24 July 2007 · Minister for Local Government and the Environment (on appeal)
The Warehouse Bargrill, Harbour Road, Onchan, Isle Of Man, IM3 1bg
The proposal involved four detached buildings: two two-storey blocks with four apartments each in the north, a two-storey block with four apartments and basement parking in the south-east, and a three-storey block with 11 apartments plus communal facilities in the west, providing 36 parking spaces total.
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 approved the application on officer recommendation, finding it addressed previous refusals by reducing units from 27 to 23, resizing/repositioning buildings, removing balconies …
Policy O/RES/P/19 of Planning Circular 1/2000
Requires new residential properties in non-designated areas to fit with density, massing, design and character of adjacent dwellings. Officer found proposal compliant due to reduced scale/height/repositioning addressing prior concerns; Inspector disagreed, citing inadequate separation distances causing amenity harm despite changes.
Onchan Local Plan 2000 Policy O/RES/P/20
Requires at least three spaces per dwelling. 36 spaces provided (below standard but above 1 per unit); accepted due to sheltered housing likely lower car ownership, no Highways objection.
General Policy 2
Criterion (g) requires no adverse effect on amenity of local residents. Final refusal reason directly cites this failure due to privacy/overlooking.
Approve
Interest expressed; recognises previous refusals and suggests proposal addresses issues
Private representations object to the development due to loss of light, privacy, overlooking and domination of neighbouring properties; statutory consultees including utilities, drainage and disability access raise requirements or conditions but no outright objections.
Key concern: percolation tests required for soakaways
Andrew Jessopp
SupportI supported the previous application but note the reasons for its refusal at appeal. Clearly an attempt has been made to address the reasons for refusal and I hope that the revised layout will satisfy the parties previously affected by the proposal.
IoMWA
Conditional No ObjectionThe Authority wish to express their interest in the following planning applications, and request that a condition of planning be that the applicant must contact the Authority to ensure that a connection is obtained for water supply purposes
Conditions requested: 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; For connections to Flats and Apartments the following apply - "Water Supply To Flats And Apartments – Regulations", and if applicable a "Form Of Undertaking In Respect Of Supply Pipes" will be required
Disability Access Office
Conditional No ObjectionApartment blocks should meet the following requirements.
Conditions requested: Where parking is provided, which includes provision for visitors then five percent of unassigned spaces should be designated for disabled parking; Entrance’s should be at least 800mm wide and level; Bathrooms should be wet room design with the appropriate handrails around the bath, shower and toilet; All public corridors should be of sufficient width and free from obstruction as to allow a wheelchair user to pass other users of the corridor; The primary entrance to all apartments should be at least 850mm wide; Where apartments are over more than one level then a lift should be provided. The lift should be large enough to allow wheelchair users with an assistant to enter and turn around. The controls need to be at a height that everyone can reach and use. Visual and audible announcements should be fitted; If the lift can’t be used in a fire then a refuge point should be
Manx Electricity Authority (MEA)
No ObjectionPlease remove our objection as the engineer has spoken to the architect and is happy and an official letter will follow next week
DoT Drainage Division
Conditional No Objectionthe Drainage Division hereby request that Onchan Commissioners defer any approval on this application until the necessary percolation tests are carried out and approved
Conditions requested: defer any approval on this application until the necessary percolation tests are carried out and approved in order to support the soakaway proposal; in the event that percolation tests are unsatisfactory the applicant is required to contact the Drainage Division to discuss an alternative means of disposal; The Drainage Division would not give permission for the discharge of surface water into the existing foul system
The original application (07/00883/B) for redevelopment of a vacant former cabaret/restaurant site into 22 sheltered housing apartments with warden's accommodation was approved by the Planning Committee on 19 July 2007 on the officer's recommendation, following amendments to address prior refusals (06/00057/B by committee and 06/00960/B overturned on appeal). Local residents Mr D Bain (18 Furman Close) and Mr S Hampson (2 Marine View Close) appealed the approval, arguing high density, incongruous development, overlooking, overbearing impact, and amenity harm. The applicant (Howstrake Developments Ltd) and planning authority defended the scheme as compliant with policies, with design changes (reduced units from 26 to 22, repositioned windows to bedrooms/studies, removed balconies and living room windows facing neighbours) addressing previous inspector's concerns. Inspector Self conducted a site visit and inquiry on 25 October 2007, concluding that despite improvements, separation distances (e.g., 5.4m to boundary near 11 Kirkway, 6.4-13.8m to Marine View Close) were insufficient for privacy, with potential overlooking from first-floor habitable rooms (bedrooms/studies used flexibly by elderly occupants) harming amenities of properties including 11 Kirkway, 18 Furman Close, and 2 Marine View Close, contrary to General Policy 2(g). He recommended the appeals be allowed and permission refused on 8 November 2007.
Precedent Value
This appeal demonstrates that even substantial amendments addressing prior refusal reasons may fail if separation distances remain below ~20m for facing habitable rooms, especially with elderly occupants' flexible use; future applicants must ensure >=20m or non-habitable glazing/positioning, and avoid over-reliance on vegetation screens.
Inspector: Graham F Self MA MSc(Eng) FRTPI
