19 May 2011 · Senior Planning Officer (delegated under Article 3(13) of the Town and Country (Development Procedure) Order 2005)
Tregath, Four Roads, Port St. Mary, Isle Of Man, IM9 5ll
The proposal involved removing a rear ground floor door and small window from the semi-detached cottage Tregath and replacing them with a pair of 1.8m wide patio doors. The site is in a residential area backing onto open farmland, with the rear not publicly visible.
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 proposed alterations are on the rear elevation, not publicly visible as views are obscured by other properties, and are no less appropriate than the existing door and window.
General Policy 2
GP2 requires development to respect the character and amenity of the area. The officer assessed the rear alterations as not visible publicly and no less appropriate than existing features, with no adverse impacts on amenity once amended for inward opening.
Time limit
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
Approved plans and inward opening
This permission relates to the replacement of the existing window and door with patio doors as shown in drawings 1104/01, 1104/02 and 1104/03 received on 9th February, 2011 and 1104/04 Rev A received on 18th March, 2011. For clarification the new doors must open inward and not out over the right of way afforded to the occupants of Holmcroft.
no objection
Port St Mary Commissioners supported the application in principle but raised concerns about outward-opening patio doors onto a right of way, preferring inward-opening doors; a neighbour objected on grounds of right of way obstruction and privacy invasion.
Key concern: patio doors opening outwards onto a right of way could be a hazard
Port St Mary Commissioners
Conditional No ObjectionWhilst the Commissioners support the application PA11/00164/B in principal, they raised concerns regarding the opening of the patio doors outwards onto a right of way. It was felt that this potentially could be a hazard and would prefer the doors to open inwards to satisfy their concerns.
Conditions requested: doors to open inwards
The Planning Committee granted permission for a two-storey extension to a semi-detached dwelling, which would extend over a shared right of way and impact the neighbouring garden. Appellants (neighbours) argued overdevelopment, loss of sunlight/privacy to their garden, overlooking of shared access, and blocking of the right of way without alternative access. The Committee defended the proposal as in character, with only marginal impacts on sunlight/privacy, and noted the right of way as non-planning. The inspector found marginal impacts on sunlight/privacy but identified the loss of rear access for both properties (especially the applicant) as an unacceptable limitation on the enlarged house's enjoyment, recommending reversal of the grant.
Precedent Value
This appeal shows third parties can succeed against grants by highlighting access/amenity limitations from non-planning constraints like rights of way. Future objectors should link such issues to 'enjoyment and standards' of properties rather than just subjective amenity losses.
