**Document:** Inspector's Report
**Application:** AP25/0013 — Appeal against the refusal for alterations to existing dwelling to create first floor rooms, removal of chimney, installation of roof lights, and alterations to doors and windows
**Decision:** Appeal accepted - PA APPROVED
**Decision Date:** 2025-09-18
**Parish:** Lezayre
**Document Type:** appeal / appeal_submission
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/88412-lezayre-26-riverbank-road-appeal-against-refusal/documents/1142006

---

# Inspector's Report

Appeal No: AP25/0013 Application No: 24/91425/B ________________________________________________________________

Report on a Planning Appeal by the Written Procedure ________________________________________________________________ Site Visit: Monday 14 July 2025 _____________________________________________________________

Appeal by: Jennifer Devine

Against the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse an application for alterations to bungalow including the creation of first floor rooms with dormer to the rear of the dwelling, internal alterations, removal of chimney, amendments to doors and windows to rear and end elevations and additional rooflights at 26 Riverbank Road, Ramsey IM8 3PR.

Introduction

- 1. This report provides brief descriptions of the appeal site and its surroundings; the proposal which is subject to the appeal; background information and relevant policy. The cases for the appeal parties are then summarised, fuller details being available for reference in the documents on the case file. My assessment, conclusions and recommendation follow.

Site and surroundings

- 2. 26 Riverbank Road is one of a row of bungalows of similar style and sizes on the south side of the residential road. Rear gardens back onto the Sulby River.

The proposed development

- 3. Alterations to the existing bungalow including the creation of first floor rooms with a new dormer window to the rear of the dwelling. Internal alterations, the removal of a chimney, and amendments to doors and windows and the insertion of additional rooflights. Increase bedrooms from 2 to 4 with the garage bisected to accommodate a new utility room. The garage would become a garden store. Two rooflights would be inserted in the western roof slope of the existing lounge/sunroom, with existing window apertures infilled and rendered over and a new obscure glazed window and door inserted to serve the new utility room.
- 4. On the first floor the provision of a single, flat-roofed dormer with roof height set just below the eaves height. It would measure 10.87m wide x 2.5m high, with a depth of approx. 5.0m providing a 2 further double bedrooms, one with an en-suite shower room. The new master bedroom and the more centrally placed bedroom would be served by a balcony contained within the new dormers, allowing for sitting and views across the Sulby River to the countryside beyond. The existing chimney located on the rear main roof slope would be removed.

Relevant planning policy

- 5. The site lies within an area designated on the Draft Area Plan for the North and West 2022 as Predominantly Residential reflecting the current Ramsey Local Plan. The property lies within an area prone to flood risk from surface water with a high likelihood of flooding to the front of the dwelling as shown on the Isle of Man Indicative Flood Risk Maps.
- 6. In terms of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (IMSP) there is a presumption in favour of residential development subject to the general standards of development as set out in General Policy 2 (GP2). That states that development will normally be permitted, provided that the development meets a number of criteria. Of particular relevance in this case are:

-  (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 affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;

- 7. Environment Policies 10 and 13 (ENV10 and 13) relate to development and flood risk. EP 10 requires a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures where development is proposed on any site where there is a potential risk of flooding.
- 8. Environment Policy 23 (ENV23) which requires that consideration be given to the potential adverse impact of the proposed changes to existing neighbours.

Residential Design Guide 2021 (RDG)

- 9. The RDG provides guidance on the main design considerations for dormer extensions.

Case for the Planning Authority

- 10. The key issues are – Principle of development; visual impact of the proposed development; the impact upon the amenities (overlooking, loss of light; over bearing impact, (privacy and visual amenity) of the neighbouring properties; and flood risk implications.
- 11. Principle of development - the principle of development via extensions and alterations is considered to be acceptable subject to the proposed scheme being in accordance with the relevant planning policies and any other material considerations.
- 12. Visual impact - the property is one of a row of approx. ten similar dwellings on the south side of Riverbank Road with rear outlooks facing the Sulby River which have spacious rear garden areas laid to grass and dotted with mature shrubs and screened from each other by mature side boundary hedgerows. No. 26 has picket fencing on its rear boundary allowing views across the river and countryside beyond, encapsulating views of the distant mountains to the south. None of the other properties in the row have any roof extensions or additions.

