Loading document...
Application No.: 25/90665/B Applicant: Mr Jake Brown Proposal: Erection of a rear dormer Site Address: 43 Ormly Road Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 3LH Planning Officer: Peiran Shen Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 10.09.2025 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal R 1. The proposed extension creates an intensive overlooking of the garden of No.40 due to being less than 20m away from the garden and being able to overlook the garden in its entirety. The proposal is considered to fail to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide. _________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal on the basis that they have submitted a relevant objection: Ramsey Town Commissioners It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given the Right to Appeal as they have submitted an objection that meets the specified criteria: - 39 Ormly Road, Ramsey - 40 Ormly Road, Ramsey - 41 Ormly Road, Ramsey _________________________________________________________________
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is 43 Ormly Road, Ramsey, a single-storey detached house located west of a cul-de-sac on Ormly Road. At the rear of the site are 39, 40 and 41 Ormly Road.
1.2 The house consists of a pitched-roof main house, a flat-roof side garage and a flat-roof rear extension. Houses on Ormly Road share a similar mass and design to the application house.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The proposal is the erection of a full-width dormer on the rear elevation of the house. It has the same height as the ridge of the main house. There are three windows on the rear elevation. Two windows serve two bedrooms, and the last window serves a bathroom.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 There is no previous application considered materially relevant to this application.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY Site Specific - 4.1 The site is within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Ramsey Local Plan. Strategic Policy - 4.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 has the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: o General Policy 2 (b) (c) (g) PPS and NPD
4.4 No planning policy statement or national policy directive is considered materially relevant to this application. - 5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Legislation
5.1 Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2025 approves developments that comply with all requirements within a class within the order. Class 14 is for the extension of dwellinghouses, which includes dormer extensions. Subsection (4)(b) requires that for dormers, the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse that the dormer fronts must be at least 10 metres away from the outside edge of the rear elevation (measured at ground level). Strategy and Guidance - 5.2 The Residential Design Guide (July 2021) has the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:
6.1 Ramsey Town Commissioners object to this application (26.08.2025). The comment states the proposal would adversely affect the character of the surrounding area and the amenity of local residents. The comment also states that the proposal is less than 20m from the neighbouring property. The comment also recognises that properties in the immediate surrounding area have a mix of dormer windows and roof windows; however, those with dormer windows are considerably smaller than this proposed application, which occupies the whole elevation. - 6.2 DoI Highway Services has not commented at the time of this report (09.09.2025). - 6.3 Six neighbouring properties were notified. Three responses have been received from the public (31.07.2025 - 06.08.2025). All comments object to the application. The comments are from the Owners and Occupiers of:
6.4 The material planning considerations raised by the comments are:
6.5 The non-material planning considerations raised by the comments are:
7.1 The key considerations of this application are its impact on the house itself and the character and streetscene of the area. Design of the House Itself - 7.2 The full roof dormer creates a top-heavy appearance and is considered to harm the design of the existing house. Character and Streetscene - 7.3 Given 7.2, the dormer is also considered to detract from the existing character of the area, namely, a predominantly bungalow-style area. However, there are approved dormers with similar designs within the area. Therefore, the negative impact on the character of the area is not considered to be a sufficient reason for recommending refusal. Neighbouring Amenities - 7.4 The proposal is approx. 8m to 20m from the gardens of No. 39, 40 and 41. It is approx. 18m to 20m from the rear elevation of No.39, 40 or 41. It directly faces the rear of No.40. - 7.5 The proposed dormer is the same height as the existing roof ridge. According to the 25Degree Check, it is considered to have no additional overshadowing impact on the house or garden of No. 39, 40 and 41. It is for the same reason that the proposal is not considered to have an overbearing impact on these houses. - 7.6 The proposal would increase overshadowing and overbearing into No.42, given the close distance between the two houses. However, it is only towards the side elevation, and the increase would not amount to a sufficient reason for recommending refusal. - 7.7 The overlooking into No.39 and No.41 is obscured by vegetation and garages in the respective gardens of each property. Without these vegetations, the proposal would also have additional overlooking into these two properties, though the new addition alone may not amount to a sufficient reason for recommending refusal. Neighbouring Amenities - Overlooking - 7.8 The entire rear garden of No.40 is less than 20 metres from the proposed extension. Site visit has confirmed that the proposal would have an unobscured view of the garden of No.40. Although the proposed rooms are bedrooms, meaning there is less incentive to look out of these windows compared to a principle window, No.40's perception of being overlooked from the casement windows is still considered too intense due to the unescapable coverage from both bedroom windows of the site.
7.9 The agent argues that overlooking from the new windows is no worse than from the existing rooflight. Not only does the increased head space make it easier to stand by the windows to look outside, but the new windows are also vertical rather than tilted, significantly increasing the coverage of the overlooked area compared to the rooflight. - 7.10 The agent also argues that the additional overlooking would be similar to that created by a dormer built under the Permitted Development Order. The house does not comply with Class 14 (4)(b) of the PDO, meaning there is no PD right for dormers for this house. Therefore, the PDO cannot be used as a fallback position for this application. - 7.11 The proposal is unlikely to create additional overlooking into No. 42 and 44, given there is no window on the side elevations. Other Approvals within the Area - 7.12 The agent provides four other houses within the area that have similar proposals approved. While planning does not have precedents, as each case is assessed on its own merits, an exploration of the consistency of decision-making is worthwhile. It is noted that all four applications are dormers for bedrooms and bathrooms on the rear elevation, similar to the nature of the current application. - 7.13 However, PA 10/00547/B gave approval to 26 Ormly Avenue for a rear dormer that has little overlooking into all three neighbouring gardens due to the siting of the house as well as the layout of the neighbouring properties. - 7.14 PA 11/00044/B gave approval to 11 Ormly Avenue for a rear dormer that only overlooks a small part of one neighbouring garden and one neighbouring front garden. - 7.15 PA 11/01364/B gave approval for a rear dormer very similar to the proposal, but a key reason for approval was due to "vegetation between the dormers and the adjacent rear garden ". - 7.16 In summary, these three applications and their decisions are not relatable to the intensive, unobstructed overlooking created by the current proposal. - 7.17 PA 16/00194/B gave approval to 49 Ormly Road for a rear dormer also very similar to the proposal in the appeal. However, it has been noted that not only did both the officer and the Inspector recommend the application for refusal, but this decision also predates the publication of the Residential Design Guide by the Department, which contains the 20m Guide for assessing overlooking. The Guide, following a targeted consultation, was adopted by the Minister. Given that the RDG is newer than the 2016 Minister's decision, it is given significantly more weight than the decision of the 2016 application. - 7.18 In addition, section 7.5 of the RDG lists exceptions to the 20m distance, such as orientation, mutual overlooking and existing landscape features, none of which apply to the current application, in terms of its overlooking into the rear of No.40. Other - 7.19 While the new dormer would create additional light spill, this occurs in a residential area. Its intensity is not considered to harm neighbouring amenities or wildlife. - 7.20 Outlook (including overbearing) has been assessed in this report. Views from a private residence alone are not a material consideration in an application.
8.1 The proposed extension creates an intensive overlooking of the garden of No.40 due to being less than 20m away from the garden and being able to overlook the garden in its
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:
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):
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: 12.09.2025 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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
