Officer Report

Application No.: 24/91296/B Applicant: Mr Neil Caine Proposal: Construction of replacement patio as part of flood protection works (Retrospective) Site Address: 2 Victoria Terrace Glen Road Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7AW Photo Taken: 22.01.2025 Site Visit: 22.01.2025 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 08.12.2025

Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. Within two months of this decision becoming final the fence extension with a length of 1.38m (measured from the original timber fence shared with Nr 1 Victoria Terrace) as shown on approved drawing 503.1 REV J (and email dated 03.12.25) shall be completed and retained as such thereafter. Reason: in the interests of neighbouring residential amenities (overlooking).
• C 2. Within four months of this decision becoming final a metal screen shall be installed in the location shown on approved drawing 503.1 REV J in accordance with detailed scale drawings which have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and the screen shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: in the interests of neighbouring residential amenities (overlooking). _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DOI Highway Services - No Objection

Local Authority - Objection does not relate to that body's ability to carry out its functions, matters for which that body has responsibility or (in the case of a local authority) impact on the quality of life of their residents (A10(3)(b)).

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:

1 Victoria Terrace, Glen Road, Laxey

• 3 Victoria Terrace, Glen Road, Laxey

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT.

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is Nr 2 Victoria Terrace, Glen Road, Laxey which is to the southern side of Glen Road and north of the Laxey River. The application site (red line) includes the rear boundary river wall and a section of the Laxey River which runs immediately to the rear boundary of the site. - 1.2 The property Nr 2 Victoria Terrace is a traditional mid two storey terrace with a garden/yard to the rear of the property. Access to this area is via the rear door of the property, but also through the neighbouring rear yard/garden of Nr 1 Victoria Terrace (Right of Way) to the east of the site, which leads to a pedestrian access lane giving access to Glen Road. To the west of the site is Nr 3 Victoria Terrace. - 1.3 In the last few years a new flood defence wall has been installed (following approval of PA 21/00298/B) along the rear of the properties along Glen Road. It is understood that the owner of Nr 2 previously had installed a raised timber decking area which gained access from an opening within the rear boundary wall of the site (Nr 2) downwards (approximately 4 steps) to the decked area which was constructed on top of the existing rock formation to the side of the river, with a further approximately 7 steps down to the river bed. Photographs of this are shown in various correspondents, but also photographs on submitted existing drawings Nr 302 and 303 of previous application 21/00298/B. This approved application did not propose to replace this raised decking area. No planning approval existed for this decked area; albeit it appears to have been in place for more than 4 years and likely longer. It is understood the issue of it being replaced (or not) with a new raised deck/patio area became an issue when the flood wall was being constructed in this section and the applicants (Flood Management Division - DOI) decided to construct the raised patio (which forms part of the flood wall) retrospectively, rather than ceasing the works to the flood wall. On this matter the applicants comment;

"When works commenced on site during summer 2024 it was discovered that, since the submission of the planning application, the riverbed level has dropped significantly in that area with undermining of the rear property walls evident. The stone structure of the patio had been significantly undermined with the existing old stone wall of number 2 and adjacent properties vulnerable if not addressed as advised by the design team. Furthermore, the condition was such that the Contractor was unable to safely track machinery past the structure without causing further damage to the walls, effectively halting the progress of any works to the community flood defence scheme (in that area and further downstream). With the level of commitments previously given, to retain the structure which is on land within the property curtilage a solution was sought which would enable the continuation/completion of the works. We would stress that any delay would have certainly led to the works extending into an additional summer period, leaving properties, existing river walls vulnerable to critically failing in winter months and with costly impacts."

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks full approval for the construction of replacement patio as part of flood protection works (Retrospective).

2.2 The new construction patio has a rear projection from the rear boundary wall of Nr 2 of

• 1.5m, a maximum width of approximately 5.9m and a height of approximately 2.1m (measure floor level to river bed level). The external finish of the raised patio is mainly stone cladding to match that of the recently completed flood wall which ruins along this section of the Laxey River. The raise patio is angled at either end and has a "half a hexagon" footprint shape. A metal balustrade (black in colour) of a height of 1.1m has been installed and runs around the edge of the patio. The railings of the balustrade curve outwards. Access to the patio from the rear yard of Nr 2 is via an access through the rear original boundary wall. There is a single step down from the rear yard to the patio, as there is a level difference of approximately 0.35m.
• 2.3 The proposal also includes the extension of the existing side boundary timber fence with Nr 1 by 1.38m at a height of 1.8m.

2.4 A black metal screen is proposed to be installed on the western edge of the raised patio, which would have a height of 1.8m and length of 1.2m. - 3.0 KEY DOCUMENTS

3.1 Legislation

• 3.1.1 Section 10(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act states: "In dealing with an application for planning approval… the Department shall have regard to -

• (a) The provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application,
• (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."

• 3.1.2 Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) states, "(4) Where any area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act".
• 3.1.3 Section 68 of the Flood Risk Management Act (2013) indicates that any published Flood Risk Management Plan and the extent to which the proposed development creates an additional flood risk are material considerations. The site is in an area at risk of flooding namely by "Fluvial High Likelihood" and "High Likelihood" of Surface Water flooding as outlined by the online Flood Risk Viewer - DOI. The Flood Defence wall is also shown on viewer, which runs along the rear boundary of the site/properties along Glen Road.

3.2 Development Plan

• 3.2.1 In light of (a) above, it is considered that two key documents are:

• o Area Plan for the East (2020); and
• o The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016).

