10/00432/BRefused

29 June 2010 · Senior Planning Officer (delegated authority under Article 3(13) of the Town and Country (Development Procedure) Order 2005)

Alterations and extension to dwelling, creation of garden decking and rendering of adjacent property walls

67, Ballaquark, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM2 2er

Received25 Mar 2010

Validated6 Apr 2010

Decided29 Jun 2010

3 months

Received25 Mar 2010

Validated6 Apr 2010

Decided29 Jun 2010

3 months

Why was this refused?

Impact on street scene character
Neighbour amenity harm to No.68 (overlooking, overshadowing, light loss, tunnelling)
Incongruous design of extension roof
Unsuitable rendering material
Policy conflict with GP2 and ENV42

The proposal involved a rear extension projecting 4.4m to No.67 Ballaquark, a wall below the front bay window, decking in an excavated raised garden area, and smooth brown dash rendering to the walls of both No.67 and No.68.

Refusal Reasons

✗The proposed extension would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 by reason of its siting, design and projection which would result: a) in the introduction of an unsympathetic and incongruous feature within the street scene that would be out of keeping with the general established character of the area; b) in demonstrable harm to the amenities of No. 68 Ballaquark from increased visual intrusion, overshadowing, loss of light and from a tunnelling effect.
✗The proposed rendering of No's 67 and 68 Ballaquark would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 in that it would introduce an unsympathetic and incongruous feature within the street scene that would be out of character within the area and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality.

Documents (3)

📐

Plans and Elevations

25 Mar 101pp

Find Similar Applications

Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.

⚖️

Compare this application

See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.

Search for an application to compare with

Decision & Reasoning

Refused29 June 2010

The officer assessed the proposal against General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, which require development to respect the character and identity of the loca…

Policies Assessed (2)

GP2

General Policy 2

General Policy 2 requires development to be sympathetic to the character of the area. The officer found both extension and rendering failed this by being unsympathetic and incongruous in the stone-clad street scene, with specific design mismatches like hipped vs gable roofs and brown dash render.

ENV42

Environment Policy 42

ENV42 states new development in settlements must take account of particular character and identity of buildings and landscape, prohibiting inappropriate features harming visual amenity. Assessed against extension's projection/siting harming No.68 amenities and street scene, and rendering's material change; no mitigation possible due to visibility and neighbour proximity.

Public Comments (1)

SupportDrainage Services Manager (Mr Peter A.E Quirk)(statutory consultee)

no objection in principle subject to no discharge of surface water to foul drainage systems

Why was this refused?

Impact on street scene character

Neighbour amenity harm to No.68 (overlooking, overshadowing, light loss, tunnelling)

Incongruous design of extension roof

Unsuitable rendering material

Policy conflict with GP2 and ENV42

Refusal Reasons

✗The proposed extension would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 by reason of its siting, design and projection which would result: a) in the introduction of an unsympathetic and incongruous feature within the street scene that would be out of keeping with the general established character of the area; b) in demonstrable harm to the amenities of No. 68 Ballaquark from increased visual intrusion, overshadowing, loss of light and from a tunnelling effect.
✗The proposed rendering of No's 67 and 68 Ballaquark would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 in that it would introduce an unsympathetic and incongruous feature within the street scene that would be out of character within the area and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality.

Policies Assessed (2)

GP2

General Policy 2

ENV42

Environment Policy 42