Officer Report

Application No.: 25/90558/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Andrew & Lynn Buchan Proposal: Erection of a first floor dormer to the rear elevation Site Address: 20 Grammah Avenue Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6NJ Principal Planning Officer: Belinda Fettis Site Visit: 07.08.2025 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 13.10.2025 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal R 1. The proposed rear dormer extension, by virtue of its bulky appearance, the scale and the design, is considered to fail the aims and objectives by failing to properly respect the site of the Residential Design Guide (2021) and General Policy 2 within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. _________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: o Port Erin Commissioners - Support

_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

1. THE SITE

• 1.1. The application site relates to the curtilage of a detached bungalow on the west side of the road, no.20 Grammah Avenue in Port Erin.
• 1.2. Properties in the street are similar in materials, design, scale and separation. Noticeably some bungalows have a higher ridge height enabling them to incorporate dormers whereas other do not. Many of the bungalows have had alterations of some form. The land gently undulates and so accommodates the variety of ridge heights.

25/90558/B Page 1 of 6

- 2. THE PROPOSAL

• 2.1. Planning approval is sought for a dormer in the rear north-west roof slope. The application is supported with plans the details of which can be summarised as follows.
• 2.2. Construct a flat roofed dormer with a single window with obscure glazing and top opener fitted.
• 2.3. Dimensions of the dormer; height 2390mm, depth 2860mm, width 9600mm. External materials to match existing.

- 3. PLANNING POLICY

• 3.1. Site Specific

• 3.1.1. On the Area Plan for the South the site is within an area identified as being 'predominantly residential'.
• 3.1.2. The site is not impacted by the constraints of the following; Public Rights of Way (PROW); recorded flood zone or surface water flooding; protected tree; Registered Building or Conservation Area.

• 3.2. Strategic Plan

• 3.2.1. Taking account of the above, within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the following policies are considered relevant in the determination of this application:
• 3.2.2. Environment Policy 22 states that development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of: i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater; ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution.
• 3.2.3 General Policy 2: 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 accords with the criteria of the Policy;

• (a) to (n). In this case the most notable for consideration are considered to be (b) and (g);
• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;

- 4. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

• 4.1. Residential Design Guide section 4 relating to householder extensions. Rear extensions issues of potential loss of light, overbearing and overlooking; (4.6) Rear Extensions '45 Degree Approach'; (4.7) Flat Roof Extensions; (4.8.6) Proportion of Extensions; (4.10) Dormer Extensions.
• 5. PLANNING HISTORY

• 5.1. There is previous planning history within the red line however none considered to be materially relevant to determine this application.
• 6. REPRESENTATIONS

• 6.1. Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only. 6.2. Local Authority:

• 6.2.1. Port Erin Commissioners - no objection (11.06.2025).
• 6.3. Statutory Bodies
• 6.4. The following bodies were consulted but have not responded therefore it is assumed that they have no comments to make on the application.

25/90558/B Page 2 of 6

7. ASSESSMENT

• 7.1.1. The site is within an area assigned to be 'Predominantly Residential' use therefore the proposal accords with the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and Area Plan. Householder extensions are generally acceptable as in paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan.
• 7.1.2. The proposed extension is on a rear elevation and not in views that could impact the character of the streetscene. In respect of neighbours, the separation distance between the rear elevation of the site and the rear elevation of the nearest rear elevation, no.5 Pairk Beg, whose garden backs onto the site is approximately 20m. Although this just meets a minimum guidance distance the impact of the development is considered relevant to assess. There is also potential impact upon the adjacent neighbours, no.18 and no.22 Grammah Avenue. The key considerations in assessing this application are as follows:

• (7.2) Design; and
• (7.3) Impact upon neighbour amenity. 7.2. Design

• 7.2.1. In respect of the scale there is significant concern with the proposal. The proposed dormer with only a small single window within, appears more as a box like structure rather than a traditional dormer, appearing very bulky addition to the property. This results in the proposal appearing as a rectangular structure along the majority of the rear elevation at first floor level. This design approach, coupled with the size of the dormer extending almost the full extent of the roof plane and its height, cannot be considered to comply with General Policy 2 (b) which requires any development; "respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design…". While flat roofed dormers are found in the area (some to the front elevations), these are generally much smaller and subordinate to the roof plane which they sit within and in terms of proportion and of a design which are far more appropriate. This proposal would not be subordinate and would introduce a incongruous feature to this property.
• 7.2.2. While the applicant's agent has referred to a neighbouring dormer which gained approval in 2016 (PA16/00244/B - At 3 Pairk Beg the) it is not considered a sufficient reason to outweigh the significant concerns of the current proposal. Furthermore, in planning terms each application should be considered on its own merits. Second since the approval of PA16/00244/B the Department's stance has changed significantly towards flat roofed dormers/extensions and this is clearly outlined within the Residential Deign Guide (RDG) which was first approved in 2019 and then 2021 (after the neighbouring application was approved). Within this document (Section 4.10) it is consider the proposal would fail to comply with the aims and would for the reasons outlined appear overly large and would not appear to be "secondary to the size of the roof in which it will be positioned" resulting in a dominating feature to the property.
• 7.2.3. The reasoning for the RDG was following a requirement of the Tynwald (Reform of the Planning System) that a new and improved design guidance and new minimum standards for most new developments be undertaken and to ensure; "Our properties contribute to making our Island an even better place to live and work". While the document is not a Planning Policy Statement (as per Section 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999) it is capable of being an 'other material consideration' (as per Section 10(4)(d) of the Act). Furthermore, where proposals adopt the approaches set out within this document, they are more likely to be considered to comply with the detailed Development Plan policies that relate to design, in this case General Policy 2 (b) of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016.It is judged that the proposal as submitted does not accord with the general aims and objectives of Policy GP2 or the Residential Design Guide (2021).
• 7.2.4. As outlined in the RDG flat roof dormers to this period of property can be acceptable. It is also accepted the being to the rear elevation it is not a significant prominent feature in the

25/90558/B Page 3 of 6

street scene. Furthermore, it is accepted that flat roof dormers, extensions and garages are apparent within the area. However, these factors do not outweigh the significant concerns raised, that the scale, design and resulting bulky appearance still raises significant concern and cannot be considered to "respects the site" (property) and therefore would fail to comply with General Policy 2 (b) and also fails the Residential Design Guide (2021).

• 7.3. Impact upon residential amenity

• 7.3.1. The rear elevations face north-west and the adjacent detached bungalow to the northeast already protrudes from the rear elevation of the site. The rear elevation of the adjacent bungalow to the south-west is similarly in line with the site. The neighbour to the rear, no.5 Pairk Beg, is on land slightly higher than the application site and is separated by at last 20m and mature vegetation on the boundary.
• 7.3.2. In all relationships with the neighbours the proposal does not introduce window to window relationships. The only window with potential to introduce overlooking is the modest bathroom window and that is proposed fitted with obscure glazing.
• 7.3.3. In all relationships with the neighbours the proposal does not introduce overlooking or overbearing because it is either behind other existing built form or in line with the existing rear elevations.
• 7.3.4. It is considered that due to the height and depth, the proposal would not adversely impact neighbouring amenities (loss of light, overbearing impact or loss of privacy) to warrant a refusal. Overall the proposal takes account of its' setting and meets the aims and objectives of Policies EP22 and G2. and the Design Guide.

- 8. CONCLUSION

• 8.1. The proposed rear dormer extension, by virtue of its bulky appearance, the scale and the design, is considered to fail the aims and objectives by failing to properly respect the site of the Residential Design Guide (2021) and General Policy 2 within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• 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.

25/90558/B Page 4 of 6

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 a Principal Planner 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 : Refused Date: 14.10.2025 Determining Officer

Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner

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.

25/90558/B Page 5 of 6

25/90558/B Page 6 of 6