2 May 2012 · Planning Committee
5, Majestic Drive, Onchan, Isle Of Man, IM3 2jq
The proposal involves adding a two-storey turret on the corner and an adjoining first-floor extension to create an additional bedroom with dressing room and en suite at a detached house on a corner plot in a residential area of Onchan. The site is in a predominantly residential zone under the Onchan Local Plan.
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 noted the general principle of residential extensions is acceptable in this built-up residential area, per paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan and presumption in favour where no adverse…
Policy O/RES/P/21 of the Onchan Local Plan (Planning Circular 1/2000)
Policy states extensions will generally not be opposed where appropriate in terms of scale, massing, design, appearance and impact on adjacent property. Officer assessed proposal compliant as scale appropriate to plot/dwelling, design (including turret) acceptable in street scene lacking uniform style, and no undue amenity harm to neighbours.
General Policy 2
Requires development to respect site/surroundings in siting/layout/scale/form/design, not adversely affect character/townscape/amenities/highways/parking, per land-use zoning. Officer found compliant: scale respects plot/street scene; no adverse amenity/light/privacy impacts due to distances/windows; adequate parking; no highway effect. Para 8.12.1 presumption favours extensions without adverse impacts.
Time limit
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
Approved drawings
This approval relates to drawing no.s 12/0100/01, 12/0100/02, 12/0100/03, 12/0100/04 and 12/0100/05 date stamped the 28th February 2012.
do not oppose the planning application
The original application 12/00293/B for erection of first floor and two storey extensions to the dwelling at 5 Majestic Drive was approved by the Planning Committee on 2 May 2012 subject to conditions. Neighbour Mr C Lees appealed, arguing non-compliance with policies GP2 and 0/RES/P/22 due to overshadowing, visual harm from the tower and massing, overdevelopment, and breach of building line. The inspector, after a public inquiry and site visits, found the extensions would not harm the street scene or neighbours' amenity, providing a visual pivot at the corner and causing no excessive overshadowing. Policies GP2 and 0/RES/P/22 were found favourable with no conflict. The Minister accepted the inspector's recommendation to dismiss the appeal on 14 August 2012, confirming the approval with an additional condition clarifying no permission on the public highway.
Precedent Value
Demonstrates that appeals against approvals (third party 'reverse appeals') rarely succeed without strong evidence of policy conflict; unusual features can be justified in pivotal locations if they enhance street scene; technical analysis must account for site-specific factors like slope.
Inspector: Alan Langton
