17 August 2010
54, Meadow Crescent, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM2 1nl
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.
Douglas Borough Council Drainage raised no objection subject to a condition prohibiting surface water discharge to foul sewers; a neighbouring resident objected strongly on privacy, light, character, and property value grounds.
Key concern: loss of privacy due to overlooking neighbour's garden
Douglas Borough Council Drainage
Conditional No ObjectionNo Objection in Principle subject to:-; It should be noted that it is an offence under Manx legislation to permit the discharge of polluting or harmful matter to any public sewers or watercourses.
Conditions requested: There must be NO discharge of surface water (directly or indirectly) from this proposed development to any foul drainage system(s) so as to comply with the requirements of the Department of Transport, Drainage Division and the Sewerage Act 1999.
Karel Ver Elst
ObjectionI strongly object to the proposed alteration; I would ask the committee to reject the planning application
The original application 10/00733/B for erection of a ground floor and first floor extension to a semi-detached dwelling was permitted by delegated Senior Planning Officer on 16 August 2010, following a revised scheme after prior refusal of a flat-roofed design. Neighbours at 3 Horseshoe Avenue appealed via written representations (AP10/0124), arguing privacy loss, noise, design incompatibility and precedent. Inspector Graham Self, after site visit on 25 October 2010, found the design created an incongruous mixture of shapes conflicting with GP2(b), and unacceptable overlooking/privacy impact on No 3 Horseshoe Avenue contrary to GP2(g), despite planning officer's contrary view. The Minister concurred with the inspector on 8 December 2010, reversing approval and issuing formal refusal. Applicants submitted a counter-letter disputing findings but no further appeal process occurred.
Precedent Value
Demonstrates 'appeal against approval' process where neighbours can succeed via inspector review; stresses need for extensions to fully harmonise design even if rear/side, and cautions against overlooking in angled low-density layouts despite officer support. Future applicants should prioritise balanced elevations visible to neighbours and accurate separation measurements.
Inspector: Graham Self MA MSc FRTPI
