**Document:** SOC DEFA Planning Officer Appeal Statement **Application:** AP24/0033 — Appeal against the refusal for ground floor extension and alterations and Conversion of existing roof into habitable space by raising the roof, erection of 2 dormers and installation of roof lights **Decision:** Appeal dismissed - PA REFUSED **Decision Date:** 2025-02-19 **Parish:** Arbory **Document Type:** appeal / appeal_statement **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/88391-colby-ballakillowey-conversion-extension/documents/1142194 --- # SOC DEFA Planning Officer Appeal Statement ## Please reply to the signatory Our Ref: Mr. A. Johnstone Planning Appeals Secretary Cabinet Office Government Offices Buck’s Road Douglas IM1 3PN Dear Mr Johnstone, Tel: (01624) 685950 Email: Belinda.Fettis@gov.im Belinda Fettis Senior Planning Officer Date 4th of September 2024 PA No: 24/00415/B Proposal: Ground floor extension and alterations and Conversion of existing roof into habitable space by raising the roof, erection of 2 dormers and installation of roof lights Address: No.1 Bradda View, Ballakillowey IM9 4BE Please find a statement that sets out the position of the Department in respect of the above planning application. The statement relies upon the Planning Officer’s original report which was determined by the Acting Head of Development Management on the 12th of July 2024 which is online and forms part of the planning file. The enclosed statement comprises the following parts: - 1. Appendix 1 – Statement of Case - 2. Appendix A – Dominance Landscape - 3. Appendix B – Dominance Neighbour In the event that the appointed Planning Inspector is minded to recommend that the application be approved, then the four-year expiration condition should be attached along with consideration to any potential conditions included at 4.0 of the Statement of Case. Yours sincerely, Belinda Fettis Appendix 1 – Statement of Case STATEMENT OF THE Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Planning & Building Control Directorate Planning statement on behalf of the Department relative to: Ground floor extension and alterations and Conversion of existing roof into habitable space by raising the roof, erection of 2 dormers and installation of roof lights. No.1 Bradda View, Ballakillowey IM9 4BE 24/00415/B Prepared on behalf of the Planning Department by Belinda Fettis Senior Planning Officer ## 1.0 Appeal against refusal for PA 24/00415/B The reason for refusal was: “By virtue of the increased height and overall volume of extensions this proposal would result in a dominating feature within the streetscene and disrupt the sense of openness. The design would have an overbearing impact upon existing and future residential amenity for the neighbouring dwellinghouses, but in particular numbers 3 and 2 Bradda View and number 11 The Chase. For the reasons given in this report the proposal is considered contrary to the Design Guide, Strategic Policy 3 and General Policies 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.” ### 2.0 Legal and Policy PositionIn accordance with S10 of the Town Country Planning Act the application has been considered; S(4) In dealing with an application for planning approval or an application under subsection (3), the Department shall have regard to — - (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application; (ab) any relevant national policy directive under section 2A; - (b) any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3; - (c) such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and - (d) all other material considerations. There is a statutory duty to take into account the above, and while it is recognised that weight to be given is a matter for the decision maker. That being said, it shall be noted that the Development Plan and other Adopted Policies do not have primacy as they do in the UK. The Isle of Man is also different from the UK as there is no presumption in favour of development as set out in the NPPF, and there is no 5-year land supply requirement. In this application, the most weight has been given to the Strategic Plan and the Area Plan for the South Map 7 as they have been through a statutory process, which includes evidence base and public consultation process, and are adopted by Tynwald. Other material considerations referred to in the officer report include Residential Design Guide (RDG) which followed targeted consultation and adoption by the Minister and has therefore been afforded greater weight. It is considered that the other material considerations outweigh that set out above. - 3.0 Response to Reasons for Appeal This report addresses those issues directly, for a full assessment of the initial application please refer to the original Officer’s Report which would have been supplied with the initial documentation. There appear to be 3 issues raised by the appellants; - 1. Amendments were made post pre-app discussion. - 2. Some neighbours are in support. - 3. No discussion regarding approval 20/01340/B - 4. Query the use of the term dominance. - 5. Query the objection to the height given that