6 December 2011 · Director of Planning and Building Control (delegated authority under Article 3(13) of the Town and Country (Development Procedure) Order 2005)
50, Wybourn Drive, Onchan, Isle Of Man, IM3 4an
The proposal involved a rear extension projecting 5.9m deep, 10.1m wide, and 6.3m high to the ridge, plus two dormers: one 5.6m wide x 1.7m high on the extension roof facing No.48, and one 3.6m wide x 1.8m high on the existing roof.
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 concluded the proposal failed General Policy 2 (development must provide good amenity and design) and Paragraph 8.12.1 (presumption for extensions only if no adverse impact on adjacent pro…
General Policy 2
Requires development to provide good amenity standards and quality of design. Officer found proposal failed due to harm to neighbour privacy/overlooking and incongruous dormers detrimental to streetscene visual amenities.
Extensions to Dwellings in built up areas or sites designated for residential use
General presumption in favour of extensions in built-up areas if no adverse impact on adjacent property or surrounding area. Officer assessed dormers/overlooking as causing demonstrable harm to Nos.48/52 amenities and streetscene, overriding presumption.
Policy O/RES/P/21 of the Onchan Local Plan (Planning Circular 1/2000)
Extensions not opposed if appropriate in scale, massing, design, appearance and impact on adjacent property. Officer found proposal inappropriate due to scale/massing (extension projects 9.1m beyond No.52 rear, raised ridge), design (side dormers at odds with front-facing local precedents), and neighbour impacts.
Do not oppose as it has no adverse traffic management, parking or road safety implications.
No objections subject to conditions on surface water discharge.
Statutory consultees Water and Sewerage Authority and Highways Division raised no objections (latter unconditional, former with conditions), while Onchan District Commissioners objected on design grounds; multiple neighbouring residents strongly objected citing loss of privacy, light, overshadowing, and visual impact.
Key concern: Proposals do not respect the site and surroundings in terms of scale, form and design
Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority
Conditional No ObjectionNo Objection: - subject to the following conditions; to comply with the requirements of the Isle of Man Water & Sewerage Authority and the Sewerage Act 1999
Conditions requested: There must be NO discharge of surface water (including that from roofs and paved areas) from this proposed development to any foul drainage system(s); If this “existing drainage” discharges to the foul sewerage system then an alternative means of surface water disposal must be provided
Highways Division
No ObjectionDo not oppose has no adverse traffic management, parking or road safety implications
Onchan District Commissioners
ObjectionThe Commissioners recommend that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:- "The proposals do not respect the site and surroundings in terms of scale, form and design."
Onchan Commissioners
Objectionthe Commissioners wish to continue their objections to the proposals; proposals would adversely affect their living environment
The original planning application 11/01283/B for alterations and erection of an extension to the dwelling at 50 Wybourn Drive, Onchan was refused. Mr Mark Davenport (via agent Glenn Kinrade of Kinrade Associates Limited) appealed the refusal under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, agreeing to written representations procedure with a site visit. The appeal was assigned reference L09NEW/AP11/0165 or L02aNEW/AP11/0165 and appeal statements were exchanged, with council rebuttal due by 9 March 2012. On 22 March 2012, the Planning Appeals Administrator notified that the appellant's architect advised withdrawal of the appeal request. Consequently, the original refusal decision stands, with no inspector's analysis or ministerial decision issued.
Precedent Value
No precedent set as appeal was withdrawn before determination. Future applicants should ensure commitment to pursuing appeal, as early withdrawal reinstates the original refusal without review.
