218002

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                                 25/90324/B
                                 Page  1  of  4

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 25/90324/B Applicant : Mr John Hellowell Proposal : Replacement of existing conservatory with single storey extension, and erection of additional single storey extension to the north elevation Site Address : Loughan Cottage Jurby East Isle Of Man IM7 3HA

Planning Officer: Peiran Shen Photo Taken :

Site Visit :

Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 04.08.2025 __

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. The proposal is considered to have no adverse impact on the character of the house, the area, and neighbouring amenities. It is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This approval relates to the documents and drawing no. 100, which has been received on 28th March 2025. __

Right to Appeal

It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:

DOI Highway Services - No Objection __

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                                 25/90324/B
                                 Page  2  of  4

1.1 The site is Loughan Cottage, Jurby, a single-storey detached house located west of the junction of Bretney Road and Polly Road. The site is elevated above the junction. Its access is at the north of the site on Polly Road. Its boundary along the roads is demarcated with trees and hedges.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposed extensions are two pitched-roof extensions, one on the north elevation and one replacing the existing conservatory on the south elevation.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There is no previous application considered materially relevant to this application.

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 Spatial Policy 5 o General Policy 2 (b) (c) (g) o General Policy 3 o Environment Policy 1 o Housing Policy 16 o Appendix 1

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 Spatial Policy 5 states that developments should only occur in defined settlements unless they comply with exceptions in General Policy 3.

4.5 Environment Policy 1 echoes Spatial Policy 5 and General Policy 3. It defines the countryside as areas outside existing settlements or not designated for development (as mentioned in 4.1). It shows that development adversely affecting the countryside will almost always be prohibited. It also states that the countryside is protected "for its own sake". In decision-making, this implies an assumption against development in the countryside.

4.6 Housing Policy 16 states: "The extension of non-traditional dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public."

4.7 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.

4.8 General Policy 2 (g) also sets out that amenities enjoyed by the site and the site around it should be protected or preserved.

PPS and NPD 4.9 Planning Circular 3/91 - Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside provides general guidance on the design details of houses in the countryside.

4.10 Policy 3 states: "Extensions to existing buildings should maintain the character of the original form."

5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Strategy and Guidance

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                                 25/90324/B
                                 Page  3  of  4

5.1 The Residential Design Guide (July 2021) contains the following guidance that is considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: o Section 4.5 Front Extensions o Section 4.6 Rear Extensions o Section 4.7 Flat Roof Extensions o Section 4.8 Side Extensions o Chapter 5 Architectural Details o Chapter 7 Impact on Neighbouring Properties

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 Jurby Parish Commissioners have not commented at the time of the report (31.07.2025).

6.2 DoI Highway Services has not commented at the time of this report (31.07.2025).

7.0 ASSESSMENT Elements of Assessments 7.1 The key considerations are the impact of the proposal on the design of the building, the character and streetscene of the area and the amenities of the neighbouring properties.

Design of the Building 7.2 The existing house, given its L-shape single-storey form, is not considered to be a traditional dwelling and therefore Housing Policy 16 is applicable. While the Residential Design Guide is not specifically for houses in the countryside, the non-traditional appearance of the house means the Guide is considered more relevant in assessing the proposal compared to Planning Circular 3/91.

7.3 The proposed extensions are subordinate to the main house, and their roofscape matches that of the main house. Therefore, they are not considered to harm the design of the house.

Character and Streetscene 7.4 Given 7.2, and the proposal is not visible to the public, the proposal is not considered to increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public. Therefore, the proposal is considered to comply with Housing Policy 16.

Neighbouring Amenities 7.5 There are no neighbouring properties within 20m of the extensions. Therefore, the proposal is considered to have no impact on neighbouring amenities.

8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposal is not considered to harm the design of the existing house nor increase visual impact to the public. It also does not harm the character of the house, the area, or neighbouring amenities. Therefore, it is considered to comply with General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 16 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: o applicant (in all cases);

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                                 25/90324/B
                                 Page  4  of  4

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. __

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: 05.08.2025

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.