26 September 2006 · Delegated - Director of Planning and Building Control (M. I. McCauley)
2a, Victoria Place, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM2 4et
The proposal involves demolishing a single storey pitched roof shop/store and replacing it with a single storey hipped roof dwelling including kitchen, garage, lounge on ground floor with French doors to a rear patio (2.13m x 8.5m), and two bedrooms plus bathroom in the roof space served by a 6.5m front dormer and obsc…
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 key issues including highways, neighbour amenity, proposal amenity, impact on registered buildings/streetscene, and precedent.
Douglas Local Plan Order 1998
Zones site as predominantly residential area. Officer assessed proposal replaces non-residential shop/store use without harm, improving residential character; no conflict as single dwelling fits zoning.
Time limit
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
Approved drawings
This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings 3/1/06, 3/2/06 and 3/3/06 all received on 25th May 2006.
Roof materials
The roof(s) must be finished in dark natural slate.
Setback for visibility
The proposed dwelling shall be set back 1.35m from the lane to afford pedestrian visibility.
Forecourt and boundary scheme
Prior to the commencement of any building operations, a detailed scheme must be submitted to and agreed by the Planning Authority. Such scheme, relating to the area covered by the forecourt / front boundary, should detail brickwork paving and also include the provision of a dwarf wall / fence along the front boundary of the site.
Do not oppose subject to condition for 1.35m setback from lane for pedestrian visibility
no objection
note on contacting byelaws inspector for supply change
recommends mains wired smoke detection
no real objection but concern re outlook, separation, rear access
Multiple public objections raised concerns over visual impact on registered buildings, loss of light, privacy, parking, and amenity, while statutory consultees including Douglas Borough Engineer, IoM Water Authority, and DOT Highways raised no objections or conditional no objections.
Douglas Borough Engineer
No ObjectionDouglas Corporation have no objection to the proposals listed below.
IoM Water Authority
Conditional No ObjectionThe applicant should contact the IoMWA Byelaws Inspector (Michael Karran), tel. 69 59 57
Conditions requested: a condition of planning be that the applicant must contact the Authority to ensure that a connection is obtained for water supply purposes, or an amendment to the existing supply under the terms of the Water Supply Byelaws.
DOT Highways
Conditional No ObjectionDo Not Oppose, subject to the imposition of the following conditions
Conditions requested: The proposed dwelling shall be set back 1.35m from the lane to afford pedestrian visibility.
Andrew Jessopp
Conditional No ObjectionI have no real objection to the principle of redeveloping this site; concern about the outlook from the proposed dwelling, its 'separation' from the existing dwelling and access to the rear of No 2
The original 2004 application (04/0955) to replace a single-storey shop/store with a shop/garage and flat over was refused by the Planning Committee primarily for retail unsuitability, design incompatibility, traffic/parking issues, and privacy impacts; the 2005 inquiry appeal was dismissed by Inspector Michael Hurley due to inappropriate retail introduction, poor parking, privacy loss, and design concerns in a residential area near Registered Buildings. Following this, a new application (06/00886/B) to replace the shop/store with a single dwelling chalet-bungalow was permitted by the Department in 2006. Third-party appellant Mrs V Cottle appealed this approval, raising concerns over amenity impacts, light loss, privacy, and character; the 2007 inquiry inspector assessed effects on neighbours and found no unacceptable harm to living conditions, recommending dismissal to uphold the permission with conditions removing permitted development rights.
Precedent Value
Highlights sequential strategy success: retail replacement fails but residential does not if amenity preserved; inspectors prioritise evidenced impacts over objections, value unique sites, and favour improvements over derelict structures.
Inspector: Michael Hurley / null
