Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90511/B
Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90511/B Applicant : Mr Richard Fathers Proposal : Erection of two-storey extension to east elevation Site Address : Rose Cottage Glen Chass Road Glen Chass Port St Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5PL
Senior Planning Officer: Jason Singleton Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 08.07.2025 __
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 proposed two storey rear extension would accord with General Policy 2, 3; Environmental Policy 1 and Housing Policy 16 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to drawings and supporting information received on 23 May 2025, referenced; 101, 102, 103, 111, 112. __
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: Arbory and Rushen Commissioners - No Objection __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Rose Cottage, Glen Chass Road, Port St Mary. The property sits to the east of the highway at a much lower level and is characterised
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90511/B
Page 2 of 5
as a two-story Manx stone cottage within its own generous grounds. Looking at the chimney stacks, the property could be read as having been two smaller cottages now internally knocked through to make one larger dwelling house. To the rear elevation (east) is a pitched roof Upvc conservatory.
1.2 The surrounding area is generally built up of predominately two storey dwellings adjacent to the highway.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the removal of the existing conservatory on the rear elevation (east) and the erection of a larger two storey extension with a footprint of 8.2m wide across part of the rear elevation and 4m deep extending into the rear patio area. The proposals would be two stories and on the first floor include a concealed / covered balcony with the ridge of the roof connecting to the existing ridge of the cottage.
2.2 The eastern elevation facing into the garden would be predominately glazed with patio type doors to both floors and apex glazing above the first floor glazed doors to follow the roof pitch. The extensions would be finished in a painted render to match the dwelling house as too would the roof tiles match the existing.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 as not for a particular purpose and where there is a presumption against development.
3.1 The site is not within a conservation area or is identified as being at flood risk. There are no registered trees on site that are affected by the proposals.
3.2 Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the following policy are considered to be the pertinent relevant policy in the determination of this application:
3.3 Whilst there is a presumption against development here as set out in General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1, there is also support for certain types of works and extension and alterations to existing residential properties in the countryside, notably that set out in Housing Policy 16. And design of building should have a positive contribute as noted in Strategic Policy 5.
3.4 Whilst the land is not zoned for development, the general principles contained with GP2 (a-n) offer guidance that specifically addresses those issues affecting building on site that would be general 'development control' and considered capable of being applied to this proposal.
3.5 The principles of the Residential Design Guidance 2021 which sets out a number of general development standards for alterations to existing dwellings including neighbouring amenity.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The application site benefits from the following approvals; 87/00728/B 1 January 1994 a planning application was permitted for "erection of front porch". 92/00265/B 1 January 1994 a planning application was refused at appeal for "extension to create additional living accommodation".
99/00769/B 29 September 1999 a planning application was permitted for "extension to dwelling".
00/00036/B 18 May 200 a planning application was permitted for "erection of replacement porch".
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90511/B
Page 3 of 5
04/01004/B 18 October 2004 a planning application was permitted for "Alterations and two- story extension to side of dwelling and extension to patio and parking area".
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Arbory and Rushen Commissioners commented (27/06/25) with no objection.
6.0 ASSESSMENT (i) Principle
(SP5; GP3) (ii) Design
(STP5; GP2b) (iii) Visual impact
(Ep1, HP16, GP2,c,f,) (iv) Neighbouring amenities (GP2g)
6.1 Principle The starting point here is the land designation within the area plan which designates the site as land not zoned for development. As General Policy 3 would be applicable in this instance, the proposal is for a two storey rear extension to an existing residential dwelling and does not specifically fit into any of the criteria for acceptable development (a-h), therefore regard must be given to the reasonableness of the scale and siting of the proposed developments within the defined residential curtilage in view of their subsequent impacts.
6.2 In this case it is relevant to give weight to Housing Policy 16 which allows for extensions to properties in the countryside with the emphasis on visual impact and also any built additions must respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. Environment Policies 1 which protects the countryside for its own sake and restricts development that would have an adverse visual impact on the countryside. Also the general principles contained with GP2 (a-n) that's offer guidance that specifically addresses those issues affecting building on site that would be general development control principles. On balance the principle of a rear extension (albeit larger)in lieu of a conservatory is acceptable form of development subject to the further assessment below.
6.3 Design The demolition of the existing conservatory would be acceptable, it is not of any architectural or historical merit. Once demolished this area would be built on for the two storey rear extension.
6.4 The proposed extension has been designed to ensure the existing proportions of the dwelling house are reflected in the design of the extension, noting the width, depth and heights to match the host dwelling. The proposal would allow for more living accommodation and would be acceptable addition for habitable accommodation.
6.5 The use of a roof detailing to echo that of the dwelling house would help keep the overall massing to be in keeping and read as one built form but strikes a balance to match that of the existing dwelling. The level of finish would seek to copy that of the dwelling house elements ensure the existing dwelling and extension are read as one residential unit which ensures the proposed additions would be in accordance with STP5 and GP2b.
6.6 Visual Impact In terms of how visible the scope of works are to the existing, Hp16 seeks that the impact when or if viewable is respectful to the properties proportions and appearance. The visual appearance of the new extension from the highway to the east would be limited given the distance it is set back but there could be glimpsing views up the driveway when driving along this road, but those passing views would ensure the building would be read in the same residential context as the property and would not appear out of keeping given the level and scale of the proposal. When viewed from Glen Chass Road to the west, the dwelling house would screen the majority of the built form and would not be readily visible and only the side
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90511/B
Page 4 of 5
elevation may be upper proportions of the side (south) be visible noting the dwelling house sits much lower than the highway. The matching levels of finish in terms of wall finish, doors, windows and roof tiles, helps to visually link the two together.
6.7 The proposed extension would be considered appropriate when read within the context of the area in terms of its height and design would be subservient to the scale and character of the main dwelling house. It is considered the proposal would be an acceptable form of development that would be read in accordance with Ep1, HP16, GP2, and would not have any adverse impact on that of the countryside or on the dwelling house and its rural setting.
6.8 Neighbouring Amenities The site sits amongst a liner line of residential dwellings, mainly two stories on the land scape with the nearest neighbours, to the south is 'Hillcrest'. Approx 12m away. Here the gable ends of both properties face each other with no windows within the gable. These neighbours would is not considered to be impacted by the proposed development over the current level of built development on site through any loss of light, overlooking or loss of privacy. It is further noted we have not received any levels of objection to the proposals. As such, these aspects would be considered to be compliant with those sections of General Policy 2(g).
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 For the above reasons, it is concluded that the proposal would accord with General Policy 2, 3; Environmental Policy 1 and Housing Policy 16 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: 08.07.2025
Determining Officer
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90511/B
Page 5 of 5
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