- 13. The dormer extension would result in a significant addition to the existing dwelling at a raised level and would introduce a significant non-conforming flat-roofed structure at the first-floor level. It is considered that the design, bulk, width and scale of the proposed dormer extension would result in an unacceptably large and visually discordant extension that would appear as an incongruous addition to the existing single storey dwelling. There are no other similar extensions to the dwellings on this side of Riverbank Road. Overall, in terms of visual impact, the proposed extension would fail to accord with the provisions of Policy GP2 (b and c)
- 14. Neighbouring amenity- The first floor, flat-roofed, dormer extension would be sited on the rear roof slope of the existing dwelling and would be sited close to the common boundary with the dwelling to the west at No 25, the rear elevation of which does not align with that of No 26 but is inset. It is considered that this relationship would be unduly overbearing, resulting in an unacceptable level of light loss to, and outlook from, the nearest part of the rear elevation of No 25.
- 15. In respect of the relationship with No 27, the pitched roof of the existing ground floor rear element would largely protect the amenities of occupants of this neighbouring property. Therefore, the impacts upon No 25 would fail to accord with the provisions of Policy GP2 (g).
- 16. Further, the proposed rear dormer extension would give potential for overlooking of neighbouring rear gardens, particularly the ability to overlook the rear garden of No 25 from the balcony serving Bedroom No 5, less so from the balcony serving Bedroom No 6, albeit that the dormer cheeks to each balcony area would mean that overlooking would only occur by leaning against the balcony railing.
- 17. The same would occur in respect of the balcony proposed to serve Bedroom No 6 with regards to No 27. The pitched roof of the existing ground floor rear would largely prevent any overlooking of the immediate area to the rear of the dwelling, although distant views of the rear portion of rear garden area would be available. Nevertheless, given the potential impact for overlooking and loss of privacy in respect of the occupants of No 25's enjoyment of their rear garden area, the proposed development is considered to be unacceptable.
- 18. Flood risk - This is a first-floor extension to the existing dwelling which would be very unlikely to be impacted by any flooding arising from the site.
- 19. Other matters There are no highway implications or objections to the proposals from DoI Highways. The existing access would be used and despite the loss of the garage to parking provision, there is sufficient parking space on site to serve the proposed development. Conclusion
- 20. The development in terms of its design and visual impact is unacceptable. It would also harm the residential amenities of occupants of neighbouring properties, particularly through a loss of light to and outlook from the rear of No 25 Riverbank Road. As such, it would fail to comply with the principles of General Policy 2 b) c) and g), and Environment Policy 23 of the IMSP.

Case for the Appellant

- 21.The Planning Officer refused the application under delegated powers due to concerns about: (1) adverse visual impact on the area, (2) an overbearing presence and loss of light to the adjacent No 25, and (3) overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbours. This statement addresses each reason for refusal in turn and other material considerations, to demonstrate that the proposal is compliant with Isle of Man planning policy and would not cause unacceptable harm to the character of the area or neighbour amenity.
- 22.It should also be noted that the planning officer did not view the rear of the property, nor the rear of the neighbouring properties where the proposal is located and which constitute the main reasons for the refusal.
- 23.Visual Impact on Streetscape and Area Character - The proposal will have minimal visual impact on the public streetscape because the dormer extension is confined to the rear roof slope, set down from the ridge and away from any public viewpoints on Riverbank Road. The front elevation of No 26 (as seen from the street) remains essentially unchanged in form, preserving the current character of the street scene. The dormer’s flat-roof design is a conscious choice to keep its profile low and unobtrusive; it sits below the main ridge line and does not project beyond the existing roof plane. As such, it will not appear as an incongruous or dominant feature when viewed from surrounding public areas.
- 24.Notably, the Isle of Man Residential Design Guide (RDG) acknowledges that flat-roof additions are primarily a concern when they are publicly visible, whereas a flat-roof extension that is tucked out of public view can be an acceptable design. Crucially, the design and scale of the dormer reflect the character of the host dwelling and neighbouring properties, satisfying Policy GP2(b) and (c). The dormer is proportionate, uses materials to match or complement and maintains the appearance of a single-family dwelling. It is in keeping with established development which is mostly defined by 1960s bungalows using a mix of materials. Flat roof dormers are a common feature of 1960s bungalows generally.
- 25.Furthermore, rear dormers and first-floor balconies are not without precedent on Riverbank Road. Nearby houses (for example, the adjacent No 27 has flat and gable 2 dormers to the front and rear) already feature windows and dormer expansions overlooking the rear. Had the planning officer visited the rear of the property, this would have been abundantly clear.
- 26.Planning application 22/00113/B in the vicinity was approved with a flat roof rear balcony element. This demonstrates that such alterations are part of the local character and have been deemed acceptable in principle. The officer’s implication that a rear dormer would be an alien feature is therefore inaccurate. The proposal thus complies with GP2(b) and (c) and ENV23, which seek to prevent development that is incongruous or harmful to the character of the area and neighbours.
- 27.Overbearing Impact and Light Loss to No 25 - The scale of the proposed dormer is modest – it adds no extra storeys to the building, and its mass is absorbed within the existing roof form. The ridge and eaves heights of the house remain unchanged, and the dormer is set in ~0.5m from the eaves. As a result, the physical bulk of the dwelling as experienced from No 25’s

