1 September 2004 · Minister for Department of Local Government and the Environment (upholding Planning Committee refusal on appeal)
23, Falkland Drive, Onchan, Isle Of Man, IM3 1eg
The proposal involved adding a first floor extension above an existing single-storey rear annex at a two-storey terraced dwelling, creating a larger bathroom and reconfigured fourth bedroom, with a flat roof tying into the existing two-storey rear outlet, rendered and painted cream to match.
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 Inspector concluded the main issue was whether the extension would appear dominant and oppressive from No. 21, causing significant harm to the neighbour's living environment.
recommend approval for planning purposes only; no objection to appeal on written evidence; passed under Building Regulations
no adverse traffic impacts; no views
Onchan Commissioners recommended approval, Highways Division had no views due to no adverse traffic impacts, while neighbouring resident J. Peach objected due to loss of daylight.
Key concern: reduction in daylight to neighbouring property
Onchan District Commissioners
SupportThe Commissioners would recommend that the application be APPROVED for planning purposes only.; The Commissioners have nothing further to add to their initial comments in respect of the application. They have no objection to the appeal being considered on written evidence.
Highways Division, Department of Transport
No CommentThe 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.
Miss. J. Peach
ObjectionI feel this upper extension will greatly reduce the amount of daylight into the rear ground floor rooms of my property which is adjacent to no.23.; I was unable to view the plans or make any objection by the 5th August 2004 as I was away on holiday that week.; I feel that in future it would be prudent, especially at this time of year, to allow more than a week for observations and objections to be lodged in case residents are away on holiday etc.
The original application for a first floor extension over an existing single storey rear annex was refused by the Planning Committee on 27 August 2004 primarily because it would introduce a two-storey element beyond the established pattern, creating a darker and more oppressive environment in the rear yard of No. 21. The appellant argued the extension was necessary for a larger bathroom and bedroom, would not overlook neighbours, match existing finishes, and have minimal impact on light given the site's constraints and existing structures, noting the neighbour withdrew objections and Onchan Commissioners approved under Building Regulations. The Planning Committee maintained it would significantly harm outlook, light, and create an enclosed view despite the withdrawal. The inspector, after written representations and a site visit, concluded the extension would form a very dominant and oppressive building due to its bulk combined with existing structures, causing significant harm to the neighbour's living environment. The appeal was recommended dismissed.
Precedent Value
This appeal demonstrates that even in urban terraces with constrained sites, extensions adding bulk and height beyond established patterns will likely fail if they significantly harm neighbour outlook, regardless of privacy benefits or withdrawn objections. Future applicants should prioritise designs that minimise massing increments and provide robust 3D visualisations of cumulative impacts.
Inspector: David G Hollis
