13 April 2015 · Director of Planning and Building Control (delegated powers)
59, Cronk Ny Greiney, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM2 5lh
The application sought permission to add a large flat-roofed dormer to the front roof slope, projecting 7.3m from the ridge with a width of nearly 12.6m and height of under 2m above the roof, and a smaller rear dormer projecting 1.6m with width under 3.6m and height under 2.4m, both finished in smooth render and zinc r…
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 proposal against General Policy 2, which requires development to respect the site and surroundings in terms of scale, form, design and not adversely affect the character of th…
General Policy 2
GP2 permits development in accordance with zoning if it respects siting, layout, scale, form, design and does not adversely affect townscape character or local amenities. The officer tested the dormers' scale and design against the single-storey character; rear dormer complied as not overbearing or overlooking, but front dormer failed for being non-subordinate, prominent and incongruous in the street scene.
no objection
Douglas Corporation has no objection to application 15/00231/B among several listed applications.
Douglas Corporation
No ObjectionDouglas Corporation have no objection to the proposals listed below.; It should be noted that the above comments are made in relation to the Town and Country Planning Acts and does not imply approval or consent under any other relevant enactment, byelaw, order or regulation.
The original application for front and rear roof dormers was refused by the Senior Planning Officer under delegated powers due to the front dormer's detrimental impact on visual amenities and street scene, contrary to General Policy 2. The appellant argued the design respects the site, no neighbour objections, diverse local house styles, and cited a similar approved precedent at PA10/00734/B. The inspector found the rear dormer acceptable and the front dormer not incongruous given the varied street scene, variety of house types including flat-roofed dormers, and presumption in favour of extensions under paragraph 8.12.1. The proposal complied with General Policy 2(b) and (c). Appeal allowed with a standard time condition.
Precedent Value
In mixed-style estates, large dormers can succeed if setbacks/materials mitigate prominence and no amenity harm; inspector prioritises development plan presumption for extensions over subjective design concerns where streetscene lacks uniformity.
Inspector: Ruth V MacKenzie BA(Hons) MRTPI