there are dwellinghouses within Bradda View that are more than one storey. - 6. Support should be provided to convert the 3 bed dwellinghouse to a 5 bed dwellinghouse to provide for a large family. FOLLOWING SECTION ADDRESSES THOSE ISSUES DIRECTLY - 3.1 ISSUE 1 (as per list of titles in 3.0) The Appellant makes reference to amendments as a result of discussions with Senior Planner, this was part of a pre-application discussion in which the Senior Officer advised that the proposed development would be difficult to achieve. Although time was allowed during the application process to submit further amendments this did not occur and the application was refused in part because Officers could not see a solution that would not involve raising the roof and this is the primary reason for refusal. - 3.2 ISSUE 2 (as per list of titles in 3.0) Neighbours in support. The Appellant states that some neighbours are in support of the application and although no comments were received in support the assessment overall is considered for existing and future occupants. - 3.3 ISSUE 3 (as per list of titles in 3.0) Appellant makes reference to approval 20/01340/B not having been considered in the refusal. There are no objections to ground floor extensions and paragraph 7.1.2. of the report clearly states this, ‘The proposed ground floor extension and alterations incorporate those approved under planning application no. 20/01340/B and therefore these are not assessed or discussed.’ - 3.4 ISSUE 4 (as per list of titles in 3.0) The Appellant raises various queries to the use of the term dominance and these are addressed individually below in order as they appear in the Appellants email of the 20th of August. 1.2 ‘The site is within a cul-de-sac housing estate of similarly styled bungalows’, this is followed by a general characterization of the dwellinghouses that are not bungalows at paragraph 1.3, ‘1.3. The character of the cul-de-sac is one of single storey bungalows of similar design around the entrance. The land than slopes downwards away from the junction to land on a much lower level than Ballakillowey Road, and the dwellings in this area of the cul-de-sac are similarly designed two storey houses. The majority of the bungalows and houses have had some form or alteration or extension. In response to the Appellants comments below 7.5 seeking clarification of the term ‘dominating’ and the Design Guide’s consideration of effect on neighbouring properties. The opinion takes account of the single storey properties that exist within the street setting of Ballakillowey Road, and the area of Bradda View close to the junction with Ballakillowey Road. The skyline from either direction and from the field opposite is one of taller buildings north and south however those taller buildings are on different land levels, some lower some higher and in both cases a distance of two or more buildings away from the application site. Therefore the view leaving Bradda View is one of openness, with the field ahead, across the road. The view travelling north is one of openness because the taller buildings stop and the single storey buildings occur until further up the hillside, adding to the visual openness of this area of Ballakillowey Road. Similarly in reverse heading south, the single storey buildings occur until the land falls away to the south which is where the two storey buildings begin to such affect that the roof height of the 3rd dwelling south from the junction with Bradda View, although not single storey, its’ roofline is similar to the adjacent bungalow. The result is a seemingly continuous roofline which adapts to the topography. If the height of no.1 Bradda View was increased those visuals would change and because the buildings around it are single storey, the taller building amongst them would dominate the skyline. Please see Appendix A - Dominance landscape and, Appendix B - Dominance Neighbour - Paragraph 7.12 explains that the dormers would introduce overlooking where it does not exist and by virtue of the height would introduce a dominance in the skyline that does not exist, having an overbearing impact on no.2 Bradda View. - Paragraph 7.13 explains the considered impact upon the outdoor amenity for no.11 The Chase. - Paragraph 7.14 explains the considered impact upon the outdoor amenity for no.3 Bradda View. The Appellant makes reference to the higher buildings in Bradda View, which there are, but these are on land lower than the application site and therefore the height of those properties does not impact adversely upon the bungalows. Paragraph 7.6.1, between the two storey properties north of Bradda View and south of Bradda View, the properties are single storey bungalows. There is an openness to the aspect. The roof line gives the impression of following the gradient of the land. Paragraph 7.7 the Appellant challenges with a supporting photograph of the dormers in the distance whereupon they are visible within the backdrop of other roofs and windows. Section 4.10 of the Design Guide provides guidance on dormers. Each application is taken upon its’ own