30 October 2009 · Senior Planning Officer
3, Rosedene Avenue, Onchan, Isle Of Man, IM3 3hf
The proposal involved erecting a side extension to replace an existing garage and installing dormer windows on the rear elevation to create habitable rooms in the roof space of a two-storey detached dwelling in a residential cul-de-sac.
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 concluded the increase in building width from the side extension does not unduly harm the street scene, making public amenity impact acceptable.
Onchan Local Plan 2000 Policy O/RES/P/20
Requires at least three parking spaces per dwelling including garage; permission not generally forthcoming for extensions resulting in loss of parking behind building line. Officer noted policy does not rule out loss entirely, considered garage viability low and two remaining spaces meet Strategic Plan standard, limiting harm.
Policy O/RES/P/21 of the Onchan Local Plan (Planning Circular 1/2000)
Extensions/alterations generally not opposed if appropriate in scale, massing, design, appearance and impact on adjacent property. Proposal assessed as appropriate, sitting comfortably on site without overdevelopment.
General Policy 2
Permits development in accordance with Area Plan if respecting site/surroundings in siting/layout/scale/form/design, not adversely affecting amenity/character/highway safety/parking. Officer and inspector found proposal complies, with presumption in favour of extensions in built-up areas per para 8.12.1 if no adverse neighbour/area impact.
Time limit
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
Approved plans
This approval relates to the location plan and drawing no.s AT1005.1 and AT1005.2 date stamped the 7th August 2009.
Do not oppose; has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications; 2 off street parking spaces still provided
No objection subject to no surface water discharge to foul systems and protection of public sewer
Statutory consultees Highways Division and Drainage Division raised no objections (latter with conditions), while Onchan District Commissioners objected due to loss of parking; multiple neighbouring residents strongly objected citing privacy loss, overdevelopment, and visual impact.
Key concern: loss of parking space behind the building line contrary to the Onchan Local Plan
Highways Division
No ObjectionDo not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications; Note: 2 off street parking spaces are still being provided
Drainage Division
Conditional No ObjectionNo Objection subject to the following conditions; The use of soakaways are subject to Building Control approval
Conditions requested: There must be NO discharge of surface water (directly or indirectly) from this proposed development to any foul drainage system(s) so as to comply with the requirements of the Department of Transport Drainage Division and the Sewerage Act 1999.; The line of the sewer(s) must be identified before development work commences. The sewer(s) must be fully protected whilst all building works are being carried out. No part of the proposed development may be constructed, nor any trees planted, within three metres of any public sewer either at the time of construction or at any time in the future.
Onchan District Commissioners
ObjectionThe Commissioners recommend that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons; The Commissioners have nothing further to add or detract from their views made at the initial stage that the application be refused
The original application 08/00998/B for an extension above a garage at 12 Hillcrest Grove to form ancillary accommodation was refused by the Planning Committee despite officer recommendation, on grounds of scale and form making it no longer subordinate. Appellants argued no amenity harm and compliance with policy. Inspector found minor amenity harm but decisive visual incongruity in bungalow streetscene, dismissing the appeal. Separately, appellants appealed the approval of 09/01322/B for side extension and dormers at 3 Rosedene Avenue, citing privacy loss, streetscene harm citing the prior refusal, and parking issues. Inspector found limited visual impact, acceptable overlooking due to distances and screening, and no parking evidence, dismissing the appeal and upholding permission. Both appeals dismissed.
Precedent Value
Demonstrates inspectors prioritise visual harmony in bungalow areas over minor height increases if incongruous; distances >20-30m with screening usually acceptable for overlooking. Future applicants should ensure proposals subordinate and match local character; appellants learn comparable precedents need site-specific similarity.
Inspector: Neil A C Holt (AP08/0204); David Bushby (AP09/0166)