Area Plan for the East 2020

• 3.2.2 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the East as predominantly residential, and within a Conservation Area. Isle of Man Strategic Plan (adopted 2016)
• 3.2.3 In light of the above, it is considered the policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (adopted 2016) set out below are relevant in the determination of this application.
• 3.2.4 Strategic Policy 4 states: "Proposals for development must:

• (a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings (1), Conservation Areas (2), buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest;
• (b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and
• (c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance."

• 3.2.5 General Policy 2 states: "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:

• (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
• (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;
• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
• (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
• (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
• (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
• (j) can be provided with all necessary services;
• (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;
• (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
• (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
• (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

• 3.2.6 Environment Policy 13 states: "Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted."
• 3.2.7 Environment Policy 34 states: "In the maintenance, alteration or extension of pre1920 buildings, the use of traditional materials will be preferred."
• 3.2.8 Environment Policy 35 states: "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."

3.3 Other Documents

• 3.3.1 Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation Of The Historic Environment Of The Isle Of Man- POLICY CA/2 SPECIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS (PPS1/01)When considering proposals for the possible development of any land or buildings which fall within the conservation area, the impact of such proposals upon the special character of the area, will be a material consideration when assessing the application. Where a development is proposed for land which, although not within the boundaries of the conservation area, would affect its context or setting, or views into or out of the area; such issues should be given special consideration where the character or appearance of a conservation area may be affected.

• 3.3.2 The principles of the Residential Design Guidance 2021 which sets out a number of general development standards which are a material consideration.

- 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The following application is considered relevant in the determination of this current application;

4.2 Construction of flood protection walls - 21/00298/B - APPROVED - River Section To Rear Of Glen Road. - 4.3 Erection of a sun room extension to replace existing outbuildings on rear elevation 05/00825/B - REFUSED on the following grounds; "R 1. By reason that the proposed extension is partially constructed on the riverside retaining wall the proposed development would unacceptably prejudice:

• A) the future maintenance of the adjacent river; and
• B) the structural integrity of the retaining wall."

- 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. Further, the application has been amended and therefore this report contains summaries only of the relevant material planning matters. Any decision maker should consider all comments received which as outlined can be viewed online.

5.2 Garff Parish Commissioners raise an objection (10.11.2025);

"The amended plans relating to the above application have been carefully reviewed by the Commissioners. Following detailed consideration, Members concluded that the additional mitigation measures now proposed do not provide sufficient grounds for the Board to withdraw its previous objection to this retrospective application.

The structure as built is significantly greater in size, massing, and visual impact than the original wooden decking that previously occupied the site. The scale of the new structure is considered excessive and results in an unacceptable loss of privacy and amenity, particularly for the occupants of Nos. 1 and 3 Victoria Terrace.

Accordingly, the Board's position is that retrospective approval should not be granted, and the structure should be removed in its entirety. The Commissioners would, however, be open to considering a new application proposing a reduced platform height consistent with that of the former wooden decking. In such a case, the Board would also expect the overall footprint of the platform to be reduced to a comparable size. Any revised proposal would still need to be assessed in relation to its impact on neighbouring privacy and amenity.

Notwithstanding the latter, the Board notes that the only proposals currently under consideration are those contained within the most recent amended plans. The Board considers that the additional screening now proposed does not adequately mitigate the loss of privacy or amenity for adjoining properties, and their view is that the introduction of these screens would themselves create further unsightly impacts and additional loss of amenity for the immediate neighbours."

5.3 Highway Services comment there is no highway interest (07.02.2025). - 5.4 Senior Registered Building Officer (DEFA) comments (08.10.25 & 19.11.2025); "08.10.25

I have reviewed the amended proposals submitted in respect of this application. As per the initially submitted proposals, the use of exposed stonework to face the wall itself and the painted metal railings are considered to be acceptable in terms of the traditional materials palette in this portion of the conservation area.

Although not generally prominent in public views, solid screening for the purposes of reducing visibility between domestic properties is not uncommon in the wider conservation area. Given the modest nature of the screening proposed within this application, and the location being one that is not generally visible from public vantage points, I judge that the overall character and appearance of the conservation area would be preserved by the proposals."

"19.11.25 Further to my comments dated 17th November, the resident of 3 Victoria Terrace has raised a query in respect of the proposed metal screen.

My comments in respect of the proposed screening were in relation to the extension of the timber fence/screening on the down stream side of the terrace. Whilst decorative, partially open, metal screens are often used within gardens, the resident of 3 Victoria Terrace is quite right that the use of a solid metal screen is not a common boundary treatment.

I appreciate that a metal screen may require less ongoing maintenance than a timber screen, and that this is the reason for the proposed material in this instance. Given the modest scale of the entire proposal, I do not believe that either a metal or timber screen in the location proposed would have a significant impact on the conservation area. With this in mind, I would suggest that either painted metal or stained timber would have a similar impact and that therefore either solution would, on balance, be acceptable.

In the event that the application is recommended for approval, I would suggest that a condition be added to require the details of both screens to be approved by the Department prior to their installation."

5.5 The owner/occupier of 1 Victoria Terrace, Glen Road, Laxey objects (including the final amended scheme) to the application for the following summarised grounds (17.09.2025):

• overlooking and loss of privacy (highlighted by submitted photographs);

• o discussions have been had with the applicants since original objection, a meeting was had where the extension of the existing timber fence was discussed and a temporary extension was added, within 24 hours applicants were informed this was not acceptable as there is continued
• overlooking and it was advised that the fence could be further extended, but this has not happened;
• o privacy is compromised from every aspect to the rear of the house home and to the shower in the bathroom; and
• o expresses dismay by the complete lack of consideration that has been given from the very
• outset of this application with regard to their home and the impact it would have.

5.6 The owner/occupier of 3 Victoria Terrace, Glen Road, Laxey objects to the application (including the final amended scheme) for the grounds summarised below (number of representations received between the 05.12.2024 and 03.12.2025). Increase in flood risk

• o The large platform which is an obstruction of the river flow has been built into the Laxey River in an area of high risk flood zone.
• o The Flood Management Division (FMD) are full aware of the planning process and the sites designation being within a Conservation Area and high flood risk zone and have commented on applications along the Glen Road, for example they have commented that they would not support a building that exceeded the boundaries of the river bank (PA 23/00022/B), so does not understand how the FMD would then make this application.

• o Considers that if any owner proposed to build a river patio along the 87km of designated watercourse on the Island they would receive an objection and FMD would not support it.
• o Section 3 of the Watercourse Management Guide indicates that they have a right to protect their property from flooding and their land from erosion but am expected to let water flow through their land without obstruction, pollution or diversion which affects the rights of others; it also states that narrowing of the river channel can cause more erosion, this is what the applicants have done.
• o Contrary to Recommendation 6 of the ARUP Report (following Laxey Flood in 2019) which indicates that Section 18 of the Flood Risk Management Act 2013 should apply to all parties, including agents of government.
• o Whilst the hydraulic model statistics have been supplied, they relate to the flood defence wall height only and do not reflect the fact that the river channel has been made intentionally narrower by the erection of the unauthorised structure on the stretch of the designated watercourse to the rear of Victoria Terrace.
• o It is imperative that an Independent Expert Report is carried out as requested and that the same should form an integral element of this Retrospective Application as they will also be able to provide information in respect of the placement of the structure and increased erosion to the flood defence wall, particularly in respect of the right hand section which clearly obstructs and diverts the course of the river flow beneath the wall to their property.
• o Evidence of photographs taken on the 18th September 2025, after a single night of heavy rainfall it can be seen the obstruction that the structure is causing to the flow of the river, a problem which did not exist previously prior to the unauthorised works being carried out for no other reason than that of personal amenity for the owner of the subject property.
• o Due to the history of the location and impact that the new structure is having on the flow of the river, you can see on the attached stills that the river, in adverse weather, is splashing to the height of the floor of the structure and new flood defence wall, due to the flow being obstructed.
• o It is only a matter of time before the stability of the right-hand side of the structure (which is located directly beneath my property) is compromised due to having to withstand increased water pressure and subsequent erosion.
• o In relation to 05/00825/B (application site for a sun room) which was refused, officer of FMD where involved and objected to the sunroom extension (although the sunroom did not projecting into the river) and sought clarification from the Attorney General's Chambers in respect of the legal position who concluded that due to concerns of legal ownership, stability and river maintenance, has the same clarification been sought by the applicants. Loss of privacy
• o Contrary to the Residential Design Guide which states balconies should not result in views into the rear windows of neighbouring properties at a distance of less than 20metres, the proposal is located next to their rear patio, kitchen window and door and bathroom window.
• o Previously the small unobtrusive wooden decked platform could only be viewed at my rear boundary wall and had no impact upon my privacy.
• o The rear small patio to my property is the only outside space they can utilise.
• o The blue sight line on the amended plan has not been drawn from the corner of the balustrade.
• o When reviewing the amended plan from their property windows, the direct line of sight, from the corner of the balustrade, is directly onto the only section of their small rear patio, that is not under cover, and kitchen window. For the Applicant to state that the neighbouring property would not be overlooked is completely inaccurate and this is evidenced by the images.
• o A metal screen is not a permanent solution and could be removed at any time by a future
• occupier of the subject property.
• o The applicant has already suggested that the placement of a screen could present problems in terms of maintenance and that a masonry wall would be more in-keeping.
• o They have a 'right to light' and should not be expected to have to fit frosted glass to the window, nor have a permanently closed window dressing in order to maintain their privacy. Overbearing impact upon outlook/loss of visual amenity/dominance

• o Now that the balustrade has been installed, loss of privacy aside, it is clear just how
• overbearing and out of proportion that the new structure is in relation to a small one bed cottage.
• o Contrary to Residential Design Guide and the 45 degree approach given the balustrade will be in direct line from their primary kitchen window.
• o The primary window serving their kitchen is 3.5m away from the closest point of the proposal. Other matters
• o Surface water drainage has been omitted from the plan and is not referred to within the retrospective application. The shared rainwater pipe is currently resting on the floor of structure with no adequate drainage. If a metal screen is erected, in line with the proposed plan, the rainwater pipe will be sandwiched between the screen and the metal balustrade.
• o Concern that there is insufficient space to install the screen due to the position of the rainwater pipe.
• o Incorrect/accuracy concerns of plans.
• o How would the screen be maintained/cleaned when it would be physically impossible to access?
• o The previous wooden structure which was removed (June 2024) was dilapidated, unsafe and should have been removed under the powers of The Flood Risk Management Act 2013 if it was found to be causing an obstruction in the river.
• o No other residential property located on Glen Road extends beyond the river bank/wall and into the river channel of a designated watercourse known as Laxey River.
• o There is nothing on file noting that the Inland Fisheries Department have been consulted.
• o The footpath has been blocked and overgrown for many years and it is physically impossible to proceed beyond Victoria Terrace. Since purchasing their property in August 2021, they have rarely seen anyone use this footpath.

