27 March 2008 · Delegated - Senior Planning Officer (Mrs F Mullen)
44, Victoria Road, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM2 4hq
The proposal involved building a two-storey block of four apartments attached to No.44 Victoria Road, matching its height but with a gable roof instead of hipped, including uPVC doors and windows, a garage, and 11 parking spaces (8 rear, 2 front, 1 garage) accessed via an opening at ground floor level to the rear garde…
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 gable-ended building attached to the hipped-roof semi-detached pair (Nos.42-44 Victoria Road) would create an incongruous addition by unbalancing the symmetrical…
General Policy 2
Requires development to respect existing character and identity of locality. Officer found the gable-ended addition to hipped-roof semis incongruous, unbalancing the pair and harming visual amenities despite residential zoning.
Environment Policy 42
Protects visual amenities and building character. Proposal failed as it did not take account of adjoining properties' features like hipped roofs and symmetry, creating detrimental street scene impact.
Transport Policy 4
Requires safe access with adequate visibility splays (2.4m x 70m). Access failed due to uncontrolled pillar impeding right-hand splay, risking highway safety.
Housing Policy 6
Permits residential development in zoned areas with good design per local plan brief. Principle accepted due to residential zoning, but design failed visual amenity tests.
No objection subject to conditions on drainage and sewer protection
Applicant should consult with the Fire Safety Department as the proposal falls within the scope of the Fire Precautions (Flats) Regulations 1996
The proposed flats must comply with the Housing (Flats) Regulations 1982
The original application for erection of a block of four apartments attached to No. 44 Victoria Road was refused by the Department. The appellant argued the proposal complied with officer requests post prior refusal, respected the mixed street character, and improved the brownfield site. The inspector assessed bulk/massing upsetting symmetry of semi-detached pair, poor detailed design elements, insufficient rear parking harming living conditions, and inadequate access visibility. The Minister accepted the inspector's recommendation to dismiss the appeal, confirming refusal with expanded reasons on over-development, character harm, parking, and access.
Precedent Value
Emphasises protection of semi-detached symmetry and street scene balance over officer-preapproved amendments; rear parking in gardens unacceptable if impacting neighbour amenity, especially care homes; full visibility standards strictly enforced.
Inspector: John S Turner
