22 February 2016 · Senior Planning Officer (Chris Balmer)
31, Erin Way, Port Erin, Isle Of Man, IM9 6ef
Mr & Mrs John Kinley applied to build a pentagonal rear extension to their home at 31 Erin Way, measuring 3.40m deep and 4.55m wide, with rendered blockwork walls, tiled roof matching the house, uPVC windows and doors, a dwarf wall base, solid northeastern wall 0.8m from the boundary, and almost fully glazed southweste…
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 General Policy 2 and paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan, concluding it accords with these provisions.
General Policy 2
General Policy 2 applies to development in residential areas under the Area Plan for the South 2013. The officer assessed the extension's form, scale, massing, and neighbour amenity impacts, finding it acceptable due to consistency with nearby precedents, blank wall addressing privacy, and appropriate proportions despite proximity to boundary.
Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007
This paragraph supports residential development in zoned areas. The proposal was tested for compatibility with the residential character, public visibility of rears, and garden amenity, deemed compliant given similar extensions and mitigated impacts.
Time limit
The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
no objection
Port Erin Commissioners support the application, and DOI Highways Division do not oppose it.
Port Erin Commissioners
SupportThe Board considered the above application at their meeting on 9th February 2016 and has resolved to support the application.
Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division
No ObjectionDo not oppose; DNO on 21.1.16
The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture recommended approval of a single-storey pentagonal rear extension to a two-storey detached dwelling in a residential area, finding it acceptable in scale, visual impact, and neighbour amenity despite neighbour concerns. Mr & Mrs Brocklebank of No 29 appealed the approval, arguing overbearing impact, loss of light, overshadowing, privacy loss, and wind effects due to level differences and proximity. The applicant and authority countered with design mitigations like a blank wall, hipped roof, sun path analysis, and precedents of similar extensions. Inspector Ruth V MacKenzie, after a site visit, found no unacceptable harm to living conditions at No 29, concluding the extension complied with policy. The Minister accepted the recommendation to dismiss the appeal on 2 June 2016, upholding approval subject to a standard time condition.
Precedent Value
This appeal shows that neighbour appeals against approvals can fail if inspector finds no policy harm post-site visit; applicants should provide technical evidence like sun paths and highlight design mitigations, while objectors need substantive evidence beyond subjective amenity claims.
Inspector: Ruth V MacKenzie BA(Hons) MRTPI
