24 August 2011 · Delegated - Development Control Manager (Jennifer Chance)
12, Derby Square, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM1 3ls
The proposal involved converting the 5-storey terraced former boarding house to a single family dwelling, with demolition of existing rear outriggers and replacement by a new rear extension spanning the full plot width up to 5 storeys high including open terraces at upper levels, a double garage at rear, raised main ro…
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 report concluded the rear extension's siting, design, projection and height would cause demonstrable harm to No.11 Derby Square (overshadowing, loss of light, tunnelling effect to rear win…
General Policy 2
Requires development to respect site/surroundings in siting/layout/scale/form/design/landscaping, avoid adverse townscape/amenity effects. Officer/inspector found extension's full-width/height/mass failed to reflect subordinate outrigger pattern, harmed CA character and neighbour amenity (overbearing/light loss/overlooking).
Environment Policy 35
Permits only development preserving/enhancing CA character/appearance, protecting special features. Inspector found rear extension's scale/bulk/roof terrace/glazed elements alien to terrace composition (no matching precedents), causing significant harm.
Environmental Policy 39
Presumption to retain positive CA contributors. Front works enhanced CA (removed pebble-dash/dominant dormer), but rear harms outweighed benefits.
no objection
do not oppose, no adverse traffic management, parking or road safety implications
The original application 10/01719/B for alterations, extensions, and conversion of a former boarding house to a single dwelling was refused by the Development Control Manager due to harm to residential amenity of Nos. 11 and 13 Derby Square via overshadowing, overlooking, loss of light, privacy, tunnelling effect, overbearing impact, and visual intrusiveness, contrary to General Policy 2 and para 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. Appellant argued the proposal improves the site, is consistent with neighbouring extensions, causes minimal overshadowing, and includes family benefits like a lift. Interested parties from Nos. 11 and 13 objected on amenity loss grounds. The inspector found the full-width, high rear extension uncharacteristic of the terrace's subordinate outriggers, harming the Windsor Road Conservation Area's character contrary to GP2 and EP35, and causing significant harm to living conditions at Nos. 11 and 13 via overbearing impact, light loss, tunnelling, and overlooking from terraces, contrary to GP2. Appeal dismissed.
Precedent Value
Demonstrates strict enforcement of CA policies requiring extensions to replicate characteristic terrace patterns (partial outriggers, roof forms below eaves); high terraces must prevent overlooking; applicants need 3D/light studies and directly comparable precedents for amenity impacts in dense terraces.
Inspector: Stephen Amos MA (Cantab) MCD MRTPI
