Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No.: 24/91417/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Simon Benn + Vicky Elizabeth Quirk Proposal: Demolition of existing extension, erection of a rear extension, roofing works including replacement slates, installation of solar panels, roof lights and rear dormer, rendering works, replacement windows, patio and raising of boundary wall to 14 Stanley Road (amendments to 24/00827/B including erection of integral greenhouse - in association with 24/00829/CON) Site Address: 12 Stanley Road Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1NX Technical Officer: Tom Sinden Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 11.02.2025 _________________________________________________________________

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.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.

It is judged that the proposals meet the statutory tests within Section 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, as the proposed alterations and additions are considered to preserve the character and appearance of the Peel Conservation Area. It is also judged that the application meets the tests of Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policy 35 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 as the scale, nature and form of the proposals would result in the character and appearance of the Conservation Area being protected and preserved. Although the proposed dormer is contemporary in appearance, the design is judged to be acceptable in this instance given the varied nature of the style and form of the rear elevations along Stanley Road, and the scale and massing is considered to respect that of the wider terrace and existing dwelling. The application is therefore judged to be acceptable.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to drawings 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115A, 116A and 117A all received on 8.1.2025.

_________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal

It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: D.O.I. Highways - No objection

_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is 12 Stanley Road, Peel. The property is a two storey pitched-roof terraced dwelling on the north side of Stanley Road. The site is located in the Peel Conservation Area.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 This application proposes various alterations and extensions to the property. On the Stanley Road (front) elevation, it is proposed to replace the existing front elevation windows with double glazed UPVC one-over-one sliding sash windows, to replace the existing door with a four panelled composite door, and to remove the existing pebble-dash wall finish and apply a lime-based painted render. On the front-facing roof pitch, the application proposes to install a new roof light, five solar panels and a new natural slate roof. On the rear elevation, it is proposed to remove the existing utility room and adjacent flat roof extensions and construction a monopitch extension occupying the full width of the building plot, and extending 9.2m beyond the historic rear wall. Also on the rear elevation, the application proposes to install replacement double glazed UPVC casement opening windows on the existing building, and construct a zinc-clad dormer with a large picture window extending below the existing eaves level. On the rear-facing roof pitch the application proposes to install a new roof light and a new natural slate roof. All of the above proposals were approved under 24/00827/B, although those works have not been commenced at the time of writing this report. - 2.2 In addition to the works listed above, the application proposes to construct a timberframed greenhouse abutting the rear elevation within the property's rear yard. - 2.3 The demolition elements within this application were the subject of registered building consent application 24/00829/CON, which was approved on 7.10.2024.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The site is in an area defined as mixed use in the Peel Local Plan 1989, and within the Peel Conservation Area. The site is not in an area at risk of flooding. - 3.2 National policy: THE ISLE OF MAN STRATEGIC PLAN 2016

General Policy 2 Strategic Policy 4

• Environment Policy 34
• Environment Policy 35 Community Policy 7, 10 & 11.

3.3 Planning Policy Statements: 1/01 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man

POLICY CA/2 SPECIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS When considering proposals for the possible development of any land or buildings which fall within the conservation area, the impact of such proposals upon the special character of the area, will be a material consideration when assessing the application. Where a development is proposed for land which, although not within the boundaries of the conservation area, would affect its context or setting, or views into or out of the area; such issues should be given special consideration where the character or appearance of a conservation area may be affected.

4.0 OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS - 4.1 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999 S18 Designation of conservation areas

(4) Where any area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act.

4.2 Planning Circular 1/98 provides advice on the replacement of windows and suggests in Conservation Areas the method of opening is more important than the frame material but the original method of opening should be replicated where the originals are in place. - 4.3 Whilst not adopted planning policy, DEFA's Residential Design Guide (2021) is a material consideration in the assessment of this application as, "It is intended to apply to any residential development within existing villages and towns, including individual houses, conversions and householder extensions."

5.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 5.1 - 02/02215/B Installation of replacement uPVC windows and doors to front and rear elevations Permitted

24/00829/CON Registered Building Consent for demolition aspects to 24/00827/B Permitted

24/00827/B Demolition of existing extension, erection of a rear extension, roofing works including replacement slates, installation of solar panels, roof lights and rear dormer, rendering works, replacement windows, patio and raising of boundary wall to 14 Stanley Road. Permitted

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only. - 6.1 DOI Highways - After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no highways interest (13.1.2025). - 6.2 Peel Commissioners were consulted on 15.1.2025. At the time of writing this report, no representation has been received and it is therefore assumed that the authority has no comments to make regarding the application (11.2.2025). - 6.3 Manx National Heritage were consulted on 15.1.2025. At the time of writing this report, no representation has been received and it is therefore assumed that Manx National Heritage have no comments to make regarding the application (11.2.2025).

