24 June 2011 · Delegated - Director of Planning and Building Control (Michael Gallagher)
10 Woodbourne Villas, 42, Alexander Drive, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM2 3qg
The proposal involved demolishing a small existing utility room annex at the rear of a mid-terrace house in a Conservation Area and replacing it with a single-storey infill extension measuring 2.6m wide, projecting 3.85m rearwards, with a height of 3.4m adjacent to the boundary with No.
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 assessed that the proposed extension, projecting 3.85m rearwards with a height of 3.4m on the shared boundary and 3.9m at the outrigger join, would replace a lower existing utility room (a…
General Policy 2
General Policy 2 requires avoiding adverse effects on the amenity of local residents. The officer found the proposal conflicted with part (g) as the extension's scale and proximity would significantly harm the living conditions of No. 11 through overbearing impact and tunnelling on the dining room outlook.
Environment Policy 35
ENV35 permits only development preserving or enhancing Conservation Area character. The rear extension, not visible from the public highway between rear projections, was assessed as having no adverse impact on the area's character or appearance.
Extensions to Dwellings in built up areas or sites designated for residential use
Para 8.12.1 presumes in favour of extensions in built-up residential areas without Conservation Area controls where no adverse impact on adjacent properties or surroundings. Despite no area-wide harm, the neighbour impact failed this test; note site is in Conservation Area but policy still applied.
No objection
Do not oppose
no objection
The original application for demolition of an existing rear annex and erection of a replacement single-storey extension was refused citing conflict with General Policy 2 and paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan due to adverse impact on the neighbouring property. Appellants argued the extension would improve their property, replace poor existing structures, and not harm neighbours, citing lack of objections and precedents. The Council defended the refusal on grounds of overbearing impact and tunnelling effect on No. 11. The inspector found the proposal would cause significant visual harm and detriment to No. 11's living conditions, outweighing benefits to the appellants, and conflicting with policy. The appeal was dismissed on 15 November 2011.
Precedent Value
This appeal emphasises that extensions close to boundaries causing overbearing or tunnelling effects on neighbours will be refused even without objections, prioritising future occupier amenity over appellant benefits. Future applicants must provide robust evidence on precedents (e.g. approval dates, dimensions) and demonstrate minimal neighbour impact through detailed comparisons.
Inspector: Stephen Amos MA (Cantab) MCD MRTPI
