28 September 2011 · Director of Planning and Building Control - Delegated powers under Article 3(13) of the Town and Country (Development Procedure) Order 2005
Rose Croft, Malew Street, Castletown, Isle Of Man, IM9 1lt
The proposal involved adding a first floor extension over an existing single storey garage attached to the eastern side of a modern two-storey detached house with roofspace accommodation, increasing eaves height from 2.8m to 5.3m and ridge height from 5m to 6.5m.
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 that the proposal would not adversely affect neighbouring properties in terms of loss of light, overbearing impact or overlooking due to obscure glazing on rear windows and the si…
General Policy 2
Requires development in residential zoning to respect site/surroundings in siting/layout/scale/form/design, not adversely affect townscape character or locality amenity. Officer found proposal failed these tests due to shallow roof pitch and height increase creating unsympathetic feature harming visual amenities and streetscene.
Extensions to Dwellings in built up areas or sites designated for residential use
Presumes in favour of extensions in built-up residential areas (outside conservation) where no adverse impact on adjacent properties or surrounding area. Officer accepted no neighbour harm but found unacceptable visual impact on locality from design/bulk.
No objection subject to condition that no surface water discharged to foul drainage system to comply with Sewerage Act 1999
The original application for erection of a first floor extension over the existing garage was refused by the Director of Planning and Building Control on 26 September 2011 for introducing an unsympathetic feature due to height and shallow roof pitch, contrary to General Policy 2 and paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. Appellants argued minimal visual impact evidenced by photos, no neighbour objections, roof pitch reduced per planning advice, and need for additional bedroom amid poor housing market. The inspector, after a site visit and inquiry on 24 January 2012, found the shallow pitched roof would look odd and out of place, harming the visual character and coherence of the property group despite no neighbour amenity harm. The Minister concurred with the inspector's recommendation on 5 March 2012, dismissing the appeal and upholding the refusal.
Precedent Value
Demonstrates that even minor extensions must maintain roof pitch coherence with parent building and group; pre-application advice on subjective design carries no weight on appeal, so applicants should seek multiple opinions or test via application.
Inspector: Alda Langton
