25 April 2006 · Planning Committee
38, Finch Road, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM1 2pp
The site at 38-40 Finch Road holds a pair of semi-detached three-storey houses in a predominantly office-zoned area near a conservation area, subject to a Section 24 demolition notice due to structural issues.
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 Planning Officer and Committee found the proposal an over-intensive use of the site, with the rear flat-roofed projection (5.31m beyond existing rear, appearing 5-storeys from Well Road Hill) and …
Douglas Local Plan Order 1998
Site zoned for predominantly office use; proposal includes non-conforming residential apartments without justification, though existing site had office/residential use. Heritage Homes objected to apartments conflicting with zoning and commercial neighbours; officer noted but refusal focused on design/highways rather than use.
No objection subject to detailed drainage drawings, CCTV survey, risk assessment, Section 8 adoption agreement
Architect to consult Fire Safety Department re Fire Precautions (Flats) Regulations 1996
Standard notes for multi-unit water connections; contact for regulations/undertakings
No objection to principle; concerns re construction disturbance (noise, access, customers)
No objection to principle; concerns re aesthetics and vehicle access
Multiple consultees responded to planning application 06/00014/B, with objections from Heritage Homes, IoMWA Highways, Department of Transport Highways, Douglas Building Control, and Douglas Corporation Drainage (conditional), while others raised no objection or support with conditions.
Key concern: highways visibility splays inadequate and traffic conflicts at car park access
Heritage Homes Ltd
ObjectionThe proposed new building and car park structure will impact directly upon the shop units, particularly as it will adjoin the rear wall of no. 21 Well Road Hill.; The inclusion of 5 apartments within the scheme as a non-conforming use has not been justified.; the proposed flat roofed dormers will be an incongruous and visually displeasing element in the Finch Road frontage
IoMWA
ObjectionThe visibility splays from the proposed access is inadequate to serve the needs of the development.; The entrance to the car park is opposite to Christian Road and traffic egressing the development will conflict with existing traffic movements at this junction.
Department of Transport Highways Division
ObjectionThe Department of Transport believes these structures will require a high level of maintenance to ensure visibility can be retained through these structures to prevent them becoming obscured or damage by dirt, vandalism and natural weathering.; The proposed access will result in vehicles waiting on the public highway when two vehicles wish to access and egress at the same time
Borough of Douglas Drainage Department
Conditional No ObjectionNo Objection to this application providing all conditions outlined within the enclosed letter are adhered to.
Conditions requested: applicant must submit fully detailed engineering drawings to the Corporation Drainage Department for approval; drainage proposals must conform to ‘Manx Sewers for Adoption’; Prior to construction the Applicant must CCTV survey the existing public sewer to ensure there are no existing lateral private connections; applicant must provide a Risk Assessment & Method Statement of how the intended diversion works are to be achieved; applicant must enter into ‘Section 8 adoption agreement under the Sewerage Act 1999’
Douglas Building Control
Objectionthe design of the ground floor entrance is out of keeping with the character of the street.
Disability Access Officer
No CommentApartment blocks should meet the following requirements.
Conditions requested: Where parking is provided, which includes provision for visitors then five percent of unassigned spaces should be designated for disabled parking.; The ground or primary entrance level should include at least one entrance that is accessible to an unassisted wheelchair user.; Any sanitary facilities provided which are accessible to the public should include a disabled toilet.; All public corridors should be of sufficient width and free from obstruction as to allow a wheelchair user to pass other users of the corridor.; The primary entrance to all apartments should be of sufficient width as to be accessible by an unassisted wheelchair user.; Where apartments and/or parking are provided over more than one level then a lift should be provided of sufficient dimensions as to allow an unassisted wheelchair user to enter, turn around and use the controls.
SPMC&E
No ObjectionThe Society will not object.; it is doubtful if these are really matters for the Society
Andrew Jessopp
SupportI have no objection to the principle of this application, which is a brownfield redevelopment; I am very supportive of the proposal to utilise 'grey water' within the development.
IoMWA Planning Applications Response
Conditional No Objectionthe applicant must contact the Authority to ensure that a connection is obtained for water supply purposes
Conditions requested: condition of planning be that the applicant must contact the Authority to ensure that a connection is obtained for water supply purposes, or an amendment to the existing supply under the terms of the Water Supply Byelaws; For connections to Flats and Apartments the following apply - 'Water Supply To Flats And Apartments – Regulations', and if applicable a 'Form Of Undertaking In Respect Of Supply Pipes'
The original application to demolish two semi-detached houses and erect a mixed-use building with basement storage, office space, five apartments and a three-level rear car park was refused by the Planning Committee on 13 April 2006 for six reasons including overdevelopment, design incongruity, inadequate visibility splays, prejudice to adjoining redevelopment, and traffic conflicts. The appellant argued that minor issues (design, access, traffic) could be conditioned, factual errors overstated scale, rear elements had minimal visibility from secondary pedestrian lane, and the scheme would facilitate rather than prejudice adjoining shops' redevelopment while objectors (Heritage Homes/Dandara) sought site amalgamation for private gain. The inspector found the 5-storey rear wing and car park overbearing on Well Road Hill pedestrians, limiting comprehensive corner redevelopment potential, and access hazardous due to lift conflicts and visibility; minor design issues were not decisive but overall scheme unacceptable. The appeal was dismissed with recommendation to refuse.
Precedent Value
This appeal shows inspectors prioritise impacts on pedestrian routes even if secondary, and comprehensive redevelopment potential over piecemeal schemes; applicants must robustly address novel access mechanics (e.g. lifts) and quantify overdevelopment against policy standards.
Inspector: Michael Hurley
