Loading document...
Application No.: 25/90434/B Applicant: Mr Stephen James Hinds Proposal: Erection of detached garden office and home gym Site Address: 1 St Ninians Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4BB Senior Planning Officer: Mrs Louise Phillips Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 25.06.2025 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: To minimise pressure on parking in the interest of road safety and to preserve the residential character of the area.
The proposed development would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area, to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers or to road safety. It would therefore be justified in this residential area and comply with the relevant policies of the Development Plan.
This approval relates to the following plans: Location Plan - APL 101 Site Plan as Proposed - APL 103 Rev 1 Elevations - APL 105 Rev 1 Floor Plan and Roof Plan - APL 104
_________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: o Douglas Corporation: No objection.
_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application relates to a two-storey end-terraced house on the west side of St Ninians Road, Douglas, opposite Nobles Park. It is bordered to the south by a detached dwelling set in a large garden and it has a reasonably large rear garden itself. This backs onto Laureston Grove, which comprises semi-detached and terraced houses. A narrow lane runs between St Ninians Road and Laureston Grove, providing rear access to the properties on each side, including to a timber shed in the garden of the application property. There is no off-street parking at the property, but parking on St Ninians Road is unrestricted.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 It is proposed to erect a detached building containing an office and gym at the end of the rear garden. This would measure 7m wide x 4.2m deep x 3.088m high (maximum), but the roof would overhang the front of the building facing into the garden to create a small covered terrace. - 2.2 The building would have a shallow pitched roof covered in bitumen shingles, timber walls, two sets of timber double doors and a timber framed window. The doors and window would all face into the garden.
2.2 It is proposed to use the office and gym to support the applicant's predominantly online health and fitness coaching business, including for "one-to-one neurolinguistic practitioner sessions" and "periodic client consultations, typically lasting no more than one hour (2/3 times per week)". However, the applicant has since stated that these consultations might be needed 3-4 times per week in some weeks (email dated 24 June 2025). - 3.0 PLANNING POLICY Site Specific
3.1 The application site is not within a designated Conservations Area and there are no Registered Buildings, Registered Trees or Registered Tree Areas which would be affected by the proposal. The site is not at risk of flooding. Area Plan for the East 2020 - 3.2 The site is within the settlement boundary in a predominantly residential area. Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016
3.3 Strategic Policies 3(b) and 5 concern the protection of local character and the environment. - 3.4 General Policy 2 provides that development in accordance with land use zoning and other relevant proposals and policies of the Development Plan will normally be permitted subject to certain criteria, including those below which are relevant to this proposal. The development should:
3.5 Paragraph 9.3.4(c) supports offices for working from home where this would not result in staff being employed, day to day callers or detriment to the residential area. This provides a specific exception to Business Policy 7, which generally requires new office space to be located within town and village centres. - 3.6 The applicant refers to Chapter 7 on the Environment, and to the principle of "sustainable development" in particular, in support of the proposal.
5.1 There is no planning history associated with the application site. 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 Douglas Corporation (16/05/25) - "No objections".
6.2 The following organisations were consulted on 6 May 2025 but, at the time of drafting this report, no comments had been received:
7.1 The main issues are the principle of the proposed development; its effect upon the character and appearance of the area; upon the living conditions of nearby occupiers; and upon highway safety in respect of parking.
7.2 The proposed development would create a new office outside of the town centre in a predominantly residential area which would be used in connection with an existing business. However, Paragraph 9.3.4(c) of the Strategic Plan specifically permits offices for working from home subject to them not resulting in staff being employed, in day to day callers or detriment to the residential area.
Principle of the Development
7.3 There is no suggestion that staff would be employed and four, one hour client visits per week is unlikely to be noticeable in the context of other visits and deliveries taking place in this residential area of Douglas next to Nobles Park. The proposed facility is small and, with appropriate planning conditions added, its use for business purposes would clearly be ancillary to the main residential use of the property. Therefore, subject to its other effects upon the residential area assessed below, the proposed development would be acceptable in principle and comply with Paragraph 9.3.4(c) of the Strategic Plan. Character and Appearance - 7.4 With its timber cladding and felt roof, the proposed building would have the appearance of a large shed/small garage. Such buildings are common features in residential areas and there are already several in Laureston Grove to the rear of the site. These can be seen from St Ninians Road, looking down the side of the application property, and so the view from both roads would not be changed significantly by the addition of the proposed development. - 7.5 The new building would replace the existing shed adjacent to Laureston Grove and it would be set in from the boundaries with the neighbouring houses. Given that the terraced houses on St Ninians Road have relatively deep gardens and that the property to the south has a very large garden, the form and scale of the building would be appropriate. - 7.6 Consequently, it would not harm the character and appearance of the area and the proposal would comply with Strategic Policies 3(b) and 5 of the Strategic Plan and with General Policy 2(b) and (c). Living Conditions - 7.7 The number of clients visiting the new building each week would be small, they would come by appointment and stay for a short time. There would be no access from Laureston Grove, and so they are likely to be greeted at the main house rather than wait in the garden. Planning conditions could additionally require meetings to take place inside and, consequently, noise and overlooking would be minimised. - 7.8 As found above in relation to character and appearance, the building would be in keeping with its surroundings in respect of its siting, form and scale. It would not, therefore, be detrimental in respect of outlook. Overall, the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers would not be unduly harmed and the proposed development would comply with General Policy 2(g) of the Strategic Plan. Parking - 7.9 The application property has no off-street parking as built, and the same applies to the other houses in the terrace. However, elsewhere in the locality, many of the houses do benefit from driveway spaces and there is no housing on the east side of St Ninians Road owing to the presence of Nobles Park. These factors do appear to ease the pressure on roadside parking in the area and so, at the time of my site visit, I could park easily without restrictions. - 7.10 With appropriate planning conditions, the proposed development might result in four additional visits by car each week, at different times. In light of the above, this would represent a modest increase in traffic and parking which would not be significant in respect of road safety. Highways Services has made no comments to the contrary. Therefore, the proposal would comply with General Policy 2(h) of the Strategic Plan.
8.1 For the reasons given above, the proposed development would cause no significant harm in respect of the character and appearance of the area, the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers or road safety. Consequently, it would not be detrimental to the
9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted). - 9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:
9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10. - 9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 30.06.2025 Determining Officer
Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner
Customer note This copyof the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/ customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