5.7 It should be noted several comments/concerns received highlight concerns of how the proposal under consideration now has been approached by the applicants, the reasons for it and the retrospective nature of the works. Also, they raise concerns about the stress of the last 13 months, which is not their fault, wanted the situation resolved quickly but applicant has been unable to move forward and not clear why, feel like they have been made to feel like they are the party who is at fault as possible for drawing attention to the works. While these concerns are understandable and questions should be given to the neighbour/s impacted, the planning application is not the process for this investigation. Further, any issues regarding ownership, Deeds, Covenants are not material planning matters which can be considered as part of this planning application. Such matters are civil matters between the relevant parties.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 It is considered the following material planning matters are relevant in the determination of this application:

• o Statutory Test (Town and County Planning Act 1999);
• o Potential impacts upon the Conservation Area and the visual amenities of the street scenes (StP 4, GP 2, EP 4, 30, 32, 34, 35 & 42 of the IOMSP);
• o Potential impacts upon neighbouring amenities (GP2 & Residential Design Guide); and
• o Potential impacts upon Flood Risk (EP 13)

6.2 Firstly, from a procedure standpoint, it needs to be made clear that while these works are retrospective (proposed patio, railings and fence line extension along boundary with Nr 1 & 2), this is no advantage or disadvantage to the application and the decision maker/s should have absolute no regard to this, rather only consider the application against relevant material planning considerations only. How or why such works have been undertaken are again not material planning matters for any decision maker/s to consider. Failure to take this approach could lead to an unlawful decision being made and potentially risk a Petition of Doleance being made against the Department.

6.3 Statutory Test

• 6.3.1 In terms of the Statutory Test relating to Conservation Areas, Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999), special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance. Comments made by the Senior Registered Building Officer have significant weigh attached, where he comments; "…As per the initially submitted proposals, the use of exposed stonework to face the wall itself and the painted metal railings are considered to be acceptable in terms of the traditional materials palette in this portion of the conservation area."
• 6.3.2 and "…Given the modest scale of the entire proposal, I do not believe that either a metal or timber screen in the location proposed would have a significant impact on the conservation area…"
• 6.3.3 It is noted that there is not a Character Appraisal of Laxey Conservation Area, but from visiting the Area the important characteristics of Glen Road are the frontages of properties which immediately front onto the Glen Road in their traditional forms, variations and appearance. It is likely that this appearance, history and character is one of the main reasons this area is included within the Laxey Conservation Area. As with most properties within a Conservation Area, the front elevations are generally regarded with a greater importance compared to the rear elevations; given the fronts are what generally makes the biggest contribution to the character and appearance of a Conservation Area generally. This is the case for the application site and Glen Road generally.
• 6.3.4 The proposal is not publically apparent from the Glen Road, given its location to the rear of the properties which run along Glen Road. It is mainly apparent from the public footpaths opposite the site, on the opposite side of the riverbank and to a much lesser degree from the footpath which runs up the hill side. The proposal is unusual (although noting a previous structure existing in a similar reduced footprint), with much of the character of the area is made up with a flat concrete or stone faced wall which forms the recently completed flood defence works. The proposal would result in a projection (1.5m) forward of this generally flat wall. While it is unusual, it is noted that similar works have been approved under PA 23/01057/B which was for further flood defence walls along the rear of properties along the Glen Road and namely to the rear of Lewin's Cottage and Digby House (far end of Glen Road, west of Laxey Bridge). Both properties had a rear timber balcony which projecting above the Laxey River. These were approved (23/01057/B) to be replaced with new flood defence walls which reduced the width of the overall river and essentially provided raised patios for the respective owners. This was also similar the case for the property Brookside which is located in-between to two properties mentioned above. While this property did not have a projecting balcony, the new flood wall resulted in an enlarged rear patio for the occupants. Accordingly, the generally character of the flood works have changed the character and appearance, made up of generally larger/taller walls along the river bank constructed of concrete with finishes of stone cladding/concrete. The current proposal follows this approach and while its footprint projects 1.5m forward of the flood wall, given its limited appearance within the Conservation Area and its overall modest footprint (approx. 7 sqm) the views and conclusions of the Registered Building Officer are shared.
• 6.3.5 The extension of the boundary fence by 1.38m shared with Nr 1 raise no concerns. The existing fence measures approximately 4.6metres and adding this additional fencing onto this would not result in an adverse feature.
• 6.3.6 The proposed metal screen adjacent to the boundary with Nr 3 arguable raises more of an issue. Various possible options were discussed with the applicants (obscure glazed, stone wall, timber screens); however, the applicants have chosen the metal screen after considering the options. Again with a length of 1.2m, it is not large in size and being black in colour and constructed in metal would match that of the railings which also raise no concerns in terms of their appearance/design. Accordingly, while the screen may appear more as an "add-on" to the patio area, its modest scale, colour and material are not considered to have a significant adverse impact and would preserve (neutral impact) the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

• 6.3.7 Accordingly, it is not considered the proposal would introduced an adverse feature and would preserve (neutral impact) the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and therefore complying with Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) and Environment Policy 35 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016.

