29 January 2020 · Delegated - Head of Development Management (Stephen Butler)
69, Slieau Curn Park, Kirk Michael, Isle Of Man, IM6 1ew
The application sought permission to erect a flat roof dormer approximately 7m wide and 2.5m high at the rear of Annandale, a semi-detached dwelling in a residential cul-de-sac in Kirk Michael. The dormer would project directly from the ground floor walls, covering the full roof slope width.
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 officer assessed the proposal against GP2(b), (c), and (g), and Residential Design Guidance sections 4.6, 7.4, and 7.5, concluding it failed due to its position, size, mass, and design.
General Policy 2
GP2 requires development to respect site/surroundings in siting/layout/scale/design (b), not adversely affect surrounding character (c), and not harm neighbour amenity or locality character (g). Officer found proposal failed all three: excessive dormer size/mass harmed dwelling appearance, estate visual amenity, and neighbour outlook/privacy despite 27m separation, due to overbearing prominence.
Residential Design Guide 2019 - Dormer extensions
Requires dormers not to dominate roof plane or be publicly visible unless characteristic of area; flat roof types only on modern properties/character areas, secondary to roof size, not full width/flush to eaves/ridge. Proposal's 7m wide, 2.5m high flat dormer flush to eaves was 'clumsy' and eye-catching from cul-de-sac/rear, unlike area's modest examples.
Residential Design Guidance Section 7.4 (Overbearing Impact upon Outlook)
Requires no dominant/overbearing impact on neighbours' primary windows/gardens. Dormer projecting 1.5m beyond No.68 window and 3m tall created unneighbourly dominating change to outlook.
Residential Design Guide - Overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy
20m guide for overlooking; relaxable if no compromise. Despite 27m distance, scale/mass caused unacceptable 'perceived overlooking' beyond previous approvals.
do not oppose
Michael Commissioners objected to the dormer extension as not in keeping with surrounding properties, while Highways Division did not oppose; a neighbour representation also objected due to loss of light.
Key concern: not in keeping with the other properties in the area
Michael Commissioners
ObjectionThe Commissioners wish to object to this planning application on the grounds that it not in keeping with the other properties in the area.; The Commissioners feel that the previous application no 19/00880/B: Erection of a rear flat roofed dormer... which was approved was more in keeping
Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division
No ObjectionDo not oppose; DNO on 05.12.19
