Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90866/B
Page 1 of 4
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90866/B Applicant : Howard John Mayo Proposal : Replacement of first floor window with door, and conversion of existing extension flat roof to balcony to the rear elevation of the dwelling Site Address : Dreemskerry House Main Road Glen Vine Isle Of Man IM4 4AY
Planning Officer: Peiran Shen Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 13.11.2025 __
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. Prior to the occupation/use of the new first floor balcony hereby approved the obscure glazing (Pilkington level 5 or equivalent) at a height of 1.8m and as shown on "East Elevation Proposed", "Rear Elevation Proposed" and "West Elevation Proposed" shall be completed and shall be retained as such thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of neighbouring residential amenities.
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, location plan, proposed site plan, existing elevations, proposed elevations and proposed plan, date stamped as having been received on 15th September 2025.
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90866/B
Page 2 of 4
__
Right to Appeal
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is Dreemskerry House, Main Road, Glen Vine, a detached house located on the south of Main Road, close to its junction with Glenlough Circle. The house has a mono-pitched roof side extension, a flat-roof rear extension, and a mono-pitched roof rear extension. The flat-roof rear extension is approx 4.1m wide and projects approx 3.9m from the rear elevation of the main house.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal is the conversion of the roof of the flat-roof rear extension into a roof terrace. The proposal includes the installation of glass balustrades around the roof and the conversion of a rear window into a door to access the roof terrace. The balustrade is approx. 1.8m high for parts close to the main house and 1.1m high for the part close to the rear boundary fo the site.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Replacement of first floor window with door and conversion of existing extension flat roof to balcony to the rear elevation of the dwelling was REFUSED under PA 25/90428/B. The this proposal is the same as the current application, except for the additional height of the balustrade. The reason for refusal is: "The foundation of the proposal roof terrace, namely the existing flat-roof rear extension, does not have planning approval. No approval for the roof terrace can be granted until the unlawful extension has been resolved."
4.0 PLANNING POLICY Site Specific 4.1 The site is within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Area Plan for the East.
Strategic Policy 4.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 has the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: o General Policy 2 (b) (c) (g)
PPS and NPD 4.3 No planning policy statement or national policy directive is considered materially relevant to this application.
5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Strategy and Guidance 5.1 The Residential Design Guide (July 2021) has the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: o Section 4.11 Roof Terraces, Balconies, Decking and Patios o Chapter 5 Architectural Details o Chapter 7 Impact on Neighbouring Properties
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90866/B
Page 3 of 4
6.1 Marown Parish Commissioners has not commented at the time of this report (13.11.2025).
7.0 ASSESSMENT Planning History 7.1 The flat-roof rear extension was commenced before the Permitted Development Order (PDO) 2025 came into effect on 1st March 2025 but was completed after the 2025 order comes into effect. Therefore, it should be evaluated under the 2025 PDO. The extension appears to comply with Class 14 of the 2025 PDO.
Elements of Assessment 7.2 The key considerations of this application are its impact on the house itself, the character and streetscene of the area, and the amenities of the neighbours.
Design of the House Itself 7.3 The proposed roof terrace, with mass use of glazing, appearing more modern than the existing house. However, given it is a rear extension, it's not considered to harm the design of the house itself.
Character and Streetscene 7.4 The proposal is not readily visible to the public and therefore has no impact on the streetscene.
7.5 Given 7.3, the proposal is not considered to harm the character and streetscene of the area.
Neighbouring Amenities 7.6 The proposal is not considered to have an overbearing or overshadowing impact on neighbouring properties.
7.7 The terrace is approx. 16.5m to the neighbouring property on the east and 13m to the neighbouring property on the west. While this distance is less than the 20m guidance in the Residential Design Guide. Site visit has confirmed that the overlooking towards the west is shielded by existing hedges along the boundary and overlooking towards the east does not cover the main garden of the property. Therefore, the additional overlooking is considered to be within reasonable limit.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposal is considered to have no adverse impact on the character of the house, the area, and neighbouring amenities. Therefore, it is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide and is recommended for an approval.
9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL 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.
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90866/B
Page 4 of 4
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: 14.11.2025
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