6.4 Potential impacts upon the Conservation Area/street scene

• 6.4.1 In terms of the potential impacts of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The Department has a duty to determine whether such proposals are in keeping with not only the individual building/site, but the special character and quality of the area as a whole. With this in mind it is very relevant to consider Environment Policy 35 (& PPS 1/01) which indicates that development within Conservation Areas will only be permitted if they would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier in this report, very similar consideration is given to Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) also requires that special attention is paid the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance in the exercise. Accordingly, paragraphs 6.3.3 to 6.3.7 are relevant in terms of consideration against of EP35 as well

• as comments by the Senior Registered Building Officer.

• 6.4.2 According for the avoidance of repetition, for the reasons outlined within the paragraphs mentioned above, it is considered the proposal would also comply with EP35 given the development would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Furthermore, the use of materials proposed are considered acceptable. The metal railings are not uncommon feature with traditional properties (and those within Conservation Areas throughout the IOM). The stone finish of much of the structure also ties in with the flood defence wall which has already gained approval. The extension of the timber fence is an extension of an existing larger timber fence. The proposed metal screen, while not especially a boundary feature found in the area, it is considered given the metal material and colour of it matching that of the railings proposed and its rather modest size, it is not considered to be objectionable to warrant a refusal. A condition should be attached to any approval for precise details of the metal screen and details for implementation of the screen. For these reasons it is considered the proposal complies with EP 34.
• 6.4.3 Further, General Policy 2 (b, c & g) needs to be addressed to ensure any development respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; and does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality. As outlined previously, the proposal is not especially publically viewable, with the main views being limited (level of vegetation's and distance of path from site) from the public footpath travelling up the opposite hillside of the site. Again, the overall modest scale/size of the proposal, its design and finishes are not considered to have a significant impact upon the visual amenities of the individual property or the surrounding area/townscape.

6.5 Potential impacts upon neighbouring amenities

• 6.5.1 A concern raise by both neighbours (Nrs 1 & 3) related to a potential of loss of privacy through overlooking from the new patio area. It is acknowledged that there was original timber structure of similar size, albeit set at a much lower level, below the floor level of the rear patios of all the properties. Accordingly, from evidence submitted/comments received, the potential level of overlooking was little to none to the neighbouring properties, namely given its lower floor level and height of the rear boundary walls. This new proposal has an increased floor level and therefore clearly has an increased level of potential for overlooking and/or perception of being overlooked.
• 6.5.2 When visiting the application site initially, there was understood to be a public footpath which runs along the opposite side of the river to the properties. Accordingly, it was initially considered that the level of privacy to these properties along Glen Road was potentially already

• compromised somewhat and arguable they (properties) were not afforded the same level of privacy that can be found with most rear gardens to dwellings.
• 6.5.3 However, after receiving additional comments and revisiting the area (walking along the public footpaths to the rear of the site (north)), this initially consideration was somewhat changed. It is noted that in terms of the path to the opposite side of the riverbank to the site; while there is a path, visiting the area and walking along this path, it does not appear to be a continuous path, rather ceases before/soon after the application site. There are formal pathways (public footpaths) further to the southeast, which start at Glen Road, across the Recycling Area, run across the footbridge across the Laxey River in a north-westerly direction. The path then splits into a public footpath (signed path) which runs up the hillside and also a more informal path (not signed) which runs parallel with the Laxey River. However, this informal path gradually ceases to be evident as a path, gradually decreasing in size until it runs on top of a concrete walls (appears to form part of the millrace) and then ceases completely/overgrown, with no apparent through route. This is an important issue in the determination of the application because if this path was a public footpath, it could be argued that the level of privacy afforded to any of the properties along the Glen Road; including the application site and neighbouring properties, could be reduced and therefore not afforded the same level of protection. For example, front gardens of dwellings are generally not afforded the same level of protection from overlooking, given they are generally overlooked from the front public highway. This is compared to rear garden which are generally more private and not publically overlooked either. However; visiting the site and area, while there is an informal path opposite the site, it is not a continuous footpath; rather it appears to reach a dead end, therefore while some person/s could walk along it, and do (photographs submitted by owner of Nr 2 show persons using it in the summer of 2024), it is unlikely to be used regularly and potentially most people would cease walking along it before they reach the application site opposite, due to its informal nature which gradually reduces to nothing. The condition of the path was also not inducive to walk along (muddy). The status of the footpath is also not known. It is not identified as a "Public Right of Way" or as a "Public Footpath". Accordingly, it is not considered the potential overlooking from this path is significant and it is not considered the privacy afforded to the rears of the site and/or neighbouring properties are compromised by such views.
• 6.5.4 From the formal public footpath, the application site and neighbouring properties are partially apparent, although this path runs through a woodland and the path itself is set back from the hill side edge. Views are at a greater distance than the informal path mentioned above and are generally views downwards of the properties, given the public footpath is set above (on hill side). There are also vegetation/trees which reduce views from the public footpath of these properties. Accordingly, unless you walk off the formal footpath towards the hill side edge, it is difficult to observe views of the site/properties along Glen Road. While a person/s can walk along the formal and informal footpaths opposite the site, as mentioned the informal footpath leads to a "dead end"

at or soon after the site; accordingly, it is unlikely to be regularly used by a number of people, certainly compared to the main formal public footpath which runs up the hillside of the Glen. This was also evidence with it being overgrown and gradually disappearing, unlike the footpath which runs up the Glen hillside which is more clearly marked/identifiable. Accordingly, while there is the potential of some overlooking from the public footpaths to the rear, it is perhaps on a lesser scale compared to what was originally considered. Therefore, some weight can be attached that arguably the rear garden/yards are not totally private due to these paths, albeit not to a significant degree.

