Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90507/B
Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90507/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Richard Watterson Proposal : Extension to existing garage and porch Site Address : 12 Close Corneil Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6BN
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: 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.
C 2. The proposed alteration to the driveway as part of this approval, shall be implemented before first use of the extension and retained thereafter.
REASON : To ensure safe and adequate access to the property and for parking requirements.
C 3. The proposed extension hereby approved shall incorporate and re-use the existing buff stone to the front and side of the extension. A cladding proposals drawing shall be submitted to the department prior to first occupation or use of the extension demonstrating its application to the front and side elevation. This cladding shall be installed and completed within 2 years of this condition being discharged and retained in perpetuity in accordance with those approved drawing.
REASON: To ensure no visual impact upon the character of the property and that of the street scene.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposed extension to the existing garage and front porch would be in accordance with General Policy 2 of the IoM Strategic Plan.
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90507/B
Page 2 of 7
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to drawings and supporting information received on 20 May 2025, referenced; 101, 103, 104.
__
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: Port Erin Commissioners - No Objection HIghway Services - No Objection subject to condition
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given the Right to Appeal as they have submitted an objection that meets the specified criteria: No.14, Fin Cop, Close Corneil, Port Erin. __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of No.12 Close Corneil, Port Erin. The property sits within a cul-de-sac of residential properties is north of the highway. The property is a detached bungalow that is gable facing to the highway with a lawn to the front and parking and attached garage to the side.
1.2 The property, like many of the others in this residential area have a concrete pitch tiled roof and composite type yellow cut stone finish to the elevations and white Upvc fenestrations, soffits and barge boards finish.
1.3 This property has a part recessed front elevation to one half of its width that acts as a covered entrance area and accesses into an internal porch within the living room. To the side west is an attached flat roofed garage that is set back from the front elevation to allow for the parking of two cars in tandem off the highway.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed forward extension (approx. 1.2m) of the recessed area to the front elevation with the inclusion of a window to be in line with the other half of the front elevation and approx. 1.9m to match the width of the dwelling. Essentially squaring up the corner.
2.2 Also proposed is a forward extension (approx. 2.3m) to the attached garages front elevation and its internal alterations to create a kitchen and utility area with a window facing the highway under a flat roof with raised above eaves level.
2.3 The proposals would also see the widening (and installation of a dropped kerb) of the existing driveway to remove a portion of grass adjacent to the boundary hedging to the west of the existing driveway to allow for two cars parked in parallel.
2.4 The proposed works are solely contained to the front elevation of the dwelling house / garage facing the highway.
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 Map 7 - Port Erin/ Port St Mary. The property isn't within a Conservation Area nor a Flood Risk Zone.
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90507/B
Page 3 of 7
3.2 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application;
Strategic Policy 2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages 3 To respect the character of our towns and villages 5 Design and visual impact
Spatial Policy 2 Port Erin is defined as a Service village
General Policy 2 General Development Considerations
Environment Policy 42 Designed to respect the character and identity of the locality
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 Residential Design Guidance 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 4.1 07/02140/B; Alterations and extensions to dwelling to provide additional living accommodation. Approved. (This application saw a rear extension into the garden of the dwelling house and a small side extension to the eat elevation)
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Port Erin Commissioners commented (11/06/25) with no objection - "The Board of Port Erin Commissioners considered the above application at its meeting held on Tuesday 10th June 2025 and resolved to support the proposal".
5.2 Highways Services commented (30/05/25) with no objection. "Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking providing the applicant confirms that the driveway will be widened to accommodate two vehicles as proposed on the layout plan (site observations showed a single car width driveway which would be reduced with the proposed extension) - the widened driveway should be conditioned to be implemented before first use of the extension and retained thereafter (for highway safety and parking amenity purposes)".
5.3 The neighbour to the west No.14 (Fin Cop) Close Corneil, objects with concerns relating to; o Overlooking into their kitchen window from the proposed kitchen window (approx. 12- 15 feet away). o Siting of the front porch would overlook dining / living room window and lead to a loss of privacy to their kitchen and living room. o Wishes the boundary hedge to be retained to prevent any loss of privacy. o The use of painted render would look out of character and not in keeping within the street scene and wider area. o Concerns on the size and scale of the proposals.
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90507/B
Page 4 of 7
o Widening of the driveway will need to accommodate 4 cars if there are 4 adults in the property.
6.0 ASSESSMENT The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are; (i)
(i) PRINCIPLE 6.1 The application site is located in an area zoned for residential development and is situated within a defined settlement of Port Erin (Sp2), 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".
6.2 As such the principle of development to material alter the front elevation though extensions to the built form of the dwelling house and widen the driveway would meet the criteria within Stp2 and Sp2 and Hp4.
(ii) VISUAL IMPACT 6.3 The scope of works are solely contained to the front elevation of the dwelling house and would be partially visible from the public highway when passing the front of the property. The proposed extension would be similar to others within this street scene of this cul-de-sac but would be considered minor additions in terms of increasing the built footprint to "square off the front corner" to create a flush building line at the front and underneath the existing roof pitch and the forward projection of the garage to be used as a kitchen.
6.4 Concerns from the consultation period have been raised regarding the level of finish and the use of painted white render to the extended proportions. Given the scope of the proposals, it could be possible to retain much of the existing buff coloured stone cladding to be reused on the front elevations of the proposed faces of the extension, and can be conditioned.
6.5 This was raised with the applicant's representatives (04/08/25) and they confirmed the re-use of the existing facing stone and a similar white T&G cladding board could be used to ensure the front elevation remains the same as the existing in terms of materials and appearance. As such this can be conditioned to ensure the visual appearance is more in keeping with the character of the street scene and the surrounding area.
