Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90812/B
Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90812/B Applicant : Mr Geoff Dunkley Proposal : Erection of single story extension to northern elevation of existing dwellinghouse Site Address : Corley Rock Cottage South Cape Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7JA
Senior Planning Officer: Mrs Louise Phillips Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 05.11.2025 __
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. All external facing and roofing materials to be used in the construction of the extension hereby approved shall match those of the existing building.
Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposed development would cause no harm to the character and appearance of the area or to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers; and the application property would continue to have adequate parking space. The proposal would therefore comply with the relevant policies of the Development Plan.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the following drawing numbers:
o C-1092-00 Rev A: Location/Site Plan o C-1092-01 Rev A: Existing Arrangement o C-1092-02 Rev A: Proposed Arrangement
__
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90812/B
Page 2 of 5
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
o Garff Commissioners: No objection. __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE
1.1 The application relates to a detached house in South Cape Laxey, on the north side of Old School Hill. The road slopes steeply downhill from west to east meaning that the neighbouring property to the west lies above the site while the one to the east is at a lower level.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The house has a small, single storey lean-to type extension to the front (east) elevation and it is now proposed to add further to this on the north side. The proposed extension would be deeper than the existing one and would return approximately midway along the north side elevation of the property, which faces into its own garden.
2.2 From the front, the new extension would measure almost 3.2m wide and match the existing one in respect of appearance. From the north side, it would be almost 5.4m deep and the rear part would have a slightly lower ridge height than the front to take account of an existing first floor window. The extension would provide a utility room, a bathroom and some storage space.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY
Site Specific 3.1 The site is not within a Conservation Area and there are no Registered Buildings, Registered Trees or Registered Tree Areas in the vicinity. The site is not at risk of flooding.
Area Plan for the East 2020 3.2 The site is within a predominantly residential area.
Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 3.3 Strategic Policies 3(b) and 5 concern protection of local character and the environment.
3.4 General Policy 2 provides various criteria for development management purposes, including those below which are relevant to this proposal. The development should:
(b) respect the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (g) not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; and (h) provide satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space.
3.5 Paragraph 8.12.1 states that in built up areas not controlled by Conservation Area or Registered Building policies, there will be a general presumption in favour of extensions to
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90812/B
Page 3 of 5
existing property where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general.
3.6 Transport Policy 7 requires new development to meet current parking standards.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 Residential Design Guide - Section 4.5 on front extensions.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY
5.1 91/00153/B: Construction of ground floor extension - Permitted. This extension to the front of the property has been constructed and the present proposal is effectively to add to it on the north side.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 Garff Commissioners (7/10/25): No objections. "...the extension is modest in scope and the design of the extension was consistent with the existing dwelling".
6.2 Highways Services and Highways Drainage (DoI) were consulted on 16 September 2025 but, at the time this report was drafted, no comments had been received.
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.1 The application site is in a location where the proposed development is acceptable in principle. Therefore, the main issues are its effect upon the character and appearance of the area; and upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.
Character and Appearance 7.2 Old School Hill is a very steep and narrow road and the properties along it are all of different ages and styles. Corley Rock Cottage is a traditionally styled property, oriented side- on to the road, on a plot with a fairly narrow frontage. The existing front extension is not particularly in keeping with the character and proportions of the dwelling, but it is essentially quite small and has been constructed at the northern end of the elevation, away from the road.
7.3 The proposed extension would be still further from the road and would not itself adjoin the main front elevation of the property. It would match the existing front extension and, in any case, it would not be easy to see from the road given the topography of the area, the shape of the application site, and the presence of the existing front extension and parking area immediately in front of the house. In private views from the north and west, the new extension would fit comfortably on the plot and appear a modest addition.
7.4 For these reasons, the proposed development would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore comply with Strategic Policies 3(b) and 5 and with General Policy 2(b) and (c) of the Strategic Plan. It would also fit with the advice in the Residential Design Guide that front extension can sometimes be appropriate where the street has an irregular building line or pattern.
Living Conditions 7.5 The proposed extension would have no impact upon the occupiers of Sea Cliff to the west because the latter property is at a much higher level and would look down upon its roof. Indeed there is an existing shed at the application site which would be both closer and higher to this neighbouring property than would the proposed extension.
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90812/B
Page 4 of 5
7.6 Cape Cottage to the east sits below the application site, but the extension would be well away from the boundary. At present, there is a trellis on the boundary which prevents any overlooking but, even if this were to be removed, there would be no significant problem. Essentially the new utility room window would face the porch of Cape Cottage, and it is very likely that a car would be parked in between.
7.7 Therefore, the proposed extension would not be detrimental to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in respect of overlooking; and it would cause no other harm. Thus it would comply with General Policy 2(g) of the Strategic Plan.
Other Issues 7.8 At present it is possible to park three cars in tandem at the front of the property and this is likely to remain possible with the proposed extension in place. If any space were to be lost in front of the extension, there would still be two spaces as required by Transport Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan.
7.9 There is a retaining wall at the front of the property on the boundary with Cape Cottage which has the potential to be indirectly affected by the proposed works. The physical construction of buildings is not a planning matter and no works to the wall are currently proposed. Consequently, this issue has not been taken into account in the assessment above.
8.0 CONCLUSION
8.1 For the reasons given above, the proposed development would cause no harm to the character and appearance of the area or to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. The application property would also continue to have adequate parking space. The proposal would therefore comply with the relevant policies of the Development Plan and so it is recommended for 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); 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.
__
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90812/B
Page 5 of 5
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management 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 : 10.11.2025
Determining Officer
Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
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