• 6.5.5 One of the main considerations with this application is whether the proposed new patio has a significant adverse impact upon neighbouring amenities, namely through overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy. There is also the question to whether there is a perception of being overlooked, which is generally more difficult to judge. The proposal introduces a new feature along the rear of properties along this section of Glen Road, namely while most properties have rear gardens/yard areas, these are generally private due to boundary features to either side. This proposal is introducing a new feature or certainly a feature which has a rear projecting patio at a similar floor level as the existing patios to the site and neighbouring properties. It is acknowledged that there was an original decked area in place for a number of years (photographs indicating it was in place in

2012 have been submitted by the applicants), although whether this was/is still in place or not, it is considered the proposal under consideration now is markedly different, namely given its floor level height. Further the proposals footprint appears larger, albeit there are no drawings of it to accurate determine this. This new patio potentially gives the ability to look back and around the existing side boundary features (wall/fence line) and this needs carefully consideration to whether it is acceptable or not. The previous patio/decking did not.

Potential Impacts upon Nr 1 Glen Road

• 6.5.6 Nr 1 is to the southeast of the application site. This immediately adjoining property has a rear patio area/seating area which runs the entire width of Nr 1 rear elevation. Views into the rear patio are not achievable from the application site (existing patio), given a high timber fence/landscaping in place. It should be noted that in relation to Nr 1, the occupant/s of the application site Nr 2, has access rights through the rear patio of Nr 1 to gain access to the side passageway which runs to the Glen Road (i.e. bins/general access). There is a pedestrian gate within the shared boundary fence along eastern boundary of the application site, which directly opens into the rear garden of Nr 2. Accordingly, there is an existing level of loss of privacy given this right of access, although this does not make the proposal automatically acceptable, as it potentially introduces additional level of overlooking which requires consideration.
• 6.5.7 Visiting the application site (Nr 2) initially on the 22nd January 2025, it was observed that views were obtained when stood on the proposed patio into Nr 1 rear garden, namely a section of the table and chairs located centrally in the rear garden area of Nr 1 and the shed which is located to the rear boundary (south east corner). Since this initial site visit, the applicants installed the railings on the patio and extended the fence line which runs along the boundary with Nr 1 & 2. Accordingly, when revisiting the application site (Nr 2) and visiting Nr 1 (both on 16th May 2025), It was noted that the majority of the views from the new patio towards Nr 1 were screened by the proposed (new) extended fence line, but some of the chairs located centrally within the rear garden and the shed located to the rear boundary of the neighbouring site were still apparent.
• 6.5.8 It should be noted the view outlined above, is taken from the southeast corner of the patio (rear position of patio where railing angles towards Nr 2) which is the position on the patio which has the greatest potential impact. When stood or sat on the proposed patio from other positions, there are no views towards the rear garden of Nr 2. To reduce the overlooking to Nr 1 the applicants have proposed an additional extension to the fence (total 1.38m measured from the original fence).
• 6.5.9 Overall, it is considered in terms of overlooking, the proposal with the fence line extended (as shown on submitted drawing) prevents a significant amount of overlooking towards Nr 1 to warrant a refusal. While there will be some views obtained of the rear shed within Nr 1, it is not considered this is sufficient adverse impact upon amenities to warrant a refusal, with much of the rear of Nr 1 being screened.
• 6.5.10 In relation to potential overlooking into the rear first floor window of Nr 1, while there are some limited and angled views observed when stood on the proposed patio (from the north western most point on the proposed patio), it is considered the angle and the fact the window is at first floor levels is such, that there is very little views into this window and not sufficient to warrant a refusal.
• 6.5.11 Overall, it is considered with the extended fence line in place (as proposed on submitted plans - should be conditioned to be retained) the proposal while introducing the potential for overlooking and perception of being overlooked being increased; it is not considered the level to be sufficient to warrant a refusal and therefore complies with General Policy 2 and Residential Design Guide.
• 6.5.12 This conclusion is on the basis that the extended fence line proposed is undertaken. This should be conditioned that the fence is completed within a period of time and is also retained.

Should the Planning Committee consider this fence line extension unacceptable, then there would be significant concerns of overlooking, to an extent that a refusal could be made.

