Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90988/B
Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90988/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Gary and Joanna Blackburn Proposal : Creation of second floor balcony with balustrade and replacement of first floor balcony balustrade, both to south elevation Site Address Thallooyn My Creg 115 King Edward Road Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 2AX
Senior Planning Officer: Mrs Louise Phillips Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 23.12.2025 __
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. Within six months of the installation of the second floor balcony hereby approved "BirdShade" window film as shown in the submitted details dated 8 December 2025 shall be applied to the glazed balustrade unless details of alternative film are first submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained and maintained thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of preventing birds from striking the glass.
N 1. The applicant is encouraged to apply the protective "BirdShade" window film to the first floor balustrade as well as the second floor balustrade to mitigate the potential for bird-strike.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposed replacement of the balustrade at first floor level would have no significant impact upon either the character and appearance of the area or the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. The proposed new balcony at second floor level would respect the character and appearance of the host property and wider area. Whilst it would be possible to look towards the facing bedroom window of No 113 King Edward Road from the new balcony, the view would be at some distance, only slightly below that recommended in the Residential Design
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90988/B
Page 2 of 6
Guide, and similar to that already available from existing vantage points. Consequently, it is considered that any minor increase in overlooking would not warrant refusal. Overall, therefore, the proposed development would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and it would cause no additional harm in respect of neighbouring living conditions. It would comply with the relevant policies of the Development Plan.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the following drawing numbers:
o GB-01: Location Plan o GB-02: Block Plan o GB-04: Floor Plans & Elevations as Proposed o GB-05: Site Plan as Proposed o Correspondence dated 8 December 2025 concerning birdstrike mitigation measures.
__
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
o Onchan District Commissioners: No objection.
It is recommended that the following groups should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
o Manx Wildlife Trust, 7-8 Market Place, Peel, IM5 1AB: Objection does not identify land that is owned or occupied by the objector that would be impacted on (A10(2)(a)). __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE
1.1 The application relates to a detached house on the north side of King Edward Road overlooking the tram tracks. It has a flat roofed portico over the front door which provides a balcony accessed from the first floor living area. The balustrade consists of steel posts and glass panels. The roof at second floor level is flat across the property and there is a smaller, third floor section in the centre of the building, also with a flat roof, which provides a bedroom and en-suite bathroom. There is presently no formal access from the third floor onto the flat roof of the main building.
1.2 Large windows are a feature of the application property, including on both side elevations facing the neighbouring houses. No 117 to the east is a modern dwelling with a large balcony to the front at first floor level. No 113 to the west is of a more traditional style but also has large bay windows to the front.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The proposed development is the replacement of the existing balustrade at first floor level with a new one of frameless glass; and the creation of a new balcony at second floor level with the same frameless glass balustrade. The new balcony would be the full width of the third floor bedroom, approximately 7.4m wide and 2.6m deep. Both new balustrates would be 1.1m high.
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90988/B
Page 3 of 6
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 the 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; and (g) not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality.
3.5 Environment Policy 4 requires that development which would adversely affect protected species should not be permitted.
3.6 Paragraph 8.12.1 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".
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 Residential Design Guide - Section 4.11 on Roof Terraces, Balconies, Decking & Patios provides advice in relation to character and appearance and neighbouring amenity.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY
5.1 05/92313/B amended by 06/01612/B: Extensions and alterations to dwelling. Both permitted subject to conditions including the following:
"The main flat roof section surrounding the observatory be restricted to access for repair and maintenance only and is not to be used for recreational purposes, which could cause an adverse impact on the neighbouring properties through overlooking and therefore a loss of privacy".
5.2 09/01516/B: Creation of additional roof patio on part of existing flat roof. Refused at appeal. Inspector found the following:
"14. Despite its small area, views from the proposed roof patio would still overlook part of the rear garden and various east facing side windows of 113. Residents using this roof patio would easily be able to look down into these windows and a small part of the rear garden; this would inevitably lead to an unacceptable loss of privacy from time to time for the occupants of 113. The fact that 113 already suffers from loss of privacy by overlooking from the first floor west facing kitchen and dining room windows and the top floor bedroom/observatory windows of 115 is not a good reason to increase the amount of overlooking and loss of privacy.
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90988/B
Page 4 of 6
15. In short, the proposed roof patio would seriously harm the living conditions of residents in 113 King Edward Road".
5.3 The balcony refused planning permission at appeal was proposed in the same position as the one proposed now.
5.4 The other planning history for the site is not relevant to the present application.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 Onchan District Commissioners (20/11/25): "Recommendation for approval".
6.2 Manx Wildlife Trust (4/11/25):
"...request details of what birdstrike mitigation measures will be included in these proposals, noting that frameless plate glass balustrades pose a well-recognised and lethal risk to several Wildlife Act 1990 Schedule 1 specially protected species of bird which inhabit suburban areas such as the proposed development site.