6.6 Similarly to the above, the forward extension to the garage would be acceptable and would remain behind the building line of the property and finished in accordance with the above narrative. The use of the internal space as a kitchen/utility would be acceptable and would not be seen to create any visual harm to the property or the street scene.
6.7 In terms of roof coverings, this proposal would incorporate the use of a flat roof design over the former garage and its forward extension and incorporate a roof light. An almost identical proposal was recently approved to 45 Station Road, Port Erin under application; 23/01217/B - Erection of extension, porch extension, door and window alterations and installation of a roof lantern. However, within the street scene, many properties have flat roofed garages attached and as does this property, so the introduction of this method of roof covering is not uncommon in the street scene.
6.8 However this proposal would be increasing the height of the flat roof so as opposed to being at eaves level it would be slightly higher to accommodate a modern warm roof and
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90507/B
Page 5 of 7
interior head heights. Whilst, it is also noted some flat roofed extensions are generally not considered (RDG'21 para; 4.7) to be an acceptable form of development where they involve poor design. However, there are a variety of styles available and a contemporary approach with architectural detailing that can be more appropriate. Here, given the front elevation of the garage would be set back from the front of the property and as is located towards the end of the cul-de-sac, its visual intrusion would be minimal in this instance and only readily noticeable when standing in front of the property.
6.9 Furthermore, it was noted from the site visit the property opposite No.19 has a similar deep profile flat roof above their converted garage which meets the roof above eaves level as per approved planning application; 17/00321/B - Conversion of the rear portion of existing garage to create main bedroom en-suite including raising of existing flat roof.
6.10 In terms of visual appearance, it has to be remembered that any views of the proposals from the public highway, would be read within the contact of the property and the residential curtilage and would not appear out of character within the street scene as discussed above. On balance, it would not be apparent or overly dominant on the streetscape, when viewed from the internal estate road.
6.11 This aspect is deemed to be an acceptable form of development without harming the visual character and quality of the street scene or to the property itself in accordance with STP5, GP2(b,c) and Ep42.
(iii) NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES 6.12 In terms of whether there is any material harm to the neighbouring amenity, specifically to the side (west) of No.14. Here, they share a common boundary with the application site and could be impacted by the proposals. Their comments are summarised in para 5.3 where they have objected to proposals.
6.13 Noting the design here, the forward projection of the garage would not feature any windows in the side elevation facing towards No.14 (there is an existing window to the garage side elevation) but includes a window facing towards the highway. In this case, any such outlook from this window would be to the front aspect and not to the sides. Equally, the moving of the front door to the edge of the property would then be approx. 7m between the respective property elevations but with an intervening evergreen hedgerow on the property boundary. It is also noted that the orientation of the dwellings whose front elevations are on the same theoretical building line, the movement of the front door would not enable any direct views into the window on the front elevation of the neighbouring dwelling of No.14. It is further noted the proposed door is only partially glazed and could be conditioned as such to ensure the amount of glazing within the door is kept to a minimum.
6.14 Having visited the site and that of the street scene it was noted the existing window in the side elevation of the application site that serves a living room which faces towards No.14. The proposals would see this large window removed to allow access into the extended kitchen area, removing any existing overlooking towards the neighbours. The existing window to the side of the existing garage could be a cause of concern for overlooking given its conversion to a primary room (kitchen).
6.15 However, this window is at ground level and the height of the boundary hedging (a fence of similar height could be erected under pdo in lieu of the hedge should it dies back) denies any overlooking leading to a loss of privacy. It was noted that at the time of the site visit this part of the hedgerow has been trimmed lower than the remainder and opposite is a window within No.14. To the boundary of the rear gardens is a "hit and miss" style fence approx. 1.8m high and should the hedging no longer be required or die back a fence on the boundary could be extended towards the front elevation of the property. This in turn would
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90507/B
Page 6 of 7
ensure there is no overlooking given the height of the fence and the respective window heights when measured from ground level.
6.16 Having reviewed the proposed drawings, the placement of the windows and scale of the extensions, it is considered there would be no overlooking leading to a loss of privacy over and above existing levels. Nor would the proposals have an overbearing impact from the built development upon the neighbour to No.14. Also the built form and the intervening distance involved here would not result in a loss of light or outlook from the proposed extension.
6.17 In this case, the design of the extension being limited to single story and it's siting is to extend the existing proportions and form of the dwelling have not resulted in any material harm to the neighbouring property or that of the street scene in general. On balance, these aspects would be considered to be compliant with those sections of General Policy 2(g).
(iv) HIGHWAY SAFETY 6.18 The enlargement of the existing driveway (by approx. 1.2m wide x 7m long) to create an additional vehicle parking space would see the removal of a grassed area to the side (West) and would be finished to match the existing concrete driveway and would not be seen to have any detrimental visual impact upon the appearance of the property or character of the area as the space is offset to the side and not blocking any of the dwellings windows. This method of enlargement would be acceptable from a planning perspective. It is further noted Highways Services do not object but would seek a S.109 agreement for these proposed works to the highway. Therefor this aspect would comply with (Gp2h,i).
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The planning application would be an acceptable form of development within a defined residential area that has been designed to ensure that it would not harm the host dwelling in terms of visual appearance nor would the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties amenities be affected by the proposals.
7.2 As such the proposals would comply with Strategic Policy 3, Spatial Policy 2, General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). The application is therefore 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
==== PAGE 7 ====
25/90507/B
Page 7 of 7
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal