8 January 2004 · Minister for Local Government and the Environment
25, Castle Street, Peel, Isle Of Man, IM5 1al
The proposal was for a two-storey rear extension topped by a flat-roof sun terrace accessed from an extended roof space (replacing the rear roof pitch with flat roof), plus additional rear windows and a front roof dormer with roof light at a small terraced dwelling in Peel's Conservation Area.
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 Planning Committee refused due to rear extension and roof alterations (flat roof replacing pitched rear slope, sun terrace) adversely affecting dwelling character and harming special character of …
Refurbishment and amalgamation of properties within the town encouraged
Peel Local Plan policy encourages refurbishment as dwelling requires it for viability; officer/Inspector accepted principle of two-storey rear extension/kitchen/bedroom but tested design (flat roofs) against Conservation Area sympathy, finding harmful.
Policy of refurbishment and amalgamation of existing properties in Conservation Area
Applies to retain historic areas via alternative building use; appellant cited but Inspector found proposal failed sympathy test for alterations despite need.
Particular attention to alteration/extension in Conservation Area sympathetic to building/setting
Requires sympathetic manner; rear flat roofs/sun terrace deemed non-traditional/out of keeping, harming roofscape; front dormer sympathetic/acceptable.
Time limit
The approved development shall be commenced before the expiration of four years from the date of decision.
Approved plans
This approval relates to the installation of a dormer window and roof-light in the front pitch of the roof in accordance with drawing no. 03/53/01; no approval is granted to the other works included on this drawing.
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL; at review: support application, visual impact from Keown's Lane negligible (rarely used), works do not adversely affect Conservation Area
no views, no adverse traffic impacts
installation of mains wired interconnected smoke detectors recommended
Peel Town Commissioners supported the application, Highways Division had no views due to no adverse traffic impacts, and Fire and Rescue Service recommended smoke detection installation; no objections raised.
Peel Town Commissioners
SupportRECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.; The Commissioners wish to support the application and would indicate that the visual impact from Keown's Lane is negligible which is rarely use by the general public. The Commissioners would suggest that the proposed works do not adversely affect the Towns' conservation area.
Peel Town Commissioners
SupportThe Commissioners wish to support the application and would indicate that the visual impact from Keown's Lane is negligible which is rarely use by the general public. The Commissioners would suggest that the proposed works do not adversely affect the Towns' conservation area.
Isle of Man Fire And Rescue Service
No CommentI do not require to appear at the review hearing provided that the previously submitted written observations made on my behalf are taken into consideration by the Planning Committee.
Department of Transport Highways Division
No ObjectionThe Highways Division of the Department of Transport has no views on the following application, the application having been considered and having no adverse traffic impacts.
Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service
Conditional No ObjectionThe installation of mains wired, interconnected domestic smoke detection to BS 5446: Part 1: 1990 is recommended in accordance with section 1.5 of The Building Regulations 1991 - Approved Document B
Conditions requested: The installation of mains wired, interconnected domestic smoke detection to BS 5446: Part 1: 1990 is recommended in accordance with section 1.5 of The Building Regulations 1991 - Approved Document B
The original application for front dormer/rooflight and rear two-storey extensions with flat roof and balcony was refused by the Planning Committee. The appellant argued the works were sympathetic, citing local precedents and Local Plan policies encouraging refurbishment in the Conservation Area. The inspector found the front dormer acceptable due to limited visibility and noted its omission from the review refusal reasons, but deemed the rear flat roof and removal of traditional pitched roof incongruous and harmful to the Conservation Area's roofscape. The Minister split the decision, approving the front works with conditions and refusing the rear without prejudice to a resubmission with traditional pitched slate roof. Formal decisions issued 26 July 2004.
Precedent Value
Demonstrates split decisions possible for severable elements; traditional pitched roofs essential in Conservation Areas even for necessary refurbishments—resubmit with slate pitch as directed. Future applicants should avoid flat roofs and provide details on precedents' permissions.
Inspector: R S Hawthorne