Approval of any development which poses an identified risk to Schedule 1 birds, without suitable mitigation, is contrary to Environment Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. Numerous no-cost or low-cost mitigation methods are readily available for developments such as this which would reduce or remove the risk of birdstrike".
6.3 Ecosystem Policy Team, DEFA (20/11/25):
"... We believe that a condition requiring details of measures to prevent bird strikes on the second floor glass balustrade would be appropriate, though we do take the point regarding the existing first floor balustrade. So, though not a matter for consideration with this application, we recommend that the applicant gives consideration to installing similar measures on the 1st floor balustrade".
6.4 Highways Services (DoI) and Forestry, Amenity & Lands (DEFA) were consulted on 30 October 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, subject to compliance with other relevant criteria. Therefore, the main issues are its effect upon the character and appearance of the area; and upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, particularly in respect of privacy.
Character and Appearance 7.2 The stretch of King Edward Road in the vicinity of the application site comprises dwellings of various sizes, ages and styles, but large windows and glazed balconies on the front elevations are a common feature of the street scene on account of the sea view to the south.
7.3 The balcony/balustrade at first floor level is a well-established feature of the application property and its replacement with a similar but more modern frameless one would not be particularly noticeable. The proposed additional balcony at second floor level would be of the same style and of a similar width and depth to the existing one. It would utilise a section of flat roof in the centre of the building, directly above the existing balcony, and so it would maintain the symmetry of the property.
7.4 Taken together, the proposed new balconies would respect the character and appearance of the host building and would be in keeping with the wider streetscene. The
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90988/B
Page 5 of 6
proposed development would therefore comply with Strategic Policies 3(b) and 5 and with General Policy 2(b), (c) and (g) of the Strategic Plan.
Living Conditions 7.5 First, it is important to acknowledge that a very similar balcony to that now proposed at second floor level was refused following an appeal in 2010. The refusal was on the basis that the balcony would create a new source of overlooking of a bedroom window on the side elevation of No 113. No concerns were raised in respect of No 117 and, given that the only facing windows of this property are small and obscure glazed, there are no concerns today.
7.6 There have been no relevant physical changes to either the application property or to No 113 since the appeal decision was made, however it is considered that the material circumstances are different now in that the RDG has been published with specific guidance in relation to balconies and the current application has not resulted in an objection from the current owner/occupier of No 113 (notwithstanding that planning runs with the land rather than with individual occupiers). The current proposal therefore warrants fresh consideration.
7.7 The proposed second floor balcony would undoubtedly allow users to look towards the bedroom window on the first floor of No 113, but this would be at a distance of more than 18m at an angle. Whilst slightly below the 20m separation distance recommended by the Residential Design Guide, the bedroom window is at the front of the property facing the road and the view one would get from the new balcony would be no different to that already available from the large first and second floor windows of the house or from the existing first floor balcony. Thus there would be no real increase in overlooking and the nature of the view would not amount to a significant invasion of privacy.
7.8 Moreover, the new balcony would serve a bedroom whereas the existing one serves the main living area, making it likely that any gathering of people would be upon the existing balcony rather than the new one. Anybody using either balcony is likely to be taking in the view of the sea rather than looking into neighbouring windows and, notwithstanding the findings of the appeal Inspector, there would be no clear view into the rear garden of No 113 from the front facing balcony proposed.
7.9 Overall, the proposed development would not result in a significant increase in the potential for overlooking of No 113 and, consequently, the living conditions of the occupiers would not be detrimentally affected. On this basis, and having regard to the fact that the present occupiers do not object to the proposal, it would comply with General Policy 2(g) of the Strategic Plan.
Other Issues 7.10 Both the Manx Wildlife Trust and the Ecosystem Policy Team at DEFA have raised concerns about birds flying into the glass balustrades proposed. This is clearly a potential problem and the applicant is amenable to applying anti-bird strike treatment to the glass. Given that the proposed balcony would result in additional glass, it would be appropriate to require this as a condition of any planning permission. A note could also be added to encourage the applicant to apply the material to the replacement balustrade on the first floor.
8.0 CONCLUSION
8.1 The proposed replacement of the balustrade at first floor level would have no significant impact upon either the character and appearance of the area or the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. The proposed new balcony at second floor level would respect the character and appearance of the host property and wider area. Whilst it would be possible to look towards the facing bedroom window of No 113 from the new balcony, the view would be no different to that already available from existing vantage points. Consequently, there would
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90988/B
Page 6 of 6
be no material increase in overlooking and the present occupiers of No 113 do not object to the proposals.
8.2 Overall, therefore, the proposed development would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and it would cause no additional harm in respect of neighbouring living conditions. It would comply with the relevant policies of the Development Plan and is recommended for approval accordingly.
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.
9.5 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given the Right to Appeal.
__
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 : 26.01.2026
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