9 March 2010 · Director of Planning and Building Control (delegated under Article 3(13) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005)
6, Windsor Terrace, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM1 3lu
The proposal is for a three storey extension (storage at basement, garage at ground floor, bathroom at first floor) on the north side gable of 6 Windsor Terrace, an early 19th century end-terrace house in a predominantly residential area and Windsor Conservation Area.
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 General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35, finding it acceptable due to its siting, scale, form and design as a 'modest addition which will sit comfortably w…
General Policy 2
Requires development to respect site/surroundings in siting/layout/scale/form/design, not adversely affect townscape/amenity/road safety, and provide satisfactory standards. Officer found proposal compliant due to modest scale sitting comfortably on gable, no amenity/highways harm, matching materials conditioned.
Environment Policy 35
Permits only development preserving/enhancing Conservation Area character, protecting special features. Assessed as acceptable modest addition; materials match conditioned; no Conservation Officer objection; inspector confirmed preserves/enhances.
Time limit
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
Approved plans
This approval relates to the submitted Drawing Nos. 0101 - 01, 07, 08, 09, 10 and 11 received on 6 November, 2009.
Materials approval
The external finishes of the extension must match those of the existing building in all respects.
No objection; design in sympathy with Windsor Terrace and enhances the property
Do not oppose; no traffic management, parking or road safety implications
No objection
Supports; appropriate scale, improves boring blank wall, suitable for conservation area
Douglas Corporation, Douglas Drainage, and Highways Division raised no objections to the application with Douglas Drainage requesting specific surface water drainage conditions; multiple public representations included objections citing loss of light, amenity, and historical access issues alongside supportive letters praising the design.
Douglas Corporation
No ObjectionDouglas Corporation have no objection to the proposals
Douglas Drainage
Conditional No ObjectionNo Objection in Principle subject to:- Surface Water Drainage
Conditions requested: The soak-away must comply with Part H of the Building Regulation; A necessary percolation test must be undertaken and witnessed by the Borough of Douglas Building Control Officer; If ground conditions are not suitable, then the applicant will be required to contact the Borough of Douglas Drainage Section to discuss the matter further. The method of surface water disposal must then be agreed with the Borough of Douglas Drainage Section prior to commencement of work on site; NO groundwater will be permitted into any public foul sewer (either pumped or by gravity)
Highways Division
No ObjectionDo not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications
The original planning application 09/01826/B for a three-storey side extension (storage, garage, bathroom) to 6 Windsor Terrace was approved by the Planning Authority with conditions. Chapman Brothers and others appealed, arguing loss of daylight to bedrooms in neighbouring apartments 8-9 Windsor Terrace and blocking access to historic escarpment pathways. The applicant countered with prior identical approval in 1999, minimal light impact due to setbacks and height, private ownership with no right of way, and design matching the terrace. The Planning Authority defended the approval, stating no harm to conservation area or unacceptable amenity loss, and private access not material. The inspector found the extension preserved the conservation area's character, rejected access concerns as non-material and blocked anyway, and concluded minimal daylight impact due to setbacks, lower height, and materials, not justifying refusal. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the permission.
Precedent Value
This appeal confirms that minor daylight reductions from setbacks and lower extensions in conservation areas are not unacceptable if character is preserved; private access rights are irrelevant to planning. Future applicants can succeed by referencing prior approvals and demonstrating material matching.
Inspector: Neil A C Holt
