27 November 2009 · Delegated - Senior Planning Officer (Mrs P Faragher, Deputy Secretary to the Planning Committee)
52, Howe Road, Onchan, Isle Of Man, IM3 2az
The application sought permission for a rear sunroom (4.3m x 2.68m, painted render walls, flat felt roof) and a single-storey side extension (10.1m depth x 3.2m wide max, painted render walls, flat roof with two roof windows, protruding 3.5m forward of the front elevation, heights 2.7m front to 3.6m rear due to sloping…
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 viewed the site and from the neighbour's property (18.11.2009), concluding that 'due to a combination of its size, location and the orientation of the site the impact of the proposed devel…
Policy O/RES/P21 of the written statement (Planning Circular 1/2000) that accompanies the Onchan Local Plan
Requires extensions appropriate in scale, massing, design, appearance and impact on adjacent property. Officer assessed side extension compliant due to size/location/orientation not warranting refusal; inspector concurred no significant amenity harm.
General Policy 2
Permits development in residential zoning if no adverse amenity/character impact on locals/locality (g). Officer found no unacceptable residential amenity/street scene harm; para 8.12.1 presumes favour of extensions without adverse adjacent/area impact. Inspector upheld as no significant harm.
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 drawing no.s HLK/09/0288/1, HLK/09/0288/2, HLK/09/0288/3 and HLK/09/0288/4 date stamped the 7th October 2009.
recommend that the application be APPROVED for planning purposes only
Do not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications
No objection
Drainage Division offered no objection subject to surface water drainage conditions; Department of Transport had no highways objections; Onchan Commissioners recommended approval; neighbour Mr & Mrs Bendall objected due to loss of light and overshadowing.
Drainage Division, Department of Transport
Conditional No ObjectionNo Objection subject to the following conditions; There are no known existing surface water sewers within the area.
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 use of soakaways are subject to Building Control approval and if this approval is not granted, the Drainage Division would not give permission for the discharge of surface water into the existing foul system and an alternative means of disposal would have to be sought.; Percolation tests are conducted to support the applicant's proposal, in the event that percolation tests fail, the applicant is required to contact the Drainage Division.; The applicant is requested to supply the Division a copy of any Building Control Application in relation to the surface water discharge from this development.
Onchan District Commissioners
SupportThe Commissioners recommend that the application be APPROVED for planning purposes only.
Onchan District Commissioners
SupportThe Commissioners have nothing further to add or detract from their views made at the initial stage that the application be approved.
Department of Transport
No ObjectionDo not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications
The original application for alterations and extensions to a dwelling at 52 Howe Road was permitted by the Planning Committee despite neighbour objections. Mr and Mrs Bendall, adjoining residents, appealed on grounds of harm to their residential amenity, including loss of light, overbearing impact, maintenance issues, and terracing effect contrary to policies like O/RES/P21 and Strategic Plan 2007 GP2. The applicants and Planning Committee argued minimal impact due to size, location, and single-storey flat roof design. The inspector, after inquiry and site visit, found no significant harm to living conditions, noting the affected window served non-habitable space and sufficient construction space. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the original permission with suggested conditions.
Precedent Value
This appeal shows inspectors prioritise evidence of actual harm over neighbour perceptions, especially for minor light/outlook changes to non-habitable rooms. Applicants succeed by providing construction assurances and noting policy support from local authorities.
Inspector: David G Hollis
