Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90494/B
Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90494/B Applicant : Ms June Cannell Proposal : Erection of a single storey extension comprising of a lower ground floor WC and coat room Site Address : 18 Melbourne Street Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 3HB
Principal Planning Officer: Belinda Fettis Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 16.06.2025 __
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.
C 2. Prior to the occupation of the extension hereby approved the waste and recycling bin storage shall be completed within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse as shown on Drawing no.102 Revision A and retained thereafter.
Reason: To protect neighbouring amenity and shared thoroughfare.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. Due to the design the proposal is considered to accord with the Design Guide and Strategic Policies S1, 2, 3 and 5, General Policies 2, Environment Policies 4, 22,34, Community Policy 7 and Infrastructure Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to the following Plans, drawings and detail received on the date shown.
o Drawing no.101, Location, Site and Existing plans (15.05.2025). o Drawing no.102 Revision A, Proposed plans (30.05.2025).
__
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90494/B
Page 2 of 6
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
o Douglas City Council - Details of waste bin and recycling storage bins provided on Drawing no.102 Revision A.
__
Officer’s Report
THE SITE 1.1. The application site relates to the curtilage associated with no.18 Melbourne Street, a two storey terraced dwellinghouse in Douglas.
1.2. The dwellinghouse fronts onto the west side of Melbourne Street and the rear onto an access lane shared with the other terraced dwellings. The access lane connects the rear of the dwellinghouses with Grafton Street and Falcon Street.
1.3. The character of the terrace is simple Georgian style at the front and rear. Several properties have had single and two storey extension. The characteristics are replicated on the rear elevations of the terraces on Grafton Street and Falcon Street, the side elevations of which are facing the application site.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1. This application proposes erection of a single storey extension comprising of a lower ground floor WC and coat room within the rear yard area. The proposed plan (102 Rev.A) shows that the extension would protrude 4010mm from the rear elevation, 3390mm from an existing rear door protrusion. The dual pitch roof would have a ridge height of 3035mm and eaves of 2000mm. The south side elevation, facing the yard, would have a pedestrian door and window. The north side elevation will be tied into the existing boundary wall. The external finishes would match the existing site and rainwater goods to existing drainage.
PLANNING POLICY
3.1. Site Specific 3.1.1. There are no Public Rights of Way through or alongside the site.
3.1.2. The site is not in a flood zone nor at risk from surface water flooding.
3.1.3. The site is not in a Conservation Area and is not a Registered Buildings nor is it within the setting of either.
3.1.4. There are no or protected trees within or abutting the site.
3.1.5. On the Area Plan for the East the site is within an area identified as being 'predominantly residential'.
3.2. Strategic Plan 3.2.1. Taking account of the above, within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the following policies are considered relevant in the determination of this application:
3.2.2. Strategic Policy 1: (a) - optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant and or unused buildings and reusing scarce indigenous building materials.
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90494/B
Page 3 of 6
(b) - efficient use of sites taking into account open space. Open space is defined in Appendix 1: any land, weather enclosed or not, on which there are no buildings or on which not more than 5% is covered with buildings.
3.2.3. Strategic Policy 2: development primarily within existing towns and villages.
3.2.4. Strategic Policy 3 and Environment Policy 42 focus on the visual design of development and its impact upon the character and identity of its immediate locality.
3.2.5. Strategic Policy 5 - new development (including individual buildings) should be designed to make a positive contribution to the environment.
3.2.6. General Policy 2: Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development meets the criteria set out in the Policy (a) to (n) of which the following are considered most relevant:
(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways. (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption. "
3.2.7. Environment Policy 4: Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect: (a) species and habitats of international importance: (i) protected species of international importance or their habitats;
3.2.8. Environment Policy 22 states that development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of: i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater; ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution.
3.2.9. Environment Policy 34: In the maintenance, alteration or extension of pre-1920 buildings, the use of traditional materials will be preferred.
3.2.10. Community Policy 7 - The design including extensions of existing buildings should as far as is reasonably practical, pay due regard to best practice to design out criminal and anti-social behaviour.
3.2.11. Infrastructure Policy 5 - water conservation and management measures
OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1. Manual for Manx Roads section 5.3 associated with Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan. In general existing parking spaces should be retained and the overall design should ensure easy and safe use of the parking space(s). 4.2. Residential Design Guide section 4 relating to householder extensions. Rear extensions issues of potential loss of light, overbearing and overlooking (4.6) and; impact on highway
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90494/B
Page 4 of 6
safety as a result of the built form or loss of existing parking spaces (4.4). Development desiring a reduced number of parking spaces is generally unsupported and in any event should evidence the reason.
PLANNING HISTORY 5.1. There is previous planning history within the red line however none considered to be materially relevant to determine this application.
REPRESENTATIONS 6.1. Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.2. Local authority 6.2.1. Douglas Corporation - (21.05.2025) waste team request details of waste and recycling storage location. Provided on Drawing no.102 Rev.A. No further comments received.
6.3. Statutory Bodies 6.3.1. Highway Services - No comment received.
ASSESSMENT 7.1.1. The principle of householder alterations and extensions are generally acceptable particularly when in an urban setting such as this site. Consideration is required of other elements such as the impact upon the character of the site, its setting, residential amenity and any other relevant factors in assessing the proposed development.
7.1.2. In this instance the relevant considerations can be categorised as follows; (7.2) Design and impact upon the character and setting (7.3) Impact upon parking (7.4) Impact upon residential amenity (7.5) Other (7.6) Planning Balance (8) Conclusion
7.2. Design 7.2.1. There are no special architectural features on the rear elevation of the site. There exist similar extensions with a mix of roof designs. overall the terrace comprises finishes of smooth render, painted or plain and slate or tiled roof; flat roofs exist in extensions.
7.2.2. Similar extensions on the rear of this terrace have mono roofs projecting from the rear elevation. This design incorporates a dual pitch roof at 90 degrees to the rear elevation. This introduces a gable design to the site that is out of keeping with the character of the site.
7.2.3. In the context of the setting, the rear yard is bound by walls of at least 2m therefore where seen the roof and apex of the gable would be seen amongst the other mixed roof styes.
7.2.4. Openings are proposed only on the south side elevation facing into the yard area. 7.2.5. There is no streetscene as such however where seen in within the back lane, the extension would be viewed amongst other larger extensions and not appear out of context.
7.3. Parking 7.3.1. Primarily the terraced dwellinghouses do not have off-road parking, parking is on the street. Many of the rear yards within the terrace and surrounding terraces have either created a two storey extension and or an off road parking space. The application site has created a parking space within the rear yard.
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90494/B
Page 5 of 6
7.3.2. This proposal would reduce the floor area of the yard for potential parking however it would not result in less parking spaces. Due to the topography and layout of the site and adjacent built form the yard is only suitable for one parking space. In addition due to the original situation of on street parking, this would not be a reason for refusal.
7.3.3. The parking situation is unchanged.
7.4. Residential Amenity 7.4.1. Rear extensions, particularly in terraced dwellings, can result in unneighbourly impacts such as loss of light, overbearing and overlooking.
7.4.2. In respect of assessing impact, the neighbours are considered to be the adjoining numbers 16 and 18 and no.2 Grafton Street.
7.4.3. Due to the single storey dual pitch roof and separation distances, there are no unneighbourly impacts observed for no.2 Grafton Street or no.16. Nor are there any other issues relating to overlooking or loss of light.
7.4.4. Because of the position within the site, the greatest impact would be on no.20. The potential impacts are loss of light and overbearing, there are no overlooking issues. The rear is east facing and there are several two storey flat roofed extensions either side of the site. The proposed extension would protrude above the existing high boundary wall around 1 metre. The dual pitch roof will reduce the impact of the built form, therefore not become overbearing, and will allow any light from the west.
7.5. Other 7.5.1. The design proposal incorporates rainwater goods to manage surface water.
7.5.2. There are no particular features observed that would increase the risk of crime to the site.
7.5.3. The proposed extension is on hard standing ground therefore no ecological harm is observed as a result of the proposal.
7.6. Planning Balance 7.7. The introduction of a dual pitch roof and rear gable is contrary to the existing design characteristics. However the dual pitch roof is more neighbourly than the height of a mono or flat roof protruding from the rear elevation. Therefore the planning balance is weighted toward approval.
CONCLUSION 8.1. The design and scale are proportionate, subservient and would not harm the character of the locality nor cause undue harm to residential amenity. For the above reasons the proposal is considered to accord with the Design Guide and Strategic Policies S1, 2, 3 and 5, General Policies 2, Environment Policies 4, 22,34, Community Policy 7 and Infrastructure Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE
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);
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90494/B
Page 6 of 6
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.
9.5 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given the Right to Appeal.
__
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.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 16.06.2025
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