7.0 ASSESSMENT Statutory Test - 7.1 Section 18 of the Act requires the Department to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of any conservation area in the exercise of any powers under the Act. In this instance, the application proposes various alterations and extensions to a terraced dwelling on Stanley Road. - 7.2 At the front, the application proposes to replace the windows and door, replace the existing roof finish with natural slate, install five solar panels and a roof light. Although the use of UPVC

• for the window frames and composite UPVC for the door is not traditional, the nature of the current windows guidance document is such that the use of UPVC is widespread across the conservation area. With this in mind, the alterations at the front of the property are judged to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.
• 7.3 At the rear, the application proposes to replace the existing utility room and flat roof extensions with a monopitch extension, to construct a dormer with a large picture window and finished in zinc, and to replace the existing windows with UPVC casement opening units. Additionally to the previously approved application, the proposals now include a timber-framed greenhouse at ground floor level within the rear yard. The greenhouse would abut the proposed (and previously approved) extension, with a monopitch roof that would fall towards number 14 Stanley Road. The scale and form of the proposed ground floor extension and greenhouse is such that very little of these elements would be visible from outside of the site. Given the current arrangement of ground floor extensions on the property, the proposal does represent a degree of rationalisation, and when combined with the limited visibility from outside of the site, this element of the proposals is judged to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. In respect of the replacement windows, as these windows are not readily visible from a public thoroughfare, the proposed units are judged to meet the guidance within the current windows guidance document and therefore to preserve the character of the conservation area. The final element to consider on the rear elevation is the proposed dormer. An appraisal of the existing rear elevation along the terrace shows that there is a significant variation in the form, rhythm and appearance from house to house. Numbers 16 and 18, further down the road towards the seafront, feature cat-slide dormers with painted render wall finishes, while monopitch and duo-pitch two storey rear outriggers are common along the row. The proposed dormer would not match the form or finish of the existing dwelling any of the other dormers or extensions on the rear elevation of the terrace. Given that there is no overriding style or form to the rear elevation of the properties along Stanley Road, the fact that this proposal is obviously contemporary and does not attempt to copy adjacent examples or present a historic appearance is judged to be a valid design approach. The scale and massing of the dormer is considered to be commensurate with the other dormers that are in existence on the terrace, and also to respect the scale of the dwelling itself. With all of the above factors in mind, it is judged that the proposed dormer and the overall proposals at the rear of the property would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. Policy Tests
• 7.4 As outlined in section 6.1 above, this application proposes various alterations to the front and rear of number 12 Stanley Road.
• 7.5 At the front of the property, the proposed replacement windows are judged to comply with the guidance within planning circular 1/98 and therefore to protect and preserve the character of the conservation area. The proposed replacement door, although in a composite UPVC material, would be a close match to the existing door in terms of style and is therefore judged to protect and preserve the character of the conservation area. The replacement of the existing slate roof tiles with new natural slate roof tiles is an element that is judged to preserve the character. The extent and position of the proposed roof light and solar panels is such that these will only be visible from very limited locations along Stanley Road, and as such it is judged that these elements would preserve the character of the conservation area. Overall, the front elevation alterations are judge to have no negative impact on the existing property, no adverse impact on the amenity of surrounding properties and to have no adverse impact on the character of the surrounding townscape.
• 7.6 At the rear, the application proposes to replace the existing utility room and flat roof extensions with a monopitch extension and greenhouse, to construct a dormer with a large picture window and finished in zinc, and to replace the existing windows with UPVC casement opening units. As outlined in section 7.3, the replacement windows proposed are judged to

• meet the guidance within planning circular 1/98, and as such this element is considered to protect and preserve the character of the conservation area and to respect the design of the existing dwelling. The proposed ground floor extension and greenhouse would replace a monopitch utility room and flat roof extension that are judged to make no positive contribution to the character of the conservation area. Although larger, the replacement extension and greenhouse is judged to be of a form and scale that will have no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties and that would respect the existing property. Given the very limited visibility of the extension and greenhouse from outside the site, the proposed ground floor extension is also judged to protect and preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. Whilst the addition of a greenhouse abutting the proposed extension will increase the footprint of the development within the rear yard, the greenhouse would be predominantly glazed. It is judged that the glazed form would assist in softening the overall massing within the rear yard, and that no significant adverse impact will result to neighbours or to the character of the conservation area and surrounding townscape.
• 7.7 The element of the proposals that would have most impact is judged to be the rear dormer. As discussed within section 6.3, the rear elevation of the terrace along Stanley Road is such that a variety of outriggers, dormers and additions are in evidence. It is judged that this existing variety is not having a detrimental impact on the terrace's contribution to the character of the conservation area, and indeed that a terrace of this nature would be expected to have variation of this nature. Although clearly contemporary in appearance and finish (zinc cladding), the scale and massing is judged to be such that the dormer would respect the scale of the existing dwelling and that there would be no adverse impact on the character of the surrounding townscape or the character of the conservation area. The large picture window within the proposed dormer would create a degree of overlooking that does not currently exist. The density and nature of a terrace within a town centre location is such that a degree of overlooking is to be expected. Given the height of the boundary walls to the rear yards on both sides, and the size and position of the outbuildings within the rear yards of the adjacent properties, in this instance the degree of overlooking is judged to be acceptable and to result in no significant adverse impact on neighbouring amenity.
• 7.8 Given the nature and scale of the proposals, the application is judged to comply with Community Policies 7, 10 and 11 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016.

8.0 CONCLUSION - 8.1 It is judged that the proposals meet the statutory tests within Section 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, as the proposed alterations and additions are considered to cause no harm to the character and appearance of the Peel conservation area. It is also judged that the application meets the tests of Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policy 35 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 as the proposals would result in the character and appearance of the conservation area being protected and preserved. Although the proposed dormer is contemporary in appearance, the design is judged to be acceptable in this instance given the varied nature of the style and form of the rear elevations along Stanley Road, and the scale and massing is considered to respect that of the wider terrace and existing dwelling. It is therefore recommended that the application be approved.

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:

• 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: 17.02.2025 Determining Officer Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton 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.