Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90713/B
Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90713/B Applicant : Mrs Rebecca Preston Proposal : Replacement of rear conservatory with sunroom Site Address : The Glebe House Station Road Ballaugh Isle Of Man IM7 5AH
Principal Planning Officer: Belinda Fettis Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 02.09.2025 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval 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.
C 2. No site works or clearance shall be commenced until protective fences which conform with British Standard 5837:2012 (or any British Standard revoking and re-enacting British Standard 5837:2012 with or without modification) have been erected around the Protected Trees at the front of the property within the parking area. Unless and until the development has been completed these fences shall not be removed and the protected areas are to be kept clear of any building, plant equipment, material, debris and trenching, with the existing ground levels maintained, and there shall be no entry to those areas except for approved arboricultural or landscape works.
Reason: To safeguard the root area of the Protected Trees.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. As a result of the design scale and position within the curtilage the residential development is acceptable in accordance with Strategic Policy 3, General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to the following Plans, drawings and detail received on the 22nd of July 2025; unless stated otherwise.
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90713/B
Page 2 of 6
o Location and Site Plan, drawing no.100 o Proposed Site Plan, drawing no.105 Revision A o Proposed Elevation Plan, drawing no.104 Revision A o Proposed Floor Plan, drawing no.103 Revision A
__
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given the Right to Appeal because: o The Grange - objection
__
Officer’s Report
THE SITE 1.1. The application site relates to the curtilage of a two storey double fronted detached dwellinghouse known as The Glebe House on Station Road in Ballaugh; although the address is Station Road, the site is accessed via a road recorded as Ballacrosha Estate off Station Road that provides access to the Ballacrosha playground.
1.2. The dwellinghouse is set back from the road by a large parking area with some vegetation along the boundaries.
1.3. There are detached dwellings either side of and at the rear of the site. The dwellings are of a variety of scale and design. The materials are similar to those at the application site; slate roof and painted rendered walls.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1. The applicant proposes the erection of a rear side extension to replace the smaller existing glass conservatory.. o Flat fiberglass roof, height 3634mm, with two roof lights measuring 3000mm x 1250mm protruding above the flat roof approximately 150/200mm, as shown on drawing no.104 Revision A. o Floor area 4963mm x 6200mm protruding 1500mm from main side elevation, and 4965mm from the rear side elevation; protruding 2090mm from the rear elevation. o External materials, including rainwater goods and windows to match existing.
PLANNING POLICY Site Specific 3.1. The site is unaffected by any Public Rights of Way, flood zone or surface water flooding. The site is not in or within the setting of a Conservation Area. There are no Registered Buildings within or abutting the site.
3.2. Within the site there are Registered Trees; RT0211. The trees are on the boundary with the road at the front of the house. There are no trees protected or otherwise abutting the conservatory.
3.3. On the Area Plan for the North & West, Draft Proposals Map 13, Ballaugh, the site is within an area identified as being 'Predominantly Residential'. This is the same designation as the adopted 1982 Development Plan for the North. At the time of writing this report the Draft Proposals Map 7 has not been adopted therefore at this stage, the 1982 Development Plan for the North remains the correct land use designation.
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90713/B
Page 3 of 6
Strategic Plan 3.4. Taking account of the above, within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the following policies are considered relevant in the determination of this application:
3.5. Strategic Policy 3 focuses on the visual design of development and its impact upon the character and identity of its immediate locality.
3.6. Housing Policy 16, paragraph 8.12.1 Extensions to dwellings in built up areas, is relevant. Provided the extension does not result in an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general, there is a presumption in favour of extensions to an existing property.
3.6.1. General Policy 2 states that where development is in accordance with the proposals map, the development should meet relevant criteria of the Policy. In respect of this application criteria (b) and (c) and (g) are considered relevant. (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the design. (c) does not affect adversely the character of the landscape or townscape. (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1. Residential Design Guide (2021): Section 2.3, Building Design, glazed walls below an insulated roof (sunrooms) are favourable instead of traditional style conservatories; extensions should be subservient to the main dwelling. Section 4, Householder Extensions, takes account of the General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (IOMSP) which indicates that generally house extensions are acceptable provided they reflect and enhance the appearance of the existing property, adjoining properties, and their setting in terms of scale, design and materials. All extensions and alterations, particularly those incorporating modern design approaches, should be considered holistically with the original/main building and its setting in the landscape/townscape to avoid an awkward jarring of materials and forms. However, well- judged modern designs are not restricted provided the other considerations are met.
PLANNING HISTORY o 90/00085/B erection of dwelling with garage on plot adjacent to The Old Rectory. Permitted.
REPRESENTATIONS 6.1. Copies of all representations and comments received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.2. Local authority o Ballaugh Parish Commissioners - although consulted (06.08.2025) no comment has been received at the time of writing this report (02.09.2025).
6.3. Statutory Bodies o Highway Services - although consulted (06.08.2025) no comment has been received at the time of writing this report (02.09.2025). o Forestry, Amenity and Lands - There are registered trees on site but they are hopefully not impacted and there are no other trees of note. As the sunroom is to the north of the property we do not foresee future impacts from the registered trees. As such we have no objection to the current proposal on arboricultural grounds.
