27 January 2010 · Senior Planning Officer
40, Clifton Drive, Ramsey, Isle Of Man, IM8 3ng
The proposal involved a two-storey side extension (3.65m width, 8.75m depth, 8.4m height) to create additional living spaces including dining room, kitchen, bedrooms, and attic bedroom on a corner plot semi-detached house in an established residential area zoned 'Predominantly Residential' under the Ramsey Local Plan 1…
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 considered the proposal would project 3.650m from the gable, further than No.10 Close Oard to the rear, making it look 'out of place and cause demonstrable harm to the street scene' on a p…
General Policy 2
Requires development in residential zoning to respect site/surroundings in siting/layout/scale/form/design (b), not adversely affect townscape character (c), not affect amenity/character of locality (g). Officer tested side extension's projection (3.65m), lack of setback, corner location against these, finding harm to streetscene, symmetry, openness vs established semi-detached/open plan layout. No tension noted but precedent risk highlighted as cumulative impact.
Do not oppose
proposal must be connected to existing drainage system to comply with Building Regulations; new connection if required to be to their satisfaction; no surface water to foul sewers
Ramsey Town Commissioners objected due to impacts on building line, streetscape, and privacy, while Department of Transport Highways had no objection on traffic grounds; individual resident objections echoed similar aesthetic and environmental concerns.
Key concern: extension beyond established building line creating unbalanced streetscape
Ramsey Town Commissioners
Objectionthe Commissioners considered the above application at their meeting held on Wednesday 18th November, 2009 and have resolved to Object to the proposal
Department of Transport Drainage Division
to comply with the requirements of the Department of Transport Drainage Division and the Sewerage Act 1999
Conditions requested: proposed alteration/extension must be connected to the existing drainage system to comply with Building Regulations; if a new connection to the public sewer is required, this must be carried out in a manner acceptable to the Department of Transport Drainage Division; all drainage works must conform to the requirements of the Department of Transport's "Manx Sewers for Adoption" and all necessary inspections/surveys [including CCTV] are to be carried out at the developer's expense; communication fee will be payable to the Department of Transport in respect of this property being connected (directly or indirectly) to the public drainage system; NO discharge of surface water (directly or indirectly) from this proposed development to any foul drainage system(s)
Department of Transport Highways Division
No ObjectionDo not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications; Note: 2 off street parking spaces are still provided for within this proposal
Planning permission was refused for alterations and a two-storey side extension to a dwelling at 40 Clifton Drive, Ramsey (ref 09/01672/B), primarily due to design, size, and siting unbalancing the semi-detached pair, adverse impact on streetscape, and undermining openness. The appellant argued precedents from approved extensions at 34 Clifton Drive and 3 Reayrt Ny Slietyn which unbalanced symmetry and altered openness. The Council defended refusal citing projection beyond building lines, unbalancing effect, streetscene harm, and precedent contrary to General Policy 2. The inspector found the corner location distinctive, eroding spaciousness at junctions, creating windowed gable contrast, and risking cumulative harm, rejecting parallels with non-corner precedents. The appeal was dismissed on written representations following a site visit.
Precedent Value
Corner plots in designed estates receive stricter scrutiny for spaciousness and junction impacts; precedents must closely match site circumstances, as minor differences (e.g. non-corner vs corner) allow rejection; cumulative precedent risks weigh heavily against proposals eroding planned openness.
Inspector: Neil A C Holt
