14 February 2024 · Planning Committee
15, Third Avenue, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM2 6al
The proposal involves erecting a single storey side extension (5.5m wide at front, 4.9m at rear, 16.1m long, 4.6m ridge height, 3.2m eaves) for an open plan living/kitchen/dining area, along with loft conversion via rooflights, external cladding in white horizontal clapper board, new windows/doors, chimney, and landsca…
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 proposals accord with General Policy 2, Strategic Policies 1 and 3, and Transport Policies 6 and 7 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016, and the principles of the Residential Design Guidance 2021, as th…
General Policy 2
Requires development to respect character/appearance, residential amenity, highway safety. Officer assessed proposal as improving dwelling appearance in varied streetscene, minimal amenity harm due to setbacks/hedging, compliant overall.
Strategic Policy 1
Promotes efficient land use. Proposal on existing residential plot with 32.2% built coverage post-development, not at variance with locality.
Strategic Policy 3 - To respect the character of our towns and villages
Safeguards local character. Streetscene varied (mix renders, claddings, designs); proposal fits seamlessly without dominant style.
Transport Policy 6 - Equal weight for vehicles and pedestrians
Addresses transport impacts. No negative highway effects; improvements in parking/turning.
Transport Policy 7
Ensures adequate parking. Retained garage, 2 spaces unchanged, better layout.
Environment Policy 4
Protects biodiversity. Replacement hedging, no trees removed, landscaping conditioned.
Environment Policy 42 - character and need to adhere to local distinctiveness
Adheres to local distinctiveness. Materials reflect streetscene variety.
Time limit
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.
Materials approval
Prior to the installation of external finishes and materials, a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, windows, doors and external walls, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
Landscaping scheme
Notwithstanding the details that have been submitted, a detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Department in writing to be agreed within three months of this approval. The landscape plan shall include details of hard surfacing materials, planting plans (at a scale not less than 1:100), written specification of planting and cultivation works to be undertaken and schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers / densities and a programme for the implementation, completion and subsequent management of the proposed landscaping. No Wildlife Act 1990 Schedule 8 non-native invasive plant species, or cherry laurel, Rugosa rose or buddleia are to be planted on site. Any proposed planting should be in accordance with details contained within a Planting Palette provided as part of the plan. The hard surfacing details shall include details of planters and samples showing the texture and colour of the materials to be used. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure that the development achieves a high standard of design, layout and amenity and makes provision for hard and soft landscaping which contributes to the creation of a high quality environment.
no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking
no objections
no objection subject to landscaping condition
Multiple neighbour representations object to the proposal primarily due to privacy loss from dormers and balcony, overbearing impact from the side extension, inappropriate materials, and design out of character with the street; Highway Services and Douglas Borough Council raise no objections.
Key concern: overbearing side extension due to height, length and proximity to neighbouring boundaries
Highway Services HDC
No ObjectionAfter reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking.; The Applicant is advised to consider installing an electric vehicle charging point to aid net zero objectives.
Douglas Borough Council
No ObjectionDouglas Borough Council has no objections
Conditions requested: This development must not prohibit the refuse bins from being removed from the highway to be stored within the curtilage of the property between refuse collections. No refuse bins should be stored on the highway.
Douglas Borough Council
No ObjectionDouglas Borough Council has no objections.
Sarah Corlett Town Planning Consultancy Ltd on behalf of owners of 17 Third Avenue
ObjectionThe distance between the proposed dormer and the internal rooms of number 17 is around 14m - significantly less than the 20m recommended in the Residential Design Guide.; General Policy 2b, c and g of the Strategic Plan.
Conditions requested: replace dormers with rooflights high on roof plane; screening at north western end of balcony; clarification of shed and decking heights and PD compliance
Sarah Corlett Town Planning Consultancy Ltd on behalf of owners of 13 Third Avenue
ObjectionThe side extension which will be built as close as half a metre from the mutual boundary and extending to a height of over 3m.; General Policy 2g
Conditions requested: reduce length and width of side extension to align with existing ground floor windows and increase distance from boundary
Owners of 16 Third Avenue
ObjectionThe size of the dormer windows has now been increased significantly and the glazing has been moved to the cheeks of the dormers. This has made the dormers even more unsightly.; None have a full cladding finish
Sarah Corlett Town Planning Consultancy Ltd on behalf of owners of 17 Third Avenue
Objectionthere are no large second floor dormers within Third Avenue
Sarah Corlett Town Planning Consultancy Ltd on behalf of owners of 13 Third Avenue
Objectionthe side of the garage element being 3.8m high as measured at the boundary with number 13 and positioned only 0.16m from it
Owners of 13 Third Avenue
ObjectionThe maximum height of the extension is 4.65 metres (including the pitched roof).
Conditions requested: further reduction in size/scale, pare back from boundary and reduce length from 16m
The original application (23/00654/B) for a single storey side extension with garaging and accommodation over, loft conversion with dormers, remodelling and landscaping was amended prior to determination by deleting garaging, balconies, dormers and reducing extension size, and approved by the Planning Committee on 12 February 2024. Neighbours at No 13 Third Avenue appealed, arguing the extension's size, scale, proximity (0.5m from boundary), height (4.65m ridge) and length (16m) would cause overbearing impact, loss of light and overshadowing to their garden and living areas. The applicant and Council defended the scheme as compliant with policy, with minimal impacts due to single storey nature, northern orientation, mature hedging and street character variety. The inspector found significant adverse visual impact and overbearing presence on No 13's outlook due to height, built-up ground levels and proximity, despite no material harm to light or character/appearance, recommending the appeal be allowed to refuse permission. Outcome pending Minister's decision on inspector's recommendation.
Precedent Value
Demonstrates inspectors will independently reassess neighbour impacts from affected property's ground level, elevating effective heights via built-up land; overbearing/outlook can override single storey/minimal light loss arguments even in varied street scenes. Future objectors should prioritise precise elevational measurements and site visits.
Inspector: Mrs Jennifer Vyse MRTPI, DipTP, DipPBM
