Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90394/B
Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90394/B Applicant : Mr Steven Elkins Proposal : Replacement of existing dwelling with new two-storey dwelling Site Address : Alverstone Ballafesson Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6TR
Senior Planning Officer: Jason Singleton Photo Taken : 12.06.2025 Site Visit : 12.06.2025 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 27.06.2025 __
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. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2025 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development shall be undertaken under the following classes of Schedule 1 of the Order at any time: Class 13 - Greenhouses and polytunnels Class 14 - Extension of dwellinghouse Class 15 - Garden sheds and summer-houses Class 16 - Fences, walls and gates Class 17 - Private garages and car ports Class 21 - Erection of decking Class 22 - Solar Panels Class 23 - Heat Pumps Class 23A - Air Source Heat Pumps
Reason: To control future development on the site.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The design of a replacement dwelling on site would be an appropriate form of development that has been designed to ensure it does not materially harm the character of the area or the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties which in turn complies with Spatial and Strategic Policy 2, Housing Policy 4 and General Policy 2 policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90394/B
Page 2 of 6
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to drawings and supporting information received on 29th April 2025, referenced; 01, 02, 03, 04, 05. __
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: Commissioners - No Objection DoI - Highways Services - No objection DoI - Highways drainage - No objection
__
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site identified in red is the residential curtilage of a derelict dwelling house referred to as 'Alverstone', Ballafesson Road, Port Erin. At the time of the site visit the dwelling had been demolished and the debris removed from site. The property sits to the west of the highway and is flanked by two other residential properties with Maidstone to the north and Fuschia cottage to the south. To the rear of the dwelling house is detached garage sitting behind the Manx tone wall.
1.2 The existing dwelling is single story in appearance with prominent chimney stacks to either end and small pitched dormer window to the front elevation. There is no vehicle access to the front of the property and only a pedestrian gateway. This is part attributed to the property being on the corner and the placement of DoI bollards on the corner. The boundary is delineated with an ornate Manx stone wall that is Front Manx stone boundary wall that is common in the streetscene and reflected opposite on the field boundary on the other side of the road.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the demolition of the existing dwelling house and the erection of a replacement dwelling house that would be characterised as a one and a half story dwelling with accommodation in the roof space.
2.2 The proposed dwelling would have a footprint measuring 8.5m x 8.5m and would be two stories high with a 35 deg pitched roof with the ridge being 6.8m high and 3.2m to the eaves level. The building would be finished in a painted render and a slate tiled roof with upvc windows, doors, fascia's, bargeboards and soffits.
2.3 The property would feature a number of solar panels to the front and rear roof slopes and twinned with an air-source hear pump and under floor heating throughout to help meet the required energy efficiency for new dwellings.
2.4 The proposals do not include or demonstrate any alterations to the existing pedestrian access and given the location on a corner will not have any vehicle access to the property, neither is any such access assessed for construction of the replacement dwelling or for the residential use being assessed as part of this application.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area recognised as being predominantly residential use under the Area Plan for the South and within the settlement
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90394/B
Page 3 of 6
boundary of Ballafesson on Map 7 (Port Erin / Port St Mary). The site is not within a conservation area or within an area identified as being at flood risk.
3.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this application;
Strategic Policy o o 2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages o 3 To respect the character of towns and villages and use of local materials. o 5 Design and visual impact.
Spatial Policy o 2 Development in Service centres (Port Erin Named) o 5 New development within defined settlements
General Policy o 2 General development considerations (b,c,g,h,i)
Environment Policy o 42 Designed to respect the character and identity of the locality
Housing Policy o 4 Location of new housing and exceptions
3.3 Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states: "As a general policy, in built up areas not controlled by Conservation Area or Registered Building policies, there will be a general presumption in favour of extensions to existing property where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general."
3.4 The Residential Design Guidance (2021) provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY None.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Arbory and Rushen Commissioners (0/6/25) generally do not object and comment; "Mrs Jenkins left the room for its consideration. The Board noted the application represented an improvement on the previous building on the site which was recently demolished. The Commissioners note that there is no off-road parking for the property and are concerned that a property of this size is likely to generate the need for at least one car. The Commissioners feel that an explanation of where any cars connected with the new development would park".
