**Document:** SPMC&E Application Views Response
**Application:** 05/00857/B — Installation of uPVC windows to replace existing
**Decision:** Permitted
**Decision Date:** 2005-07-07
**Parish:** Braddan
**Document Type:** consultation / consultation_response
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/78579-braddan-flat-4-mount-rule-house-windows-replacement/documents/1445649

---

# SPMC&E Application Views Response

I, of all people, can hardly criticise the two solarium-like conservatories! The house seems to be tucked-away behind farm buildings and I rather like the design as presenting a considerable extension, which is nevertheless sympathetic and even complimentary to the original building. SUPPORT.

The existing seem to be small-pane standard steel casements and the replacements mimic them to a reasonable degree. Mount Rule House turns out not to be the grand Victorian edifice one might expect and therefore we see no objection to this proposal.

Very good. SUPPORT.

So many of the Victorian terraces in Douglas have been spoilt by the creation of just such flat-roofed, joined-together, dormers as are proposed here. The Society STRONGLY OBJECT and feel that the time is long overdue when a stand should be taken against such desecration.

Quite pleasant houses these few south of the Prison. However the replacement design is also quite pleasant so we raise no objections. (Odd that accommodation intended for the infirm should have bathrooms with baths rather than showers. This is exactly the same mistake, which has been perpetrated at the new Noble's Hospital where the Orthopaedic Ward bathrooms have slipper baths instead of showers. Nothing to do with Planning, of course!)

The replacements have sash-like appearance but no information is specified as to how they actually open. Thus in practise the thickness of the sections may, or may not, lend credence to the claim to replicate the existing. In the circumstances we must OBJECT.

Very well presented Application. However doubts remain: is it wetland (even though grazed)? How long will the operations last? Can we be sure that builder's rubble will be strictly excluded? The Society is uneasy.

Rather strange this! We have proposed additions to a considerable range of buildings, claimed to be agricultural but on a land holding extending to only about 1.75 acres and the applicant clearly states that he owns no more adjoining land. One cannot help but wonder whether this is really something else – a haulage yard perhaps or some other commercial use which should not be encouraged in a rural area. The Society wishes to express it's DOUBTS.

[Table omitted in markdown export]
[Table omitted in markdown export]

---

*Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).*
*Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/78579-braddan-flat-4-mount-rule-house-windows-replacement/documents/1445649*