merits. In this application the dormers would be introduced along with a higher roof. There are no dormers on neighbouring properties. The corner plot with open aspects and elevated height would exacerbate the visual intrusion. This would be contrary to the Design Guide because it would not introduce a positive character to the property or the streetscene. - Paragraph 7.15, as the Appellant states, the habitable rooms of no.3 have a less desirable outlook than no.1 because the rooms look onto the garage of no.1. Cumulatively the impacts of the alterations, particularly the height increase would have an impact upon the occupants of no.3. - Paragraph 7.16 is explained in the preceding paragraphs. No additional comments to make to paragraphs 7.8, 7.9, 7.12, 7.13, 7.14. - 3.5 ISSUE 5 (as per list of titles in 3.0) The Appellant states that there are other dwellinghouses in Bradda View that are of more than one storey. As outlined the Officers Report, the taller properties on Bradda View are positioned within the cul-de-sac on a land level that is lower than the application site. - 3.6 ISSUE 6 (as per list of titles in 3.0) The Appellant makes reference to support for families to make changes to older buildings. Whilst alterations and extensions that improve older buildings are welcomed, the alterations must take account of all other determining factors. The assessment was made taking into account all determining factors and it was considered that for this dwellinghouse in this location the proposal is inappropriate and contrary to policy. The loss of smaller properties should also be a consideration for those choosing to downsize especially when there exist larger properties on the island that could accommodate a larger family. - 4.0 Potential Conditions In the event that the Inspector is minded to recommend approval it is recommended that the following conditions are included, not least because some of the issues were not raised during assessment because the design was inappropriate but would have been addressed had the design been acceptable. - 4.1 Standard 4 yr condition - 4.2 Condition protection of Bats: Prior to removal of the roof a suitably qualified person must assess the roof for the presence of Bats. If Bats are found, including droppings to suggest use of the roof, then a Bat Survey must be undertaken and to ensure no Bats are disturbed. If use of the site Bats is found then removal of the roof should not be undertaken outside of the bat hibernation period and so should not take place between the 1st of October and the 31st of March in any year. The applicant must make sure that checks for bats are made around the building prior to any work taking place. Should bats, or evidence of bats such as staining or bat droppings be found then any other work that has commenced must stop and advice be obtained from the Ecosystem Policy Team on 01624 651577 or the Manx Bat Group Helpline 07624 366177. Reason: To accord with Environment Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. - 4.3 Prior – Surface water drainage Prior to commencement, details of how surface water shall be managed within the site shall be submitted to the Planning Department for prior written approval. The approved details shall be implemented prior to the development being brought into use and thereafter retained. Reason: To ensure surface water is managed appropriately and does not cause flooding elsewhere and to avoid contravention of Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 by allowing surface water to run onto the public highway, in accordance with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - 4.4 External materials: The external materials and finishes of the extension shall match colour and texture of those on the existing building. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area in accordance with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - 4.5 Rooflights The approved rooflights shall be of conservation standard in so much as it is flush with the roof. Reason: To protect the character of the building in accordance with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - 4.6 Prior - Lighting Prior to the attachment or insertion of any external lighting to the building, outside seating or parking areas a sensitive low level lighting plan, following best practise as detailed in the Bat Conservation Trust and Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidance Note 8/23 on Bats and Artificial Lighting (2023) shall be submitted to Planning and approved in writing. All works must be undertaken in full accordance with the approved plan. Reason: To ensure that the development has an acceptable impact on the environment in respect of Bats which are a protected species in accordance with Environment Policy 4 and General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. APPENDIX – A – Dominance Landscape Appeal Statement - PA 24 00415 B_AP24 0033 Page 1 of 6 Existing view out of Bradda View Simulation of proposed ![A Google Street View photograph showing a residential street scene with a detached bungalow on the left