- perspective will not significantly increase. The dormer does not project beyond the rear building line in a way that would loom over No 25’s property. This negates any reasonable claim of an overbearing, oppressive presence. Indeed, No 25’s owners did not lodge any objection to the proposal, indicating that they do not anticipate any overbearing impact on their home.
- 28.The assertion that the dormer occupies 2/3 of the rear roof is also false. The area is closer to 50% of the rear roof (or 25% overall). Regardless the assertion that 2/3 of a rear roof is too great of an area contradicts general planning opinion. The planning department’s own updates to permitted development request that it be permissible to cover up to 50% of a roof area in dormers as being an acceptable area.
- 29.Furthermore, the orientation of sunlight and the layout of the two properties means that the new dormer will cast little to no additional shadow on No 25’s habitable rooms or garden. In planning terms, an extension must lead to a significant loss of light to justify refusal on that basis – here, any loss would be minimal. In this case, the proposal maintains compliance with GP2(g) and ENV22.
- 30.Overlooking and Privacy Concerns (Dormer and Balcony) - The dormer window faces toward the rear of No 26’s own garden and views beyond, a situation identical to a standard first-floor window in many houses. Given the dormer window has been designed with “cheeks” to either side, this reinforces the assertion that the view would be no different to that of the first floor of a house generally as view to the side are blocked. Therefore, any views of neighbouring gardens from this dormer would be at an oblique angle, at long-range and at a comparable height to existing first-floor windows on this street, meaning it does not introduce an unprecedented or intrusive vantage point.
- 31.Overlooking between rear windows and gardens is a common, established circumstance in residential areas – one generally accepted as normal so long as it is not excessive. Here, the separation distances and boundary fences/vegetation will continue to provide a reasonable level of mutual privacy. There will be no direct line of sight into the interior of Nos 25 or 27 from the dormer window. Similarly, the dormer’s positioning and the suburban context ensure any overlooking is minor and typical of the area. The proposal therefore aligns with policies GP2(g) and ENV22 which permit development as long as privacy impacts are kept to an acceptable minimum.
- 32.The balcony has also been designed with privacy in mind. It is a modest recessed balcony on the rear elevation, intended to provide amenity space for the applicants without infringing on neighbours’ privacy. Direct views into next-door windows or immediate private areas are not possible. The side walls of the dormer “cheeks” and positioning of the balcony mean that a person would have to deliberately lean over or look back at an acute angle to even glimpse into the adjoining properties’ gardens except at long-range.
- 33.In normal use, someone standing or sitting on the balcony will be looking out to the rear (over the appellant’s own garden and toward the wider outlook) rather than toward the sides. This design approach – is a common mitigation used in modern residential developments to prevent “undue” overlooking. Neither of the immediately adjacent neighbours objected to the application. It remains in compliance with GP2(g) and ENV22.

- 34.Other Matters Parking and Access - The officer’s report suggestion that onsite parking would be compromised. However, the driveway is sufficient for the required 2 cars which is what is required by planning policy GP 2(h). In short, the development does not force any additional cars onto Riverbank Road.
- 35.The appellant simply seeks to improve her home to suit her growing family in a manner that others nearby have done, within the policy framework. Conclusion
- 36. The proposed alterations are in accordance with the IMSP and will achieve a high-quality outcome without detriment to the area or neighbouring properties. The design respects the character of the existing building and street by keeping changes to the less visible rear and using a form and scale that complement the surroundings. The development also carefully protects neighbour amenity: it does not unacceptably overshadow or overwhelm No 25, nor does it compromise privacy in a way that is out of the ordinary for the locale.

Other Parties

- 37. No other parties, statutory or otherwise, had any objection at appeal or application stage.

Inspector’s assessment and conclusions

- 38. The main issues in this case are:

-  The effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area.
-  The effect upon the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties in terms of outlook, light and overlooking.

Character and appearance

- 39. Riverbank Road is a residential street of predominantly bungalows, the uncomplicated frontages of which provide a fairly regular architectural rhythm to the street scene. One or two dormer windows can be seen in the roofs of front elevations, but the general character is one of established properties with few alterations.
- 40. The same cannot be said when viewing properties from the rear of No 26 where the rear elevation at No 27 contains a two-storey gable end with window overlooking the garden of No 26. In addition, I was able to see the rear of some properties from the nearby public footpath along with views down the sides of some dwellings; I saw that rear elevations do not have the same uniformity as those at the front.
- 41. In that context, the proposed dormer would occupy a large part of the rear roof elevation and would sit below the main ridge line and would not extend beyond the existing roofline. I see no reason to disagree with the view that it would not be visible from the public domain. Although just because something cannot be seen by the public at large does not make it acceptable. Nevertheless, the dormer would appear as a low-profile addition and would be constructed from materials to match the existing. To my mind,

- it would not lead any reasonable viewer to question how it came to be, it would not be an incongruous addition given the variation in rear elevations nearby.
- 42. Moreover, it would not be at odds with the RDG which sets out that dormer extensions are unlikely to be supported where they are publicly visible which, as set out, is not the case here. In addition, the RDG suggests that dormers are generally appropriate on modern properties (1960/70’s bungalows), as is also the case here.
- 43. Overall, for these reasons, I find the dormer would not result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the locality and would not be at odds with Policy GP2 (b) and (c) or the RDG.

