11 January 2018 · Head of Development Management (Stephen Butler)
Clare Court, 14, Marathon Road, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM2 4hl
The proposal involved demolishing the existing two-storey detached house at Clarecourt and building a replacement dwelling with a pitched roof, attached flat-roof garage, and accommodation over three floors including attic storage accessed by stairs.
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 the proposal against the previous refusal of PA 13/00762/B, noting it retained the same 10m ridge height (3.2m above existing due to raised ground levels) which would appear incon…
General Policy 2
Requires development to respect site/surroundings in siting/layout/scale/form/design/landscaping (b), not adversely affect townscape character (c), and not harm local residents' amenity or locality character (g). Officer tested proposal's 10m height, reoriented layout, and wall removal against adjacent lower properties and street scene; found it incongruous, overbearing, and visually intrusive, failing all three parts despite material improvements.
do not oppose the application stating that the proposals were considered acceptable
do not object to the application
Highways Division and Douglas Borough Council have no objections to the replacement dwelling application, while neighbouring residents at Inglenook strongly object due to increased height impacting views, light, privacy, and property values.
Key concern: proposed building substantially higher (30-50% increase) than current, impacting views, light, privacy and out of keeping with neighbours
Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division
No ObjectionDo not oppose; Given this is a replacement of an existing dwelling the proposals are considered acceptable. There are no suggested conditions.
Douglas Borough Council
No ObjectionDouglas Borough Council has no objection to the proposals.
Inglenook Residents (Dr. W. S. Mercer, Mr. J. J. Murray)
ObjectionWe strongly object to the above planning application.; The proposed new building to replace the existing Clarecourt would be larger and substantially higher than the current building (probably as much as 50% higher); the higher roof of the proposed development would obscure (if not completely obliterate) our sea views; result in our getting less light and less privacy; proposed new building would be out of keeping with the height of neighbouring properties.; proposed redevelopment of Clarecourt is substantially larger than the current building.; invading our privacy; reducing light; obliterating much of our current sea views; and likely reducing the value of our property.
The original application for a replacement dwelling and garage was refused by DEFA Planning. The appellant argued the revised design addressed previous appeal concerns regarding scale, form, design, and amenity impacts, fitting the eclectic street scene and complying with GP2. The Council defended refusal citing excessive height, incongruous layout, boundary wall loss, and dominance over neighbours. The inspector found the proposal acceptable in character, appearance, and amenity due to varied local context, appropriate finishes, and no undue impacts, distinguishing it from the prior dismissed scheme. Highway safety was not an issue. The appeal was allowed with a standard time condition.
Precedent Value
Appeals can succeed by materially revising designs post prior dismissal, emphasising site-specific eclectic context over absolute height metrics. Future applicants should provide cross-sections proving relative impacts and focus on policy compliance in varied street scenes.
Inspector: Brian J Sims
