29 June 2010 · Senior Planning Officer (delegated under Article 3(13) of the Town and Country (Development Procedure) Order 2005)
94, Ballaquark, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM2 2ew
The proposal involved demolishing the existing conservatory at the rear of a residential property in a cul-de-sac in Douglas and replacing it with a permanent sun lounge extension measuring 5.6m projection from the rear, 3.989m width, and 3.6m ridge height, using concrete interlocking tiles and matching Tudor Stone or …
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 the key issues as impact on neighbouring properties and street scene. For No. 93 Ballaquark, the proposed extension would be set approximately 400mm off the boundary, project 5.6m…
General Policy 2
General Policy 2 (para 8.12.1) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 requires development to respect residential amenities. The officer found the proposal contrary due to siting, design, and projection causing harm to No. 93 Ballaquark's amenities via visual intrusion and overbearing impact.
Environment Policy 42
Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 protects residential amenity. Assessed as failed because the extension's proximity (400mm to boundary) and length (5.6m projection) would be overbearing and intrusive to the neighbour.
No objection
No objection in principle subject to surface water not discharging into the foul drainage system
NO OBJECTION AT ALL to the extension plan... I DO NOT think it will be obtrusive, in fact I believe it will be most beneficial to my property by increasing the privacy of its rear garden
The original application for a rear sun lounge extension was refused by the Senior Planning Officer on 28 June 2010 due to harm to the amenities of No. 93 Ballaquark from visual intrusion and overbearing impact, contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42. Appellants argued the proposal improves privacy by removing glazed elements, has lower visual impact than permitted development alternatives, and is supported by the neighbour at No. 93. The inspector acknowledged concerns about visual impact but found benefits in reduced privacy invasion and noise, with neighbour support as a material consideration, balancing the arguments evenly in favour of approval. The Minister accepted the inspector's recommendation on 8 December 2010 and granted approval subject to conditions.
Precedent Value
This appeal shows that neighbour support from the directly affected party can be a material consideration tipping the balance in close cases, even where visual harm is acknowledged. Applicants should secure documented support from impacted neighbours and emphasise specific amenity improvements over the status quo.
Inspector: Graham Self MA MSc FRTPI
