17 April 2012 · Delegated - Senior Planning Officer
2, Coronation Court, Ramsey, Isle Of Man, IM8 3ef
The proposal involves erecting a single-storey rear extension extending 1.7m from the existing rear wall, 6.5m wide, and 3m high with a flat roof; a front porch extending 1.2m, 1.8m wide, up to eaves height with a pitched gable roof; and bricking-up a window on the south-east side elevation.
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 proposed porch to the front elevation is considered to be of an appropriate scale and design that is sympathetic to the existing dwelling.
General Policy 2
GP2 permits development in accordance with land-use zoning provided it respects the site and surroundings in terms of siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping; does not adversely affect the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; and does not adversely affect the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality. The officer assessed the modest scale rear extension (1.7m projection, 3m high flat roof), front porch, and window infill as sympathetic in design with matching render, not impacting streetscene or neighbour amenity, thus complying fully. Paragraph 8.12.1 supports presumption in favour of extensions in built-up areas without adverse impacts.
Time limit
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
Approved plans
This approval relates to the erection of an extension to rear elevation, erection of a porch to front elevation, and bricking-up of a window on side elevation, shown in drawing no. 11/0880/2 and the Site Plan, received on 8 March 2012.
Recommend approval as the proposal has no adverse traffic management, parking or road safety implications.
have no objection to the proposal.
Ramsey Town Commissioners have no objection to the proposal with drainage comments from D.o.I. requiring connection to existing systems and compliance with standards. Highways Division recommends approval with no adverse traffic implications.
Ramsey Town Commissioners
No ObjectionRamsey Town Commissioners considered the above application at their meeting on Wednesday 18th April, 2012 and have no objection to the proposal
Conditions requested: The proposed alteration/extension must be connected to the existing drainage system to comply with Building Regulations; if a new connection to the public sewer is required, this must be carried out in a manner acceptable to the Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority; All drainage works must conform to the requirements of the Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority’s “Manx Sewers for Adoption” and all necessary inspections/surveys [including CCTV] are to be carried out at the developer’s expense; Should this alteration/extension require a new connection to the public sewer, and in accordance with the Sewerage Act 1999, a communication fee will be payable to the Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority; There must be NO discharge of surface water (directly or indirectly) from this proposed development to any foul drainage system(s) so as to comply with the requirements of the Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority and the Sewerage Act 1999
Highways Division
Conditional No ObjectionRecommend approval has no adverse traffic management, parking or road safety implications
The original planning application 08/00439/B for alterations and extensions to the dwelling at 14 Bowring Road, Ramsey, was approved by the Planning Committee despite objections from neighbour Mr C Martin. The appellant argued the rear extension would be visually intrusive, overbearing on 3 Coronation Court, cause privacy/noise issues, and the boundary wall would harm highway safety. The applicant and Committee defended the scheme as having minimal visual impact, no privacy loss, and improved appearance with adequate parking. The inspector found the rear extension would seriously harm the living conditions of 3 Coronation Court occupants by being unduly overbearing and dominant from their garden and lounge, while the boundary wall would not adversely affect highway safety. The appeal was split: rear extension dismissed, boundary wall allowed.
Precedent Value
This appeal shows neighbours can successfully challenge approvals where extensions cause overbearing impacts on private gardens, even if Councils find minimal harm; precise measurements and unexaggerated site photos are crucial for appellant credibility. Applicants should ensure proposals avoid dominance over neighbouring amenity spaces within 20m.