Living Conditions

- 44. Dealing first with the matter of loss of light to the occupiers of No 25. Given the orientation of the site, and the fact that rear elevations here are south facing, I fail to see how a dormer of this size would have any detrimental effect on sunlight reaching the neighbouring property. Whilst the dormer would introduce built development above the existing roof plane, given the spacious nature of the gardens and open views to the south, I find any effect on daylight would also be inconsequential.
- 45. In the same way, whilst I accept the dormer could be viewed from the rear of No 25, which sits slightly back from the rear of No 26, given the set back of the dormer from the roof edge, and rear building line, any effect on the outlook from No 25 would be minimal and would not result in a sense of enclosure. The dormer would not appear as an overbearing feature.
- 46. Turning to the matter of overlooking I recognise that the development would provide opportunities for overlooking that currently do not exist. However, it is accepted that the design of the balconies would require any user to lean over the balcony to take a deliberate view into the garden at No

25. In addition, any overlooking to the rear garden of No 27 would reflect that currently available from the rear of No 27 into the garden of No 26.

- 47. Longer views would nevertheless be available into the lower part of the garden at No 25. However, such views are not uncommon in a residential setting, and I am also mindful that the mutual boundary has mature plants growing on it which would break up those views. In addition, there would be no reason why such planting could not be bolstered or left to grow higher if required. Given the south facing aspect and size of gardens this would have minimal effect on the use of the garden overall.
- 48. Drawing all of this together I find that the development would not lead to any harm to living conditions in respect of sunlight, daylight or outlook. Whilst I do find some harm in terms of overlooking the end of the garden at No 25, given the distances and intervening vegetation any harm would be minimal.
- 49. For these reasons, I find the development would not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of occupiers of the adjacent properties. The development would accord with Policies GP2(g) and ENV23 and the RDG which seek to protect living conditions.

Other matters

- 50. I see no reason to disagree with the view that the first-floor extension would not be impacted by any flood risk and the development would comply with Policies EN4 and ENV7 in that regard.

Overall Conclusion

- 51. For the reasons set out above, and having considered all matters raised, I recommend that the decision to refuse the application should be overturned and planning approval be granted.

Conditions

- 52. I consider that the conditions (set out below) are required to secure the timeliness of the development and the materials to be used, to protect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and locality.

Recommendation

- 53. I recommend that the appeal be allowed, and the Planning Authority decision be set aside and that planning approval be granted for alterations to bungalow, including the creation of first floor rooms with dormer to the rear of the dwelling, internal alterations, removal of chimney, amendments to doors and windows to rear and end elevations and additional rooflights at 26 Riverbank Road, Ramsey IM8 3PR subject to the conditions set out below and in accordance with the submitted drawings also listed below. Reasons

- Reason 1: Overall, it is considered the proposed extensions would not lead to harm to the character of the existing property or the location and would accord with Policies GP2 (b) and (c) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
- Reason 2: The proposed rear dormer would not result in loss of daylight or sunlight or appear as an overbearing feature to occupiers of the adjacent properties. Nor would it result in unacceptable overlooking or loss of privacy to the rear garden of No 25. The development would therefore comply with Policies GP29 (g) and ENV23 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan Conditions

C1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision.

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.

C2. No work shall be carried out on in relation to the construction of any of the external surfaces of the extension to the dwelling hereby permitted unless details of the materials, colour and finish to be used for all external walls and roofs and the glazed balustrade have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development, hereby permitted, shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the use of materials appropriate to the development in order to safeguard the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with Policy GP2 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

Submitted drawings 0125_001 Existing Site and Location Plan; 0125_002 Existing Plans, Elevations & Sections; 0125_101 Proposed Site Plan; 0125_102 Proposed Plans, Elevations & Sections.

- 54.If, however, the Minister takes the opposite view and decides that the decision of the Planning Authority should be upheld, the reasons set out in the original decision would apply.

## Richard Perrins

R J Perrins MA Independent Inspector

12 August 2025

---

*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/88412-lezayre-26-riverbank-road-appeal-against-refusal/documents/1142006*