Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90500/B
Page 1 of 4
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90500/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Robert Syme Proposal : Erection of replacement conservatory, with change in roof and introduction of roof lantern and folding doors Site Address : Shambles 10 Spinney Close Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 1NF
Planning Officer: Peiran Shen Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 05.08.2025 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. 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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposal is considered to have no adverse impact on the character of the house and the area and neighbouring amenities. It is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the documents and drawing no. 2025-213-01-001, 2025-213-01-002, 2025-213-01-003, 2025-213-01-004, 2025-213-01-005, Proposed Floor and Roof Plan, Existing Front Elevation, Sections, which have all been received on 21st May 2025. 22/00675/B
__
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90500/B
Page 2 of 4
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: Douglas Borough Council - No objection __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is 10 Spinney Close, Douglas, a two-storey detached house located on the south of Spinney Close. There is a conservatory at the rear.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal is the erection of a single-storey flat-roof rear extension in replacement of the existing conservatory. Its body is about the same size as the existing conservatory. The flat roof is slightly larger than the body of the extension, and it has a lantern rooflight.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Extension to hardstanding to the front of the property and removal of existing dwarf wall to provide vehicular access to additional parking is pending a decision under PA 25/90515/B.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY Site Specific 4.1 The site is within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Area Plan for the East.
Strategic Policy 4.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 has the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: o General Policy 2 (b) (c) (g)
PPS and NPD 4.3 No planning policy statement or national policy directive is considered materially relevant to this application.
5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Strategy and Guidance 5.1 The Residential Design Guide (July 2021) has the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: o Section 4.6 Rear Extensions o Section 4.7 Flat Roof Extensions o Chapter 5 Architectural Details o Chapter 7 Impact on Neighbouring Properties
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 Douglas City Council has no objection to this application (02.06.2024).
6.2 DoI Highway Services has not commented at the time of the report (05.08.2025).
7.0 ASSESSMENT Elements of Assessment 7.1 The key considerations of this application are its impact on the house itself, on the character and streetscene of the area, and the amenities of the neighbours.
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90500/B
Page 3 of 4
Design of the House Itself 7.2 The proposal has a flat roof, which does not fit within the existing roofscape. However, given the existing design of the house, a flat roof extension is not considered to detract from the existing design. Furthermore, the proposal replaces an existing conservatory which has a low pitched roof and it is not considered this proposal would be sufficient different.
Character and Streetscene 7.3 The proposal is not readily visible to the public and does not harm the streetscene.
7.4 There are a few flat-roof extensions in the area. Therefore, it is not considered to harm the character and the streetscene of the area.
Neighbouring Amenities 7.5 The extension has the same body size and reduced roof size compared to the existing conservatory. It is considered not to have any additional overbearing or overlooking impact.
7.6 There is no new vantage point created, so it is considered to have no additional overlooking impact.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposal is considered to have no adverse impact on the character of the house and the area and neighbouring amenities. Therefore, it is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide and is recommended for an approval.
9.0 INTEREST PERSON STATUS 9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).
9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to: o applicant (in all cases); o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.
9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10.
9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required): o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant); o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area; o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and o in the case of a petition, a single representative. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90500/B
Page 4 of 4
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 05.08.2025
Determining Officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/ customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal