third party neighbour, appealed claiming overdevelopment, failure to submit proper variation lists, inadequate Planning Board supervision, and failure to protect neighbours' interests. Respondents (Mr and Mrs Routledge, their architect J M Cryer, and consultant Philip Moren) defended the approval, arguing compliance with Strategic Plan policies, no material increase in overlooking or harm to character, and fallback from prior unappealed permissions. No inspector's analysis or decision is provided in the documents. The appeal documents seek dismissal of the third party appeal to uphold the approval.
Precedent Value
Third party appeals against approvals face high bar; success requires evidence of material policy conflict beyond fallback permissions. Future applicants should provide comprehensive variation schedules, neighbour consultation records, and site photographs to demonstrate no harm to amenities or character in varied residential contexts.
