22/00541/BRefused

21 July 2022 · Delegated - Principal Planner Jason Singleton

Removal of existing artificial chimney stack and make roof good and single storey rear extension and attic conversion with front and rear dormers.

10, Imman Stronnag, Reayrt Ny Cronk, Peel, Isle Of Man, IM5 1gp

Received28 Apr 2022

Validated4 May 2022

Decided21 Jul 2022

3 months

Received28 Apr 2022

Validated4 May 2022

Decided21 Jul 2022

3 months

Why was this refused?

Visual impact of front dormers on streetscene and two-storey character
Overlooking and privacy from rear dormer windows
Unjustified loss of chimney stacks harming estate character
Overbearing massing of rear extension and dormer
Non-compliance with Residential Design Guidance 2021 section 4.10
Failure of GP2 parts b, c, g on visual amenity and neighbour impact

The proposal at this two-storey detached dwelling in a residential estate in Peel included removing two integrated gable chimney stacks, erecting a 7.5m x 3.5m single-storey rear flat-roof extension, and converting the attic with two front peaked dormers (each 2m x 2.4m) and one large rear dormer (10m x 2.8m mimicking …

Refusal Reasons

✗By reason of their siting on the frontage, the front elevation dormers are considered to result in a negative and adverse visual impact on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and on the surrounding area and also resulting in a potential increased perceived overlooking on the neighbours on the opposite side of the road contrary to parts b, c and g of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
✗By reason of their size, scale, mass and design the proposed rear dormers result in an unacceptable adverse visual impact and unsympathetic feature on the rear elevation and one which would have an adverse overlooking and privacy impact on the rear neighbours contrary to parts b, c, g of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and contrary to the principles of the Residential Design Guidance 2021.
✗There is a lack of justification provided as to outweigh the negative visual impacts on the character and appearance of the streetscene as a result of the loss of the chimney stacks. Their loss would be unwarranted and as such would be contrary to parts b, c, and g of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
✗By reason of its size, scale and design the proposed extension is considered to have a visually overbearing massing on the overall appearance of the rear elevation of the dwelling and would fail the test of part b of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

Documents (7)

Officer Report Decision Notice Application Form

DEC Decision Notice

DEC Officer Report

APL Existing Floor Plan and Elevations and Location Plan JTM2182-P-01

28 Apr 221pp

📐

APL Proposed Floor Plan and Elevations JTM2182-P-02

28 Apr 221pp

📄

CON Consultation 1 Highways

28 Apr 222pp

Find Similar Applications

Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.

⚖️

Compare this application

See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.

Search for an application to compare with

Decision & Reasoning

Refused21 July 2022

The officer concluded the proposal would harm the existing dwelling and streetscene character while adversely impacting neighbour amenity, contrary to parts b, c, g of General Policy 2 (GP2) and Resid…

Policies Assessed (2)

GP2

General Policy 2

GP2 sets general standards for development including visual amenity (part b), character/appearance (part c), and neighbour amenity (part g). The officer tested the dormers, chimney removal, and extension against these, finding front dormers altered two-storey streetscene character and increased perceived overlooking; rear dormer caused overbearing impact and direct overlooking; stacks loss harmed traditional features without justification; extension overbearing in massing. All failed, with no presumption in favour applying due to non-compliance.

RDG4.10

Residential Design Guide 4.10 Dormer Extensions

Section 4.10 states dormers are problematic for character/streetscene if publicly visible and not characteristic, unlikely supported unless for non-habitable rooms; advises against flat/large dormers on traditional properties, prioritising roof size over dormer. Officer applied to front dormers (not characteristic, first in estate) and rear (overly long/tall, unsympathetic with windows causing overlooking), deeming wholly contrary; tension as peaked front design followed some advice but siting outweighed.

Public Comments (1)

SupportDepartment of Infrastructure Highway Services(statutory consultee)

no highways interest

Consultation Responses

Highway Services Division issued a No Highways Interest (NHI) response for application 22/00541/B, indicating no highway concerns.

Highway Services Division

No Objection

From the Planning List 5 May 2022, there is no Highways HDC interest (NHI) in: ... 22/00541/B

Why was this refused?

Visual impact of front dormers on streetscene and two-storey character

Overlooking and privacy from rear dormer windows

Unjustified loss of chimney stacks harming estate character

Overbearing massing of rear extension and dormer

Non-compliance with Residential Design Guidance 2021 section 4.10

Failure of GP2 parts b, c, g on visual amenity and neighbour impact

Refusal Reasons

✗By reason of their siting on the frontage, the front elevation dormers are considered to result in a negative and adverse visual impact on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and on the surrounding area and also resulting in a potential increased perceived overlooking on the neighbours on the opposite side of the road contrary to parts b, c and g of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
✗By reason of their size, scale, mass and design the proposed rear dormers result in an unacceptable adverse visual impact and unsympathetic feature on the rear elevation and one which would have an adverse overlooking and privacy impact on the rear neighbours contrary to parts b, c, g of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and contrary to the principles of the Residential Design Guidance 2021.
✗There is a lack of justification provided as to outweigh the negative visual impacts on the character and appearance of the streetscene as a result of the loss of the chimney stacks. Their loss would be unwarranted and as such would be contrary to parts b, c, and g of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
✗By reason of its size, scale and design the proposed extension is considered to have a visually overbearing massing on the overall appearance of the rear elevation of the dwelling and would fail the test of part b of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

Policies Assessed (2)

GP2

General Policy 2

RDG4.10

Residential Design Guide 4.10 Dormer Extensions