12 March 2007 · Director of Planning and Building Control (M. I. McCauley)
5, Stanley Place, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM2 4es
The proposal involved demolishing an existing single storey rear extension at a three-storey terraced house and replacing it with a two-storey extension (kitchen/dining on ground floor, games room on first floor) projecting 6m to the rear boundary, 5m wide, rising 5m to roof level (6m to top of railings), with a roof t…
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, by reason of its siting, design, height, mass and extent of projection, would cause demonstrable harm to the amenities of No.4A Stanley Place occupier…
Do not oppose
No objection
does not object to the proposal
Douglas Borough Council and Highways Division both have no objection to application 06/01901/B.
Douglas Borough Council
No ObjectionDouglas Corporation have no objection to the proposals listed below.; 06/01901/B Demolition of existing single storey extension and erection of a two storey replacement extension with roof terrace over, 5 Stanley Place
Highways Division
No ObjectionDo not oppose
The original application for demolition of a single-storey rear extension and erection of a two-storey replacement with roof terrace was refused by the Planning Committee on 09/03/2007 primarily due to overbearing impact and overlooking on No 4A Stanley Place. Appellants argued minimal boundary extension, existing uses and overlooking, neighbour non-objection, and willingness to amend design (e.g. obscure glazing, repositioned railings). The council defended the refusal citing visual oppressiveness, enclosure of No 4A's confined yard, and increased overlooking from easier roof terrace access. The inspector, after site visit, agreed the proposal would be overbearing and oppressive due to added height, worsen overlooking despite existing issues, and rejected mitigations and precedents. The appeal was dismissed on 21/05/07.
Precedent Value
Demonstrates inspectors prioritise long-term public interest in neighbour amenity over current occupier views or incremental harms; applicants must prove proposals do not worsen confined spaces, even if replacing poor extensions - robust overlooking mitigations and height reductions essential in tight urban rears.
Inspector: Graham F Self