5.2 Highways Services commented (07/06/25) No objection. "The following planning applications have no significant negative impact upon the highway network in terms of highway safety, highway operation and car parking. Highway Services HDC does not oppose (DNO) the following applications. Advisory comments are applied where relevant, such as for licences to use the highway for equipment and material during works: o 25/90394/B - After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as the site would have similar parking demand to the existing dwelling".
5.3 Highways Drainage (25/06/25) No objection
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90394/B
Page 4 of 6
"Allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads. Recommendation: Applicant should be aware of and comply with the clause above".
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are; o Principle of development
(Stp2,SP2,HP4) o Design & Visual Impact
(Stp3 & 5, GP2) o Impact on Neighbours amenity (Gp2g) o Highways access and parking (GP2h,i)
Principle 6.2 The application site is located in an area zoned for residential development and is situated within a defined settlement, where the general principle would be accepted and which is further echoed within HP4. The proposals are further supported though Paragraph 8.12.1 of the SP, where there is a general presumption in favour of development, which; "would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general". As such the principle of development to demolish the existing dwelling and the erection of a replacement dwelling on site would meet the criteria within Stp2 and Sp2 and Hp4.
Design & Visual Impact 6.3 Strategic policy 3 seeks that local material and character are used (emphasis on 'character' here) which is echoed through Strategic Policy 5 where new development should make a positive contribution. This is somewhat repeated through Environment Policy 42 that broadly seeks the character of the area is protected and local identity is respected which dovetails into those aspects of General Policy 2.
6.4 The proposal would see the demolition of the existing dwelling house and the construction of a detached dwelling at two stories in height overlapping the existing footprint and extending further into the rear garden area. The proposed design would retain the appearance of a bungalow appearance with a painted render finish and a steeper pitched roof with no visual accommodation in the roof scape through any Velux or dormers. Given the varied character of the street scene, the proposal in terms of its size, scale, proportion and form would reflect those existing dwellings that form the character of the street scene and would not be considered to have an adverse visual impact on the character of the area. The design and finish ensures the replacement dwelling accords to those specific policies of STP3,STP5, GP2b,c,j,EP42, RDG'21.
Neighbouring amenities 6.5 The level and scale of development proposed here, is considered to be relatively modest and through its design is not judged to cause harm to the enjoyment of the main dwelling house or considered to harm the neighbouring amenity, specifically those to the sides through any overlooking, loss of light, an over bearing impact, loss of privacy and general visual amenity. This is further echoed given the lack of neighbour objections and the general level of support from the Commissioners whose only consideration relays to highways and access. On balance, these aspects would be considered to be compliant with those sections of General Policy 2(g).
Highways safety 6.6 In this application, Highway Services have considered the merits of the proposal, and that there is no vehicle access to the property for parking. This issue was mentioned by the commissioners and referred to the applicant whom commented on, 12th June by email to confirm; "Steven & myself discussed this during the design process and ruled out any off street parking out due to the difference in levels between the application site and highway. I can't remember if Steven spoke to Highways as part of the design process but I haven't held any such discussions with highways". It is further noted the widening of the pedestrian access
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90394/B
Page 5 of 6
onto the highway to allow for the demolition and construction will be reinstated and as confirmed by the agents architect; "My understanding is the pedestrian entrance is to be re- instated upon completion of the build".
6.7 In this instance and as the transport professionals their comments are heavily relied upon and they do not object. As such the proposal would be considered to align with the principles of General Policy 2h&I in terms of highways safety for pedestrians and vehicles.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 For the above reasons, it is concluded that the design of a replacement dwelling on site would be an appropriate form of development that has been designed to ensure it does not materially harm the character of the area or the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties which in turn complies with those aforementioned planning policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and is recommended for approval.
8.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 8.1 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).
8.2 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.
8.3 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.
8.4 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: 30.06.2025
Determining Officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
Customer note
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90394/B
Page 6 of 6
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