Loading document...
Application No.: 25/91070/B Applicant: Mr Beau James Challis Proposal: Alterations to doors and windows to front, side and rear elevations Site Address: 6 Sandringham Drive Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 4HH Planning Officer: Peiran Shen Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 13.01.2026 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
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.
The proposal does not harm the character and streetscene of the area nor neighbouring amenities. It is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide.
This approval relates to the documents, cover letter, location plan, site plan, existing and propsoed front elevation, existing and proposed rear elevation, existing and proposed floor plan, proposed window details and photos, which have all date stamped as having been received on the 11th November 2025.
_________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: Onchan District Commissioners - No objection
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is 6 Sandringham Drive, Onchan, a semi-detached house located on the west of Sandringham Drive. All houses on this drive are pairs of semi-detached houses and share the same form, with a very similar front elevation: a front door and a window above it on one side and bay windows on the other.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The proposal includes replacing the window above the front door with a shorter window and replacing the window on the rear elevation with a double door. The proposal also include remove two small windows on the side and rear elevation of the house.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 There is no previous application considered materially relevant to this application.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY Site Specific - 4.1 The site is within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Area Plan for the East. Strategic Policy - 4.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IOMSP) contains the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: o General Policy 2 (b) (c) (g) - 4.3 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan has no assumption in favour of new development. In decision-making, approval should usually not be granted where a planning application conflicts with the Plan. - 4.4 General Policy 2 (b) (c) and (g) set out design requirements for development, of which they should respect the character of the site itself and its immediate and not-so-immediate surroundings. PPS and NPD - 4.5 No planning policy statement or national policy directive is considered materially relevant to this application.
5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Strategy and Guidance - 5.1 The Residential Design Guide (July 2021) contains the following guidance that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS This section is a summary. The original texts of the consultations and comments received are available on the Planning Application Search on the government website. - 6.1 Onchan District Commissioners has no objection to this application (18.12.2025). - 6.2 DoI Highway Services has not commented at the time of this report (13.01.2026).
7.0 ASSESSMENT Elements of Assessments - 7.1 The primary considerations are the impact of the proposal on:
Design of the House
7.2 The proposed front window is shorter, breaking the existing symmetry in the pair of semi-detached houses. However, this is not severe enough to warrant refusal. - 7.3 The double door and the remove of small windows have no impact on the design of the house. Character and Streetscene
7.3 Given that the alteration to the front window is small, this is not severe enough to warrant refusal. - 7.4 The double door and the removal of small windows have a no impact on the character and streetscene of the area. Neighbouring Amenities - 7.5 There is no additional vantage point created with the proposal. Therefore, they are considered to have no additional overlooking impact.
8.0 CONCLUSION - 8.1 The proposal does not harm the character and streetscene of the area nor neighbouring amenities. Therefore, it is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide and is recommended for an approval.
9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE - 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: 20.01.2026 Determining Officer
Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner
Customer note This copy of 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
