25 May 2017 · Planning Committee
Flat Above, 4, Market Place East, Ramsey, Isle Of Man, IM8 1jy
The proposal involved installing a non-opening, portrait window (900mm x 600mm) on the south elevation landing/stairway and building raised decking with handrail accessed from an existing kitchen door on the west elevation flat roof terrace at 4 Market Place East, Ramsey.
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 Planning Committee, against the officer's recommendation, refused the application after a site visit on 15th May 2017, concluding that 'given the limited distance between the application site and …
General Policy 2
Requires development to respect site/surroundings in siting/layout/scale/design (b), not adversely affect townscape character (c), and not affect amenities of residents or locality character (g). Officer found compliant as rear works not visible publicly and minimal added overlooking; Committee ruled failed (g) due to perception of overlooking into No.3 Dale Street bedroom and from decking.
Environment Policy 34
Prefers traditional materials in maintenance/alteration/extension of pre-1920s buildings. Officer gave less weight as works rear-facing and not impacting Conservation Area character.
Environment Policy 35
Permits only development preserving/enhancing Conservation Area character, protecting special features. Officer assessed rear works do not contribute to or harm visible CA character, focusing instead on GP2 amenity issues.
Ramsey Local Plan Policy R/R/P4
Encourages residential use of upper floors above shops subject to Housing Regulations. Supported by prior approval of residential conversion.
R/TC/P3
Encourages upper floors as retail/offices/apartments, especially if vacant. Consistent with site's mixed town centre use.
Terraces
Presumption for retaining traditional uniform frontages on pre-1920s terraces; discourages dormers. Not relevant as rear works only.
no Highway Involvement
Ramsey Town Commissioners objected multiple times to the retrospective window installation and decking due to unneighbourly impact on amenities; Highways Division had no highways interest.
Key concern: unneighbourly impact with seriously detrimental effect on the amenity of immediate neighbours, not in compliance with General Policy 2(b) and 2(g)
Ramsey Town Commissioners
ObjectionObject to the proposal for the following reason: - It is considered that the location of both the window and the raised decking area is unneighbourly and would have a seriously detrimental effect on the amenity of the immediate neighbours and is therefore not in compliance with General Policy 2(b) and 2(g).
Ramsey Town Commissioners
ObjectionRecommendation to Object to the amended proposal as previously submitted.
Ramsey Town Commissioners
ObjectionObject to the proposal for the following reason:- Un-neighbourly and would have a seriously detrimental effect on the amenity of the immediate neighbours and is therefore not in compliance with General Policy 2(b) and 2(g).
Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division
No ObjectionNo Highways Interest; NHI on 16-2-17
The original application for a retrospective non-opening obscure-glazed window and new decking with perimeter rail on a flat roof was refused by the Planning Committee contrary to officer recommendation due to unacceptable overlooking into neighbouring property at 3 Dale Street, contrary to General Policy 2(g). The appellant argued the window would provide essential daylight to a dark stairwell without privacy loss and the decking would improve amenity without worsening existing overlooking. The inspector found the window acceptable as it could not enable actual overlooking, but the decking would encourage more frequent use of the roof leading to increased privacy harm. A split decision was agreed feasible by parties. The Minister accepted the inspector's recommendations, granting approval for the window subject to obscure glazing and non-opening conditions, and refusing the decking.
Precedent Value
Demonstrates split decisions viable for distinct proposal elements; proves obscure glazing/non-opening windows can mitigate privacy concerns even in close proximity, but proposals intensifying neighbour amenity space use face high hurdles under GP2(g).
Inspector: Ruth V MacKenzie BA(Hons) MRTPI
