**Document:** SOC DEFA Planning Officer Appeal Statement **Application:** AP24/0042 — Appeal against the refusal for demolition of single-storey extension and erection of rear two-storey extension **Decision:** Appeal dismissed - PA REFUSED **Decision Date:** 2025-02-17 **Parish:** Braddan **Document Type:** appeal / appeal_statement **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/86890-braddan-15-hatfield-demolition-extension/documents/1142320 --- # SOC DEFA Planning Officer Appeal Statement ## Please reply to the signatory Tel: (01624) 685950 Fax: (01624) 686443 Our Ref: 24/00522/B Email: planning@gov.im Jennifer Chance MRTPI Mr. A. Johnstone Planning Appeals Secretary Cabinet Office Government Offices Buck’s Road Douglas IM1 3PN Director of Planning & Building Control 17th Sep 2024 Dear Mr Johnstone, PA No: 24/00522/B Proposal: Demolition of single-storey extension and erection of rear two- storey extension Address: 15 Hatfield Grove Douglas Isle of Man IM1 3HE 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 under delegated power on 20th August 2024 which is online and forms part of the planning file. The enclosed statement comprises the following parts: 1. Appendix 1 – Statement of Case 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. Yours sincerely, Redacted Peiran Shen ### 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: Demolition of single-storey extension and erection of rear two-storey extension 15 Hatfield Grove Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 3HE PA Reference 24/00179/B Prepared on behalf of the Planning Department by Planning Officer Peiran Shen ### 1.0 Reason for Refusal The reason for the application refusal was: “The proposal would detract from the Victorian/Edwardian character of the area by having a car parked directly in front of the house against the description within the Character Appraisal of Selbourne Drive Conservation Area. Therefore, the proposal is considered as failing to comply with General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan, Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) and the Residential Design Guide July 2021.” ### 2.0 Legal and Policy Position In 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 is noted that while the Development Plan and other Adopted Policies do not have primacy as they do in the UK, the most weight has been given to the Strategic Plan and Area Plan for the East, as they have been through a statutory process, which includes evidence base and public consultation process and are adopted by Tynwald. The Residential Design Guide (RDG) follows targetted consultation and adoption by the Minister and has therefore been afforded greater weight. It is not considered that the other material considerations outweigh those set out above. In the meantime, also different from the UK, there is no presumption in favour of development as set out in the NPPF. ### 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 Officer’s Report which would have been supplied with the initial documentation. These are the issues raised by the appellants: - • There is already little existing natural light for the rear elevation and rear yard of No.17. - • The existing outlook of the rear elevation of the ground floor is already poor. - • Sunlight analysis finds there is no additional overshadowing impact from the proposed extension. - • No.17 has ulterior reasons for objecting to the proposal. THE FOLLOWING SECTION ADDRESSES THOSE ISSUES DIRECTLY - 3.1 Existing Amenities of the 17 Hartfield Close As the agent has pointed out, the existing terrace has narrow units, which leave the rear elevation and rear garden/yards with already poor outlook and lighting. This is a strong reason to maintain the existing amenities for the rear elevation and rear yard of No.17 rather than impose a new structure that would further diminish these already poor amenities. - 3.2 Sunlight Analysis First, the sunlight analysis is not provided within the application so it should be excluded from the appeal. Second, the analysis is still qualitative and not quantitative, given it does not show the specific shadows created by both existing and proposed structures. This means it’s not any different from using the 45 Degree Rule and therefore can’t overweigh the 45 Degree Rule. Thirdly, the analysis also does not show the date the analysis is simulated. Given the length of day time, it can be assumed that the date is in March or September. The analysis provided is moderate and does not represent the long shadow cast by the proposal in summer or the short daylight scenario in winter. Therefore, the sunlight analysis provided is deeply flawed and should not be considered a sound argument against the 45 Degree Rule. - 3.3 Ulterior Motive for Objection Regardless of the reasons behind the objection, the assessment for the amenities of No.17 is based on Chapter 7 of the Residential Design Guide 2021. As long as the impacts are considered unreasonable, the application should not be approved. - 4.0 Potential Conditions In the event the proposal is recommended for approval, the following conditions should be considered as part of the approval notice: 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. --- *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/86890-braddan-15-hatfield-demolition-extension/documents/1142320*