Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/91071/B
Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/91071/B Applicant : Mr Stephen Corey Proposal : Erection of second floor extension to front elevation, above existing integral garage, and single storey extension to rear elevation of existing dwellinghouse Site Address : Rodyeate 22 Devonshire Crescent Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 3RD
Senior Planning Officer: Mrs Louise Phillips Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 27.01.2026 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. All external facing and roofing materials to be used in the construction of the first floor extension shall match those of the existing building.
Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
C 3. No development shall commence until a sample panel of the silicone cladding to be used on the walls of the single storey extension hereby approved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
C 4. The development hereby approved shall not be used or occupied until the means of vehicular access and the parking area has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, and shall thereafter be retained for access and parking purposes only.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and parking provision.
N 1. The applicant is advised that a S109 highway agreement will be required for the proposed extended dropped kerb.
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/91071/B
Page 2 of 6
N 2. The applicant is advised that receptacles for waste and recycling storage should be kept within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. With appropriate conditions, the proposed development would cause no harm to the character and appearance of the area; to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers or to highway safety. The provision of an additional parking space would be a benefit of the scheme. The proposal would therefore comply with Development Plan policy and relevant guidance.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the following drawing numbers:
o PTA 268-01 Location and Site Plans; Plans and Elevations as Existing o PTA 268-02 Plans and Elevations as Proposed o PTA 268-03 Site Plan Showing Entrance Arrangements as Proposed __
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
o Douglas City Council: No objection. o Highways Services (DOI): No objection. __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE
1.1 The application relates to a semi-detached house on the north side of Devonshire Crescent in Douglas. It has a flat-roofed single garage with a first floor pitched roof element behind it, attached to the east side of the building. Given the presence of a stone wall along the front boundary and the layout of the front garden space, there is presently only one off- road parking space in front of the garage.
1.2 The lie of the land is such that the neighbouring property to the east is on higher ground than the application site.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The proposed development is a first floor extension above the existing garage; and a single storey extension to the rear, which would also project from the side of the building by approximately 2.4m. The projecting element would be set back from the front elevation by approximately 5.9m, well away from the road, and extend 4.9m deep from the rear elevation.
2.2 The first floor extension would have a sloping roof to match the pitch of the main roof, but with a lower ridge height. It would be finished to match the existing building, with pebble- dash walls and slate roof tiles reclaimed from the present first floor element behind the garage. The single storey extension would be finished in a "contrasting smooth, through coloured silicone render system". It would have two roof lantern lights, sliding doors and a window facing into the garden and a high level window facing west. There would be no east-facing windows in either the first floor or ground floor extensions.
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/91071/B
Page 3 of 6
2.3 In addition to the extensions, it is proposed to remove a section of the front boundary wall close to the eastern boundary of the site, and to extend the area of hardstanding on the frontage to provide an extra off-road parking space.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY
Site Specific 3.1 The site is not within a Conservation Area and there are no Registered Buildings, Registered Trees or Registered Tree Areas in the vicinity. The site is not at risk of flooding.
Area Plan for the East 2020 3.2 The site is within a predominantly residential area.
Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 3.3 Strategic Policies 3(b) and 5 concern the protection of local character and the environment.
3.4 General Policy 2 provides that development in accordance with land use zoning and other relevant proposals and policies of the Development Plan will normally be permitted subject to certain criteria, including those below which are relevant to this proposal. The development should:
(b) respect the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (g) not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; and (h) provide satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space.
3.5 Transport Policy 7 requires new development to meet current parking standards.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 Residential Design Guide and Manual for Manx Roads.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY
5.1 There is no planning history associated with this site.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 Highways Services (9/12/25): "...no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking. A S109 highway agreement will be required for the proposed extended dropped kerb footway".
6.2 Douglas City Council (15/12/25): "No Objection. Although the Council is not objecting to the proposals, we would kindly ask that the applicant gives consideration to their existing bin and recycling storage arrangements and ensures that their waste/recycling receptacles can still be stored within the curtilage of the property".
6.3 Manx Utilities Authority, Drainage, was consulted on 4 December 2025 but, at the time this report was drafted, no comments had been received.
