**Document:** APL Statement
**Application:** 24/91039/B — Demolition of existing single storey extension and erection of a 2-storey extension to the rear of the property
**Decision:** Refused
**Decision Date:** 2024-11-01
**Parish:** Braddan
**Document Type:** report / planning_statement
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/33310-braddan-15-hatfield-demolition-extension/documents/1075371

---

# APL Statement

## 15 Hatfield Grove Douglas Isle of Man

![A street-level photograph showing the front elevation of a row of terraced residential properties with cream-colored facades and sash windows.](https://images.planningportal.im/2024/09/6977912.jpg)

Statement to accompany application for Planning Approval

September 2024

### Introduction.

![A site location plan showing a residential area with terraced housing and a highlighted plot containing a church.](https://images.planningportal.im/2024/09/6977914.jpg)

This application seeks approval for the demolition of the existing rear extension and erection of a new thermally efficient ground floor extension over the same footprint and new smaller first floor extension to house the bathroom separate from the Kitchen.

### The Site.

The application site is a 3 bedroom house, located in the cul de sac of Hatfield Grove, Douglas Isle of Man. The dwelling is a typical Victorian era property which has mostly remained unchanged since its originally construction.

The site is located within the Area Plan for the East (2020) and is identified as residential. Map Extract 1 – Map 5 from the Area Plan for the East Douglas The proposals therefore accord with the development criteria as set out for residential use.

### The Proposal.

![drawing from page 3](https://images.planningportal.im/2024/09/6977915.png)

In May 2024, my client agreed purchased and renovate 15 Hatfield Grove, this is typical Victorian era property which has mostly remained unchanged since its original construction. This means that some attributes of the property are no longer fit for purpose for modern living and therefore a general refurbishment of the property was proposed.

The main objective of the proposed refurbishment is to relocate the existing bathroom from rear the kitchen on the ground floor to a more suitable and frankly hygienic location.

Therefore it was originally proposed to demolish the existing single storey outrigger extension and rebuild as a two storey extension making use of the addition space above the kitchen for a new family bathroom and laundry facilities.

This unfortunately was deemed by the planning officer to worsen the existing overshadowing and overbearing impact on 17 Hatfield Grove, and therefore in his opinion failed to comply with General Policy 2 (g).

Following this refusal, discussions were held with the planning officer and proposals put forward to reduce this impact whilst maintain the core objective from my client.

We are now proposing the demolition of the existing single storey outrigger extension and still rebuilding a two storey extension however limiting the projection of the first floor in order to avoid overshadowing the neighbouring property.

### Planning Policy

The Isle of Man strategic plan & IoMSP are intended to provide “the strategic and general policy framework within which provision will be made for the development and conservation needs for the period 2001 - 2016” extended to 2026.

As the property already exists as a residential unit, and the application is for a new extension to the rear of the property, it is considered that the following policies will be materially relevant to the assessment

Strategic Policy 4: Proposals for development must: (a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments,

Registered Buildings(1), Conservation Areas(2) , buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest;

General Policy 2 applies: Development which is in accordance with the land use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

- (b) Respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
- (c) Does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;

(g) Does not adversely affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;

- Environment Policy 34: In the maintenance, alteration or extension of pre-1920 buildings, the use of traditional materials will be preferred.
- Environment Policy 35: Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development. Overbearing & Overshadowing Impact

It is recognised by both myself, and the previous planning officer that an element of overbearing and overshadowing already exists to each of the terraced properties at ground floor level, and as such only the additional impact created by the erection of the first floor extension should be considered.

#### “Each house and its existing rear boundary wall as well as its respective single-storey extension has an overshadowing and overbearing impact on neighbouring properties. Therefore, only the additional impact from the first storey of the proposal will be assessed.”

Particular care is warranted when designing extensions in tightly built up areas to safeguard residential amenity, and I have considered the concerns brought forward by the residents’ from the original planning application and implemented changes to the first floor arrangement, in an attempt to alleviate the perceived overbearing impact.

![drawing from page 4](https://images.planningportal.im/2024/09/6977916.png)

Whilst the height of the proposed extension would remain unchanged from the previous application and still be in the region of 1.78m from the ridge of the existing mono pitch roof to the proposed new eaves level of the new roof, and a further 700mm to the ridge, the proposed first floor projection would be considerably shorter now only 1.95m, and only servicing a small family bathroom.

While I appreciate that the updated proposal still would not conform with the “Residential Design Guidance 2021” item 4.6.5 The “45 Degree Approach” it would be considerable improvement over the recently refused submission. The RDG also confirms that “this is a guidance only, and passing the test does not mean automatic approval, nor the reverse.”

In this instance, it is also important to note that this side of Hatfield Grove benefits from facing close to due South therefore the proposed first floor extension would have only the most modest of impacts on the residents of No. 17, as the Windows for both their bedroom and Dining areas are set away from the boundary, any loss of light from overshadowing would be minimal.

### Conclusion

It is our view that that this amended application has been well thought out, achieves the objectives set out by our client, preserves the character of the conservation area, and generally accords to all the principles set out in general policy 2, - a to n.

Therefore, we feel the proposal is in-keeping with the area and the island strategic plan and are hopeful of a swift review and a positive outcome from the Planning Department.

![drawing from page 5](https://images.planningportal.im/2024/09/6977917.png)

---

*Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).*
*Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/33310-braddan-15-hatfield-demolition-extension/documents/1075371*