Officer Report

Application No.: 24/91218/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Kevin Bott Proposal: Erection of a single-storey extension above the rear annexe. Erection of a two-storey side extension. Installation of replacement and new PV cells. Site Address: Croit-Ny-Kiyt Crossag Road Ballasalla Isle Of Man IM9 3EF Planning Officer: Vanessa Porter Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 04.03.2025 _________________________________________________________________

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

C 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.

N 1. The Applicant/Owner is reminded of their legal obligations under the Wildlife Act 1990 in respect of bats, and in any event that such a protected species or roost is found advice should be sought from DEFA Ecosystems team.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.

The proposal meets the statutory tests within Section 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, as the character of the Conservation Area is being preserved. It is also judged that the application meets the tests of Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policy 35 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 as the Conservation Area is being protected and preserved. It is therefore judged that the application is acceptable.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the following plans and drawings, date stamped received on 6th November 2024;

• o Covering Letter
• o JTM2424-P-01

This decision also relates to Drawing No. JTM2424-P-02 Rev B dated received 27th January 2025

Right to Appeal

It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DOI Highway Services - No objection Malew Commissioners - No objection

It is recommended that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal: Crossack House - Objection

_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The application site is within the curtilage of Croit-Ny-Kiyt which is a traditional two storey dwelling situated to the West of where Phildraw Road meets Crossag Road. THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 This application seeks approval for two separate parts, firstly for the erection of a second storey on top of the already existing flat roofed extension and secondly for the erection of a two storey side extension.

2.2 The second storey extension on top of the flat roofed extension is to be on the same footprint and is to provide a third bedroom. The extension is to have a pitched roof with two rooflights situated into the Northern elevation. - 2.3 The two storey extension is to be situated to the Northern side of the property and is to measure 8.74m by 2.785m at the shortest part (facing East) and 5.080m at the largest part (facing West). There are no windows proposed in the Northern elevation and there is proposed a pitched roof dormer to the Eastern (front) elevation. There is a separate entrance into the extension from the front and the extension is connected to the main property by a door, which connects the plant room and extension at ground floor level and the main hallway and master bedroom to first floor level. - 2.4 Also proposed is the installation of solar panels to the roofscape.

PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 There are several previous applications which are not relevant to the assessment of this application, whilst this is the case, PA07/00837/B is the most relevant and was for "Construction of a flat roof extension to replace existing conservatory on rear elevation," which was Permitted.

3.2 It is also noted that there is one concurrent application which is relevant to this application and is PA24/01257/CON, which is for "Registered Building Consent for demolition aspects of PA 24/91218/B," currently Pending. PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as "Predominantly Residential" on the Area Plan for the South, Map 4 - Ballasalla. The site isn't within a Flood Risk Zone but is within a Conservation Area.

4.2 Given the nature of the of the land designation and the property being within a Conservation Area, Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) is the most relevant in the assessment of this application. Followed by paragraph 7.29.2, Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, which set out development in Conservation Areas will only be permitted where they preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area and Environment Policy 4 which seeks to protect species and habitats, in connection with

Environment Policy 5 which states that in exceptional circumstances where development is allowed conditions will be imposed.

4.3 Also relevant tis the Residential Design Guide (2021) which offers advice on the design and in relation to visual impact and the impact on neighbours. REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 The following representations can be seen online in full;

5.2 Highway Services have considered the application and state, "After reviewing this application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as parking demand for the proposals would be similar or negligible increased to existing." (19.11.24) - 5.3 Malew Parish Commissioners have considered the application and state they have no objections. (05.12.24) - 5.4 The Registered Buildings Officer, initially raised objection with the character and appearance of the proposed extension, to which amended drawings were received and the initially objection was removed, with the officer stating, "I consider that the updated scheme now proposed, outlined on P-02 revision B, represents a significant improvement on the previously submitted scheme. I judge the revised side extension to be obviously subordinate to the host dwelling, and when combined with the greater step-back from the front building line, I consider that the symmetry of the host dwelling's front elevation would still be readily apparent." (28.02.25) - 5.5 DEFA Ecosystems Policy Team have written in to object with the proposal on the basis of requesting a preliminary assessment for roosting bars in undertaken on the property prior to determination of the application. They state, "Croit-Ny-Kiyt is an old Manx stone house with slate roof, which is located immediately adjacent to the Silverburn River and broadleaved woodland corridor, along which we have multiple bat roosts of multiple bat species. All features which increase the likelihood of bats being present." (06.12.24) - 5.6 The owner/occupier of Crossack House have written in to object to the proposal on the basis of building up to the property boundary, loss of light, over dominance and concerns regarding drainage. (06.12.24)

ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are:

• - Section 18(4) test - Character
• - Section 18(4) test - Appearance
• - neighbouring amenity
• - ecology impact
• - other matters

6.2 SECTION 18(4) TEST - CHARACTER

• 6.2.1 Due to the proposed works being situated within a Conservation Area, it is necessary to test the application under Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Act (1999), see section 4.2 of this report, on whether the works preserve or enhance the Conservation Area.

