6 April 2004 · Minister for Local Government and the Environment (upholding Planning Committee refusal on appeal, per Inspector J Trevor Graham's recommendation)
Shore House, 33, The Promenade, Castletown, Isle Of Man, IM9 1bg
The proposal involved covering an existing flat roof, accessible from a first-floor living room, with timber decking (approximately 40mm thick) and adding a timber handrail to the rear section for safety, particularly for the applicants' children.
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 as 'the proposed decking and balcony area is considered to be an unneighbourly form of development insofar as additional noise and disturbance is likely to take place at…
no views / no adverse traffic impacts / no objections
no objections
Neighbours Mr and Mrs Rice submitted strong objections citing noise, privacy loss, property damage, safety risks, aesthetics, sunlight reduction, and precedent concerns; Highways Division had no objection due to no adverse traffic impacts.
Key concern: noise from roof deck use affecting all floors of adjacent property including bedrooms
Mr and Mrs Rice
ObjectionThis is clearly unacceptable to us.; Any reduction in either valuation or marketability of our property is totally unacceptable; we are not willing for this to happen; we strongly believe that their proposals are unacceptable and have the potential to create significant issues both now and in the future.
Highways Division, Department of Transport
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.
The original application (04/00305/B) for construction of decking on an existing flat roof and installation of a timber handrail on the rear section was refused by the Planning Committee due to likely additional noise and disturbance at first floor level, creating an unneighbourly development. The appellant argued the roof is already accessible and used, decking is cosmetic, handrail is for child safety, no impact on sunlight/privacy/noise, supported by photographs and evidence of limited occupancy. Neighbours (Mr and Mrs Rice of Grey Cottage) objected citing noise, privacy loss, sunlight reduction, visual impact, and future risks. The inspector found the proposals would increase roof use, leading to potential overlooking, privacy loss, and domestic clutter affecting appearance, despite minimal existing noise issues; no handrail details provided. The inspector recommended the appeal be refused.
Precedent Value
This appeal shows inspectors prioritise potential for increased amenity use and overlooking from roof alterations, even on existing accessible areas; applicants must provide detailed designs and evidence controlling future clutter/privacy impacts. Cosmetic upgrades alone insufficient if perceived to encourage problematic use.
Inspector: J Trevor Graham