Potential Impacts upon Nr 3 Glen Road

• 6.5.13 Nr 3 which is immediately to the northwest of the site has a rear two storey extension which has a single ground floor window and a glazed door both of which serve a kitchen. The glazed door provides access to the rear partially covered patio area which is the main outdoor space for the property. This patio area has views of the adjacent Laxey River and woodland opposite, similar to the application site. As mentioned, the rear patio is partially covered (approximately a third of the total area) given the rear two storey extension has its first floor covering the patio area in part (open below forming patio). The main space where it is understood the current owner uses the patio area most, is closest to the boundary with the application site. This area which is partially covered and is also useable during colder periods with an outdoor heater which is present. There are two areas of significant concerns raised by the owner of Nr 3, namely overlooking from the proposed patio towards their rear patio area and into their first floor bathroom window. Currently (without proposed patio in place), the rear patio of Nr 3 is not overlooked from any part of the application site, given a single storey flat roofed extension (and its walls) screens any such views. It therefore has a high level of privacy.
• 6.5.14 Visiting the application site (Nr 2) initially (22nd Jan) it was noted that when stood on the proposed patio closest to Nr 3 (northwest section of patio) there where direct views towards sections of the rear patio of Nr 3 and an angled view of the ground floor kitchen window was observed. No views of the ground floor kitchen glazed door within Nr 3 were observed. Initially, again it was considered the impact was not so significant (noting no railings where in place so not all views where possible). It was as only when visiting neighbouring property Nr 3 (15th March railings had been installed) where there appeared to be a greater impact and the significant concerns of the owner of Nr 3 where fully understood. When stood on the patio of Nr 3 the proposal is within touching distance and certainly gives the potential for overlooking and perceived overlooking. Again, it should be noted that this overlooking is especially clear when a person is viewing from a particular area on the proposed patio, namely the northwest section of the patio looking back towards Nr 3. If a person/s were sat or stood elsewhere on the proposed patio, there would be no overlooking towards the patio of Nr 3. This is helped given there is a rear single storey flat roof extension which is part of Nr 2 (application site). Given its location between the proposed patio and Nr 3, it also has the effect of providing a physical screen, preventing views towards the ground floor patio, glazed door and rear window of Nr 3.
• 6.5.15 However, given the closeness of the proposal with the patio of Nr 3 and as mentioned in section 7.3 regarding how this a new projecting feature at this height; it was considered some form of additional screening was required to prevent any overlooking and help the perception of being overlooked also.
• 6.5.16 Several options (metal screen, glass screen, timber screen, planting, area of patio fenced off and stone wall) where all discussed with the applicants and the owner of Nr 3 to see if a resolution could be agreed. Unfortunately, there wasn't an agreement made with all parties. The proposal under consideration is a metal screen which is at a height of 1.8m which is proposed to run along the north western section of the proposed patio for a length of 1.2m (shown as green line on plans) set behind and running almost parallel with the railings, which are proposed to be retained. It is considered this screen will prevent a significant amount of overlooking towards the ground floor patio and window/door of Nr 3. Whether this overcomes the perception of being overlooked is more difficult to determine. Clearly, the owner of Nr 3 still has significant concerns, which given the lack of any screen at this time is totally understandable. The matter of overlooking/privacy also affects persons differently, some protect their privacy, while other are less concerned. Furthermore, a person could lean over the railing and around the screen to gain full views of the ground floor patio/windows/door of Nr 3. It is considered while this could be undertaken, whether it is likely and reasonable is again a difficult question to answer. It is considered it is unlikely a reasonable person would and therefore it is unlikely this issue would raise a significant overlooking

• concern as it is unlikely to occur. However, given a person can, this only heightens the perception of potentially being overlooked. The rearward projection of the new patio also adds to this perception of being overlooked and introduces a feature (of this height/size) which did not exists previously.
• 6.5.17 Overall, it is considered in the matter of direct overlooking, it is considered with the proposed metal screen in place, this would substantially reduce overlooking towards the ground floor of Nr 3. As mentioned previously the proposal introduces as raised patio which projects beyond the rear boundaries of the site and neighbours' properties. Therefore, the proposed patios presence will have an increase perception of being overlooked, and this again is a more difficult matter to consider.
• 6.5.18 In relation to concerns of the first floor bathroom window being overlooked, there are less

concerns. Visiting both the application site and Nr 3 and observing the various views towards and from the first floor bathroom, it is considered while views from the proposed patio can be achieved, these are generally limited when standing and such views are angled, upwards and any achievable view into this room look at the celling/window surrounds of this bathroom only. Direct views into the window or any person in this room would be very limited. Furthermore the window is not large. It is likely views from the public footpath opposite (albeit accepted limited use) would result in a greater level of overlooking than what can be achieved from the proposed patio. Again, the existing single storey flat roofed extension within the application site, limits the views towards this bathroom windows, especially when in a seating position. It should also be noted that a bathroom is not regarding as a primary habitable room (i.e. living room/lounge). Overall, it is not considered the proposal would have such a significant adverse impact upon this bathroom window to warrant a refusal on this issue.

• 6.5.19 In terms of overbearing impacts upon outlooks of the two neighbouring properties, it is not considered the raised patio or railings cause any significant impacts to warrant a refusal on this ground, namely given its modest size, set lower and behind the flood wall and existing boundary features which help reduce its physical appearance from the neighbouring properties. The elements that have the greatest potential overbearing impact is the proposed fence line extension which potential affects the occupants of Nr 1 and the metal screen which affects the occupants of Nr 3.
• 6.5.20 In relation to the fence line extension, there is an existing fence of 4.6m in length and the proposal would increase this in length by 1.38m with a height to match the existing. While this has the potential to reduce the open nature that can be observed when stood in the rear garden/yard of Nr 1; overall, it is considered the potential change would not be significantly adverse to warrant a refusal and therefore there are no overbearing concerns in relation to Nr 1 by the proposed development.
• 6.5.21 Regarding the impact upon Nr 3, the impact is arguable potentially greater. Firstly, the rear patio of Nr 3 is smaller than Nr 1 and also the proposed metal screen given its proximity and size. However, it is noted that it is set back from the railings edge and behind the wall of the single storey extension of the application site. It would then follow the angled nature of the railings and angled away from Nr 3. These factors give some relief and likely reduce its appearance. Overall, it is not considered the metal screen would significantly result in an overbearing impact upon the outlooks of Nr 3 to warrant a refusal. Conclusion
• 6.5.22 Overall, in relation to the potential impact upon neighbouring properties, it is considered the proposal is very finely balanced. The proposal introduces a raised patio of a size and height and rear projection past the rear boundary wall which did not previously exist. Therefore, this has the potential for a greater level of impact than the previous situation. Furthermore, given the proposal there is a perceived level of overlooking likely to be caused by the proposal. However, it is considered given the reasons outlined and in terms of direct overlooking concerns, it is considered with appropriately worded conditions to ensure the fence line extension and metal screen are

• undertaken in a timely manner and retained, the proposal would ensure there would be no significant level of overlooking to warrant a refusal, albeit it is accepted there is a greater level of perception created by the development which cannot be overcome, unless the patio is removed. Accordingly, it is considered the proposal is considered to comply with General Policy 2 and Residential Design Guide.
• 6.5.23 It should be noted that if either or both of the screens/fence line extension are themselves considered unacceptable (i.e. visual or overbearing concerns), then the level of overlooking to both the neighbouring properties would also be considered unacceptable and a refusal could be made on this ground also.