• 6.2.2 When looking at the proposal as a whole and whether the proposal would impact the overall Conservation Area, the site is situated within a residential environment, as such alterations and extensions such as proposed within this application are accepted within such environments. The proposed works are residential in their character and as such they should not impact the residential character of the overall Conservation Area and deemed to preserve the character of the area.

6.3 SECTION 18(4) TEST - APPEARANCE - 6.3.1 When looking at the appearance of the proposal on the overall Conservation Area/ streetscene it is noted that public views of the proposed first floor extension would be minimal and fleeting, as such this part of the proposal would be deemed acceptable from an appearance point of view and would preserve the Conservation Area. The proposed solar panels are all situated to the rear of the property, as such these should not be seen from a public vantage point and if they are they will be seen as a residential alteration, and as such deemed acceptable from an appearance point of view and would preserve the Conservation Area.

• 6.3.2 Turning towards the two-storey extension, it can clearly be seen from the amended drawings that the proposal is to look subordinate to the main dwelling; this can be seen in the step back from the front elevation, the reduced height and the proposed dormer within the roofscape. All these items assist in the extension from not overwhelming the existing dwelling.
• 6.3.3 Whilst the proposed extension will be seen from a public vantage point of Phildraw Road and Crossag Road, the impact of the appearance on the Conservation Area and the streetscene as a whole would be minimal; due to its subordinate nature and that, the materials match the existing dwelling. As such given that the proposed two-storey extension should not have a significant visual impact upon the overall streetscene, as discussed above, it is considered that the proposal would be an appropriate form of development within the streetscene and to the individual property, whilst not affecting the appearance of the Conservation Area.
• 6.4 NEIGHBOURING AMENITY

6.4.1 When looking at whether the proposal would have an impact on neighbouring amenity, in the first instance the neighbour to the Western side of the dwelling where the proposed second floor extension is to be situated is unlikely to be impacted by the additional storey due to the orientation of the dwelling in relation to their rear garden. There are also no windows proposed within this elevation, as such it is unlikely that the proposal would cause an overbearing/ overlooking impact.

• 6.4.2 Turning towards the neighbour to the North, there is potential due to the orientation of the property that the two storey extension could impact their sunlight, especially when noting that they will be 10m away from the proposal. Whilst this is the case, the proposed extension is situated at a lower height than that of the main dwelling, of which the main dwelling would already create some loss of the light, with the proposed extension not reducing the situation above and beyond what is currently in place. There are also no windows proposed within this elevation, as such it is unlikely that the proposal would cause an overbearing/ overlooking impact.

6.5 ECOLOGY IMPACT

• 6.5.1 Turning towards the comments received from DEFA Ecosystems, Paragraph 7.8.6 and Environment Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 seek to protect species and habitats of importance, stating that development will not be permitted if it adversely affects any proposed or other recognised site of conservation value including areas of ecological interest. Environment Policy 5 follows on from Environment Policy 4 and states that only in exceptional circumstances, when an application is approved will it be appropriate to add conditions to best conserve, or minimise and mitigate any loss or disturbance.

• 6.5.2 In the case of this proposal, we have comments from DEFA Ecosystems that highlight the surrounding area the host dwelling is situated within being within a broadleaved woodland corridor with Silverdale River situated adjacent, and whilst records are not available for the host dwelling, there are records surrounding the site of bat records and bat roosts of multiple bat species. The site itself is not situated within a recognised site of Conservation value (bar the Conservation Area) or of ecological interest nor an area proposed to be one.

• 6.5.3 Permitted Development rights have been revoked previously and changes to properties within Conservation Areas can now be done without a Planning Application such as the installation of roof-lights and to some degree of repair works is possible, with the erection of extensions, subject to conditions. Whilst these works could be done without the need for a planning application, this does not negate the applicants responsibility under other legislation and so they would still need to be aware of the Wildlife Act 1990 in their undertaking.
• 6.5.4 The existing dwelling is already within a built up settlement and as stated above the site is not a recognised site of conservation value, is not recognised of any specific ecological interest, nor is it proposed on the Area Plan for the South, the site is not within an ASSI, nature reserve or national trust land. Whilst there are features in the area which may increase the potential for bats, equally they may not. Minded of the separate legislation covering bats as a protected species, it is not considered necessary in this case to apply any condition seeking any survey being undertaken and submitted before the works start. Instead a note will be added to the application to remind the applicant of their separate legal obligation under The Wildlife Act 1990.

- 6.6 OTHER MATTERS

• 6.6.1 The proposed works are extensions to an already existing property, as such the proposal is not expected to create any changes or new issues in respect of criminal actively or spread of fire. The proposal whilst increasing the surface area of the dwelling, any water run-off will be dealt with as per the existing arrangement of the main dwelling. The proposed extensions will not increase water usage of the dwelling and therefore there are no new issues in this respect. CONCLUSION
• 7.1 It is judged that the proposal complies with sections 16 and 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, as the historic character of the building and setting of the conservation area are being preserved. It is also judged that the application meets the tests of strategic policy 4 and environment policy 35 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and the requirements within PPS 1/01 as the fabric and setting of the conservation area is being protected and preserved. It is therefore recommended that the application be approved. 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 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 : Permitted Date: 06.03.2025 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.