7.0 ASSESSMENT
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/91071/B
Page 4 of 6
7.1 The application site is in a location where the proposed development is acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with other relevant criteria. Therefore, the main issues are its effect upon the character and appearance of the area; upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers; and upon highway safety and parking space.
Character and Appearance 7.2 The proposed first floor extension would be confined to the width of the existing garage and its roof slope and external finishing would match that of the main dwelling. The lowered ridge height would ensure that it would appear subordinate to the existing building. Thus this element of the proposal would respect the characteristics of the host building in terms of scale, form and design.
7.3 To the extent that it could be seen from the road, the single storey extension would project a modest distance from the main side elevation and there would be a minimum of 1.5m to the boundary with No. 20 to the east. The depth of the extension could be comfortably accommodated within the large garden of the property without appearing cramped.
7.4 In respect of detailed design, flat roofed garages are common in the street scene and so the flat form of the roof would not look out of place. The contrasting smooth rendered walls would mainly be seen in the private domain and would not necessarily detract from the character and appearance of the existing building because the extension would clearly be a new addition. However, it would be prudent to control the finished colour with conditions. Subject to this provision, the single storey element of the proposal would cause no significant visual harm.
7.5 Turning to the proposed parking and access arrangements, the section of wall to be removed would be relatively small, approximately 2.5m, and the wall would be kept to either side of the extended opening. The hardstanding would be provided immediately in front of the garage and would not be wider than necessary to accommodate two cars. A grassed garden would remain in front of the house itself, which would be sufficient to ensure that the frontage would not be dominated by paving.
7.6 Overall, therefore, the proposed development would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and it would comply with Strategic Policies 3(b) and 5 and with General Policy 2(b) and (c) of the Strategic Plan.
Living Conditions 7.7 The neighbouring property to the east is at a higher level than the application site and the proposed extensions are not particularly close to the boundary. Therefore they would not be overbearing and, because there would be no east-facing windows, there would be no issue of overlooking.
7.8 A high-level window would face No. 24 to the west but, given the type of window and the distance to the boundary, there would be no harmful overlooking of this property. Given its single storey form and the relative orientation of the buildings, the rear extension would not cause any significant shadowing of either neighbouring house or garden.
7.9 Consequently, the proposed development would not be detrimental to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and so it would comply with General Policy 2(g) of the Strategic Plan.
Highway Safety and Parking 7.10 The application site already benefits from one off-road parking space from which vehicles must emerge onto the highway. Given that Devonshire Crescent is a relatively quiet residential street, the addition of one further space would not have any significant detrimental effect in respect of highway safety. Indeed, Drawing No PTA 268-03 demonstrates that
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/91071/B
Page 5 of 6
visibility would be clear in both directions once the vehicle has edged out of the drive. No concerns have been raised by Highways Services in respect of visibility or any other matter of road safety.
7.11 In this context, the provision of an additional space on the driveway would be a benefit of the scheme because the property would then comply with the parking standards set out in Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan. Presently it falls short of the two off-road spaces required for a residential dwelling. Overall therefore, the proposed development would have no significant impact on highway safety and would have a positive effect upon parking provision. The requirements of General Policy 2(h) and Transport Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan would be met. A note could be added to any planning permission to advise the applicant that a S109 highway agreement would be required to extend the dropped kerb.
Other Issues 7.12 Concerns have been raised about provision for bin storage, but there would be sufficient space for this behind the driveway, to the side of the garage. This would seem a convenient position for such storage and would minimise the risk of bins being left on the pavement. Consequently, this matter does not weigh against the proposal.
8.0 CONCLUSION
8.1 For the reasons given above, the proposed development would cause no harm to the character and appearance of the area, to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers or to highway safety. It would be a benefit in respect of parking provision. The proposal would therefore comply with the relevant policies of the Development Plan and so it is recommended for approval accordingly.
9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE
9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).
9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to: o applicant (in all cases); o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.
9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10.
9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required): o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant); o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area; o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and o in the case of a petition, a single representative.
__
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/91071/B
Page 6 of 6
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 27.01.2026
Determining Officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/ customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal