30 November 2012 · Delegated - Senior Planning Officer (Anthony Holmes), signed by Director of Planning and Building Control (Michael Gallagher)
59, Devonshire Road, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM2 3ra
The proposal sought retrospective permission for alterations to a dwelling at 59 Devonshire Road, comprising a two-storey side extension replacing an existing garage (ground floor garage, first floor bedroom), roof space conversion to master bedroom with Velux windows including a balcony-style window, plus three minor …
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 assessed only the three minor differences from prior approval PA 06/00726/B: 0.7m longer side extension (to rear), repositioned rear ground floor door, and side double doors changed to sin…
General Policy 2
Requires development in residential zoning to respect site/surroundings in siting/layout/scale/form/design, not adversely affect amenity/character/road safety, provide satisfactory standards. Assessed compliant as minor amendments match previously approved scheme vetted against GP2; no new amenity/street scene harm from 0.7m rear extension or door changes given Inspector's findings on orientation, levels, setbacks.
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 PTA-87-01, PTA-87-02, PTA-87-03, PTA-87-04, PTA-87-05 and PTA-87-06 date stamped the 19th October 2012.
Do not object to the proposed extension but would like the work to be completed in a timely manner and for works to the footings and the sewer to be properly inspected.
no objection to the proposals
do not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications
Highways Division and Douglas Borough Council have no objections to the application. Neighbours Monica Gerrard and Thomas Thomson raised concerns about completion of works, drainage, structural integrity, and procedural issues but did not formally object to the extension itself.
Key concern: excess water from new extension roof potentially increasing water flow onto lower neighbouring property
Highways Division
No ObjectionDo not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications
Douglas Borough Council
No ObjectionDouglas Corporation have no objection to the proposals listed below.
Monica Gerrard
No ObjectionWe are not now objecting to the extension, after all it is almost built; imposed a date for it to be finished Externally and finished properly e.g. rendered and dashed according to specification
Conditions requested: imposed a date for it to be finished Externally and finished properly e.g. rendered and dashed according to specification
Thomas Thomson
ObjectionI AM CONCERNED AS TO WHERE THE EXCESS WATER FROM THE NEW EXTENSION ROOF; THE CONSTRUCTION AT 5G DEVONSHIRE - WITH INCREASE THE CURRENT OF WATER PROPERTY ONTO MY PROPERTY WHICH IS AN LOWER SIDE OF PROPERTY; WILL A MOST WOULD MY NOT STRUCTURE AS WELL AS KIS OWN. ESPECIALLY IN HAVEN WEATHER CONDITIONS
The original application by Mr and Mrs Harvey for alterations and extensions, including a two-storey side extension over a garage and roof alterations with Velux windows and a balcony-style window, was approved by the planning authority despite objections from neighbours. Neighbours appealed citing legal covenants, structural risks, loss of light/privacy, overbearing impact, and potential terracing effect on the street scene. The inspector considered neighbour amenity (loss of light and overbearing impact) and street scene (terracing and precedent), finding no material harm due to property orientations, setbacks, ground level variations, and lower roof height. The inspector's recommendation to dismiss the appeal was accepted by Mr. D. M. W. Butt, MLC, confirming the planning approval on 29 January 2007.
Precedent Value
Appeals challenging approvals on neighbour amenity fail without material harm demonstrable on site; focus on measurable impacts like light loss to habitable rooms over subjective outlook changes. Councils can defend via prior decisions and zoning compliance, but inspectors prioritise individual merits over precedent fears.
Inspector: Terrence Kemmann-Lane