6.6 Flood Matters

• 6.6.1 Comments received in relation to flooding concerns are understandable given the history of the area from flooding in recent times. The proposal would reduce the width of the river in this location and therefore the question whether this would increase the flood risk is also reasonable. It is noted that various levels of reductions in the width of the Laxey River have been undertaken to provide the flood defence walls along the river and these various reductions can be seen in the approved planning applications 21/00298/B and 23/01057/B. Accordingly, the reduction a river does not automatically raise an objection.
• 6.6.2 Further, while some comments received seek an independent report being undertaken, the Department is satisfied with the Flood Management Division (DOI) response to this matter. While noting they are also the applicants, they have carried out and continue to do so, the flood defences along this river. Furthermore, it would seem odd that following completing these works (or nearing the end) they would then add elements that would jeopardise the flood protection of the site and area, that they are also continually responsible for.
• 6.6.3 Comments was sought from the applicants (Flood Management Division) following the comments received and the Director of FMD made the following comments (30.01.2025); "I can reassure you that the work done has no impact on flood risk.

Hydraulic computer modelling was carried out to calculate the design flood level for the new flood defence walls. The standard of flood protection at this section of wall (Victoria Terrace) significantly exceeds our target for Laxey river flood defences, which is the predicted river level of a 1 in 100 year return period flood flow plus an allowance for future climate change. This is because the ground level at Victoria Terrace is higher than the predicted river flood level. For example model results show that the top of the new flood defence retaining wall at 1 Victoria Terrace is more than 1.4 metres above design flood level (the difference in levels is known as 'freeboard').

Please see below the river hydraulic model outputs showing the substantial freeboard predicted at Victoria Terrace (please see email online dated 3rd Feb 2025 to see image):

The latest 'as constructed' information has been incorporated into the hydraulic river model, including information for the new structure at 2 Victoria Terrace. Sensitivity testing showed the effect of the structure on flood levels to be negligible, with no compromise to the standard of flood protection in any way. More data collection in terms of additional river cross sections in the model would increase the resolution but would not change this result."

• 6.6.4 Further supporting information (part of submission) indicated that; "…It also means there is no risk debris snagging on the structure, or the structure producing debris, which did exist with the original structure. With the removal of the steps and timber decking, the new structure protrudes less into the river corridor and has been designed so that is less obstructive to river flow. The river has been modelled and it is the Flood Management Divisions professional judgement that the new structure provides betterment…"

• 6.6.5 Accordingly, while concerns have been raised, no technical evidence has been produced to argue against the comments received and the Department is comfortable that the proposal would comply with Environment Policy 13 and would not result in a significant increase to flood risk on or off site.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 As outlined in this report the potential impacts of the proposal upon overlooking/perceived overlooking to the neighbouring properties Nrs 1 & 3 Victoria Terrace are considered to be very finely balanced. However, with the appropriately worded conditions in place, it is considered the potential impacts can be mitigated sufficiently to overcome the concerns. Further, the proposal works does not raise any concerns of having an overbearing impact, nor does the proposal adversely affect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area or the individual property and would therefore preserve the character and quality of the Conservation area/street scene. Finally, it is considered there is no adverse impact through flooding either on to off site from the information received. It is considered the proposal would therefore comply with the relevant policies of the Isle Of Man Strategic Plan, Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) and Section 19 of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act and General Policy 2, Strategic Policy 4, Environmental Policy 13, 34 & 35 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016, Planning Policy Statement 1/01, Area Plan for the East 2020 and Residential Design Guide 2021.

7.2 It is recommended that the application be approved. - 8.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE

8.1 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).

8.2 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.

8.3 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. - 8.4 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.

8.5 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 confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 15.12.2025

Signed :Mr Chris Balmer Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

YES See below

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/ customers and archive records.

Planning Committee Decision 15.12.2025

Application No. : 24/91296/B Applicant : Mr Neil Caine Proposal : Construction of replacement patio as part of flood protection works (Retrospective) Site Address : 2 Victoria Terrace Glen Road Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7AW Principal Planner Chris Balmer Reporting Officer As above

Addendum to the Officer’s Report Planning Committee - 15.12.2025 Following the consideration of the Planning Committee the Members disagreed with the Case Officer recommendation to approve the application and refused the application on the following grounds:

R 1. The proposal in terms of its height, proximity and design would adversely impact the residential amenities of the occupants of Nrs 1 and 3 Victoria Terrace resulting in an unacceptable level of overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy and having an overbearing impact upon their outlooks contrary to General Policy 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide 2021.

Reason for Refusal

R 1. The proposal in terms of its height, proximity and design would adversely impact the residential amenities of the occupants of Nrs 1 and 3 Victoria Terrace resulting in an unacceptable level of overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy and having an overbearing impact upon their outlooks contrary to General Policy 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide 2021.