and a road sign reading Bradda View.](https://images.planningportal.im/2024/08/6867046.jpg) ![Google Street View image showing the existing detached bungalow at 5 Bradda View in Rushen, Isle of Man.](https://images.planningportal.im/2024/08/6867047.jpg) APPENDIX – A – Dominance Landscape Appeal Statement - PA 24 00415 B_AP24 0033 Page 2 of 6 Existing view out of Bradda View Simulation of proposed ![Google Street View screenshot showing a residential street with detached bungalows and a small location map inset in the corner.](https://images.planningportal.im/2024/08/6867048.jpg) ![A Google Street View screenshot showing the residential street Bradda View in Rushen, featuring detached houses with garages and a view of hills in the background.](https://images.planningportal.im/2024/08/6867049.jpg) APPENDIX – A – Dominance Landscape Appeal Statement - PA 24 00415 B_AP24 0033 Page 3 of 6 Existing view travelling north, uphill. Simulation of proposed view travelling north, uphill. ![A Google Street View screenshot showing the road Ballakilley in Rushen, featuring a house with a garage on the right and green fields with sheep on the left.](https://images.planningportal.im/2024/08/6867050.jpg) ![A Google Street View screenshot showing a road in Rushen with a house and garage on the right and green fields on the left.](https://images.planningportal.im/2024/08/6867051.jpg) APPENDIX – A – Dominance Landscape Appeal Statement - PA 24 00415 B_AP24 0033 Page 4 of 6 Existing view travelling into Bradda View Simulation of proposed view travelling into Bradda View. ![A Google Street View photograph showing a curved residential road with detached bungalows and green hedges in Ballakilley.](https://images.planningportal.im/2024/08/6867052.jpg) ![A Google Street View screenshot showing a residential street in Ballakilley, Rushen, featuring detached bungalows with garden hedges and a paved road.](https://images.planningportal.im/2024/08/6867053.jpg) APPENDIX – A – Dominance Landscape Appeal Statement - PA 24 00415 B_AP24 0033 Page 5 of 6 Existing view travelling north from Bradda View Simulation of proposed view travelling north from Bradda View. ![Google Street View screenshot showing the road Ballakilley in Rushen with a detached bungalow and green fields.](https://images.planningportal.im/2024/08/6867054.jpg) ![Google Street View screenshot showing a rural road scene with a detached bungalow on the right and green fields with sheep on the left.](https://images.planningportal.im/2024/08/6867055.jpg) APPENDIX – A – Dominance Landscape Appeal Statement - PA 24 00415 B_AP24 0033 Page 6 of 6 Existing view travelling south to Bradda View Simulation of proposed view travelling south to Bradda View. ![A Google Street View screenshot showing a rural road scene in Ballakilley, Rushen, with houses on either side and a view of the coast in the distance.](https://images.planningportal.im/2024/08/6867056.jpg) ![Google Street View screenshot showing a residential road in Rushen with a coastal view in the background.](https://images.planningportal.im/2024/08/6867057.jpg) APPENDIX – B – Dominance Neighbours Appeal Statement - PA 24 00415 B_AP24 0033 Page 1 of 4 Existing view out of Bradda View Simulation of proposed which introduces height and dormer windows facing the property resulting in overlooking and overbearing. ![A Google Street View photograph showing a residential street scene with a detached bungalow on the left and a road sign reading Bradda View.](https://images.planningportal.im/2024/08/6867058.jpg) ![A Google Street View screenshot showing a residential street scene in Rushen with detached bungalows and parked cars along Bradda View.](https://images.planningportal.im/2024/08/6867059.jpg) APPENDIX – B – Dominance Neighbours Appeal Statement - PA 24 00415 B_AP24 0033 Page 2 of 4 Existing view out of Bradda View Simulation of proposed ![Google Street View screenshot showing a residential street with detached bungalows and a small location map inset in the corner.](https://images.planningportal.im/2024/08/6867060.jpg) ![A Google Street View screenshot showing the residential street Bradda View in Rushen, featuring detached houses with garages and a view of hills in the background.](https://images.planningportal.im/2024/08/6867061.jpg) APPENDIX – B – Dominance Neighbours Appeal Statement - PA 24 00415 B_AP24 0033 Page 3 of 4 Existing view Simulation of proposed ![A Google Street View screenshot of a residential street with detached bungalows, followed by a simulation showing a proposed roof extension.](https://images.planningportal.im/2024/08/6867062.png) APPENDIX – B – Dominance Neighbours Appeal Statement - PA 24 00415 B_AP24 0033 Page 4 of 4 Existing Simulation of proposed ![A Google Street View screenshot of a residential road in Ballakilley, Rushen, showing detached houses and a curving road. The bottom section is labeled 'Simulation of proposed' and appears to be a photomontage of the...](https://images.planningportal.im/2024/08/6867063.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/88391-colby-ballakillowey-conversion-extension/documents/1142194*