23 February 2010 · Senior Planning Officer (delegated under Article 3(13) of the Town and Country (Development Procedure) Order 2005)
26, Cronk Avenue, Onchan, Isle Of Man, IM3 3df
The application sought permission to demolish an existing garage and build a two-storey side extension to a semi-detached dwelling, providing new kitchen, WC, utility/workshop, master bedroom, en-suite, and dressing room spaces, while widening the driveway and highway access.
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 noted that the two-storey side extension is a common way to extend semi-detached dwellings and would have limited impact on public and private amenity.
Onchan Local Plan 2000 Policy O/RES/P/20
This policy requires at least three car parking spaces per dwelling (including garage) for new residential development and opposes extensions or conversions resulting in loss of parking space behind the building line. The officer assessed that the proposal removes garage parking without adequate replacement front space (4.9m depth vs 5.5m required), directly failing this test.
Policy O/RES/P/21 of the Onchan Local Plan (Planning Circular 1/2000)
This policy generally supports extensions and alterations to residential property if appropriate in scale, massing, design, appearance, and impact on adjacent property. The officer found the proposal acceptable under this policy, noting it as a common extension type with limited amenity impact.
General Policy 2
This policy permits development in line with area plans if it meets criteria including adequate parking, servicing, manoeuvring space, and no adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows (criteria h and i). The officer concluded failure due to inadequate parking provision after extension, relying on Highways objection for the depth shortfall.
No Objection subject to the following conditions: There must be NO discharge of surface water (including that from roofs and paved areas) 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 original application for a two-storey extension to replace the garage and widen the driveway was refused by the Senior Planning Officer on 18 February 2010 due to loss of on-site parking space contrary to policies O/RES/P/20 and GP2. The appellant argued the existing garage was too small for vehicles, replacement spaces were adequate (one compliant, one marginally short at 5.126m vs 5.5m standard), cited precedents of similar approvals nearby, and provided medical evidence for a child's need for separate bedroom plus support from MHK. The inspector acknowledged the extension's acceptability in design terms and family needs but found parking inadequate (replacement space short of 5.5m and affected by front door access), rejecting precedents and recommending dismissal. The Minister disagreed, noting the existing garage's inadequacy and deeming parking not so unsatisfactory as to warrant refusal, allowing the appeal on 1 June 2010 with conditions including prior completion of widened driveway.
Precedent Value
Demonstrates Minister can override inspector's recommendation where parking shortfall is marginal, existing provision poor, and family needs compelling; future applicants should provide precise measurements, precedents, and medical evidence while offering mitigations like prior parking works (as conditioned here).
Inspector: Neil A C Holt TD BArch(Hons) DipTP DipCons RIBA MRTPI
