27 January 2010 · Senior Planning Officer
6, Gorsecroft, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM2 7dz
The proposal at 6 Gorsecroft involved converting an attached garage into a study/utility, adding a first floor side extension (3m projection, 7.7m depth, 7m ridge height) over the garage for an enlarged bedroom and ensuite, and a single storey side/rear extension (3.3m projection, 7m depth, 4m height) forming a sunroom…
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 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, finding it acceptable due to appropriate siting, scale, form and design in a predominantly residentia…
General Policy 2
Requires developments in line with zoning to respect site/surroundings in siting/layout/scale/form/design/landscaping, avoid adverse impacts on amenity/character/traffic/highways, and meet other tests (e.g. wildlife, views, services). Officer tested proposal's modest scale, 0.9-2m separations, stepped design avoiding terracing, no significant overlooking/light loss beyond area norms, compliant flue, no highway issues; found all relevant criteria met in residential zoning.
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. S/1102/ - 1, 2 and 3 received on 4th November, 2009.
Boundary treatment (varied post-appeal)
Prior to the commencement of the proposed works - (a) there must be submitted to and approved by the Department details of a 2 m -high, close-boarded fence on the common boundary between No. 6 and No. 7 Gorsecroft, between the western-most point of that common boundary and the existing gate at the front corner of No. 6; and (b) the fence referred to in (a) above must be erected in accordance with the approved details. [Note: Original conditions 3-4 for landscaping scheme and maintenance replaced by this via appeal decision 1st July 2010]
Do not oppose - no traffic management, parking or road safety implications
no objection
no objection in principle subject to conditions
Statutory consultees including Douglas Corporation, Drainage Services, Highways, and Environmental Protection raised no objections to application 09/01810/B, with Drainage Services requesting a condition on surface water discharge; a neighbour objected on grounds of loss of light, privacy, views, and health impacts from a proposed wood burner flue.
Borough of Douglas
No ObjectionFollowing consideration of the below applications, I can advise that Douglas Corporation have no objection to the proposals listed below.
Drainage Services
Conditional No ObjectionNo Objection in Principle subject to:-
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.; these comments could be incorporated in the approval notice.
Highways
No ObjectionDo not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications
Environmental Protection Unit
No CommentGeneral guidance from flues such as from kitchen extraction is to require to flue to be 1m above roof ridge height of any building within 20m, if this is not practicable pollution control measures may be required. Recommend you check with Building Control on chimney height requirements they may have more specific guidance with respect to chimneys.
The original application for conversion of garage, alterations, and extensions to provide additional living accommodation at 6 Gorse Croft was permitted by the Planning Committee. Neighbours at No. 7 objected and appealed, citing loss of light, air, views, privacy, health impacts from a wood-burning stove flue, and harm to townscape character. The applicant and Planning Committee defended the modest scale, minimal amenity impacts, compliance with residential zoning, and existing precedents. The inspector found minimal impact on neighbour amenity, acceptable visual appearance in the suburban context, and accordance with policies, recommending dismissal of the appeal and imposition of a 2m boundary fence condition.
Precedent Value
This appeal shows third-party appeals against approvals rarely succeed without evidence of policy conflict; inspectors prioritise objective amenity assessments over subjective neighbour impacts, favouring modest family extensions in residential areas with privacy mitigations like fences.
Inspector: G Farrington