6.4. Other comment - resident/neighbour: 6.4.1. Adverse impact upon the sunroom at the rear of The Glebe House due to loss of privacy through overlooking
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90713/B
Page 4 of 6
6.4.2. Plans are misleading and inaccurate because they omit the footprint presence of our property.
6.4.3. The new room with patio doors will result in people looking straight into our sunroom window.
6.4.4. Screening during summer months is good but during the winter when leaves fall the screening is reduced.
ASSESSMENT 7.1. Principle 7.1.1. Householder extensions are generally acceptable as in paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan and the site is within an area assigned to be 'Predominantly Residential' use therefore the principle is acceptable.
7.1.2. Taking account of the above observations the key considerations in assessing this application are considered as follows. o (7.2) Design and character o (7.4) Impact upon residential amenity o (7.6) Other matters
7.2. Design and impact 7.2.1. The proposed extension is a rear side extension that will protrude from the side elevation around 1500mm. This protrusion is at the rear of the house and although it will be visible in some views from the street it is not considered to form part of the street scene. Therefore the main consideration is the impact of design upon the existing features.
7.2.2. The extension is subservient to the dwellinghouse and the scale and proportion of the extension is considered to be in keeping with and proportionate to the host dwellinghouse.
7.2.3. The roofs of the dwellinghouse are dual pitch, including that of the detached garage. This proposal would introduce a flat at the rear of the property.
7.2.4. The rear of the property has a less pleasing character than that of the front elevation. With or without the existing conservatory the rear elevation is simplistic with few openings. It is considered that the flat roof would not appear incongruous to the character of the dwellinghouse but would appear for what it is, a modern addition.
7.3. Overall the proposal would not harm the character of the dwellinghouse or the streetscene and as such is considered to meet the objectives of the Residential Design Guide and General Policy 2.
7.4. Impact upon residential amenity 7.4.1. The site is opposite a playground and the neighbours are detached dwellinghouses around the application site.
7.4.2. To the northeast exists the dwellinghouse called 'Rectory' and the proposal would have no impact upon this neighbour because the extension is the opposite side of the dwellinghouse.
7.4.3. To the southwest exists the dwellinghouse called 'The Old Rectory' and consideration was given to potential harm in the form of overlooking. However the site is separated from the amenity of The Old Rectory by land associated with 'The Grange'. The strip of land separating the application site and The Old Rectory has planning permission for buildings and landscaping. Therefore no harm to residential amenity as a result of this proposal is foreseen upon The Old Rectory.
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90713/B
Page 5 of 6
7.4.4. Turning to the dwellinghouse to the northwest of the application site, called 'The Grange', this property has been subject to several planning applications associated with The Old Rectory including division of land associated with The Old Rectory to create The Grange in 2013 (PA 13/91275/A. Most recently PA 23/00935/B relating to use of an ancillary outbuilding and a discharge of condition relating to the 2023 application, PA 24/10028/Air. Clearly shown on the 2024 application is landscaping required between the application site and the amenity land associated with The Grange. The landscaping appears to have been required to protect the amenity of the occupants of the application site; It will therefore work both ways in respect of the amenity land and the proposed extension. In respect of the concerns raised by the applicant, PA 15/00107/REM shows existing and proposed landscaping approved drawing no.10. Similar to the 2024 application, the landscaping formed part of the assessment to approve the 2015 application when considering the impact upon the amenity of this application site (The Glebe House). Paragraph 6.2 of the Planning Officers report states outlines the consideration and finds that in part, due to the 'distance from the neighbouring properties; and existing landscaping and boundary features,' that the proposal would not significantly affect the amenity of neighbours to warrant refusal. The distance between the rear elevation of The Glebe House and the side elevation of the sun lounge on the The Grange measures around 16m. Notwithstanding the neighbours' comments, the separation distance and orientation is acceptable and it is considered that any views between properties would not cause undue harm to residential amenity of these rooms.
7.5. Briefly addressing the other points raised in the objection; 7.5.1. It is not always necessary for applications to include the adjacent neighbour's layout and if considered necessary the department would ask for it. In any event the department has access to its' own mapping and previous planning history of neighbouring sites therefore this information can be accessed as part of the assessment. The existence of The Glebe House was observed at the outset of the assessment.
7.5.2. The level of use in any room within a dwellinghouse, whether called conservatory or sunroom cannot and is not determined through a planning application. The assessment is made on the basis of a room and potential adverse effects.
7.5.3. The impact of vegetation upon the boundary fence is not a material planning consideration or reason to consider refusal.
7.5.4. Existing vegetation that is not evergreen could be replaced and again this not a reason to refuse this application.
CONCLUSION 8.1. In respect of residential amenity no harm is perceived to any neighbour as a result of the proposal. Overall overlooking could be said to already exist between the existing glass conservatory and side window of the sunroom at The Grange. There exists vegetation on the boundary and previous assessments relating to development at The Grange have taken this into consideration prior to allowing development on that site. By virtue of the separation distances between the rear and side elevations and previously assessed landscaping to mitigate for development at The Grange, it is considered that the proposal would not introduce harm to neighbouring residential amenity to any level that could warrant refusal.
8.2. As a result of the design scale and position within the curtilage the residential development is acceptable in accordance with Strategic Policy 3, General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide.
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
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90713/B
Page 6 of 6
(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: o applicant (in all cases); o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.
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): o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant); o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area; o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and o in the case of a petition, a single representative.
9.5 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given the Right to Appeal.
__
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: 14.10.2025
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