Loading document...
Application No.: 25/90313/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Alan & Lorna Martin Proposal: Replacement of existing conservatory with single-storey sunroom extension Site Address: 12 Ballasteen Road Andreas Isle Of Man IM7 4HG Senior Planning Officer: Jason Singleton Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 14.05.2025 _________________________________________________________________
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.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposal single storey sunroom extension would comply with General Policy 2 of the Isle Of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Residential Design Guide 2021.
This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawing all received on 27 March 2025, referenced; 01, 02, 03, 04 _________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DOI Highway Services - No Objection _________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report
1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 12 Ballasteen Road, Andreas. The property is characterised as a detached dormer bungalow with a pitched tiled roof and a detached flat roofed garage to the side. The property is finished in a painted render. - 1.2 The property sits to the south of the highway within the cul-de-sac. To the rear (south) of the property is No. 8. The general topography here is relatively flat with open plan front gardens laid to lawn and planting with each property having off road parking on the driveways, parallel with the house. - 1.3 To the rear elevation of the property is a Upvc conservatory with a mono pitched polycarbonate roof that is accessed from the hall way. This structure would measure a footprint of 2m deep x 4m wide across the rear elevation.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is the demolition of the existing Upvc conservatory on the rear elevation and in its place the erection of a larger single storey rear extension with a footprint of 3.8m deep x
4m wide across the rear elevation.
2.2 Most of the vertical elements would be finished in a painted render to match the house with Upvc windows and patio doors. The roof would be pitched, matching the existing eaves level and tied into the main roof with tiles to match the existing. - 2.3 The propose works are solely contained to the rear elevation of the dwellinghouse
3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The application site is mainly within an area recognised as being an area of "Predominantly Residential Use" under the 1982 Development Plan. - 3.2 The site is not within a designated Conservation Area or within an area identified as being at floor risk from tidal or surface water flooding. There are no registered trees / tree areas identified on / adjacent to the application site. - 3.3 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this application; Strategic Policy
5 Design and visual impact Spatial Policy 3 Andreas is defined as a Service village General Policy 2 General Development Considerations Environment Policy 42 Designed to respect the character and identity of the locality
3.4 Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states: "As a general policy, in built up areas not controlled by Conservation Area or Registered Building policies, there will be a general presumption in favour of extensions to existing property where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general."
3.5 Residential Design Guidance provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 None.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 No comments were received from Andreas Commissioners at the time of writing despite being written to on 28/03/25 inviting comments. - 5.2 Highways Services commented (07/04/25) with no objection / "No Highways Interest".
6.0 ASSESSMENT The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;
6.1 The general planning principle of development from a land use perspective would comply with Sp2 and Sp3 as Andreas is a named village in the strategic plan and the site is identified on the 1982 plan as within the settlement boundary of Andreas and zoned as residential which ensures the site is broadly designated for development. Given the site is within a defined residential area the general development control principles of GP2 would also be relevant, as discussed below. - 6.2 There is a general presumption in favour of extensions to existing properties (para 8.12.1 of the IoM SP) and provided such development would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent properties or the surrounding area can be broadly acceptable, as further assessed below.
6.3 The proposed single storey extension at the rear in a single storey height with a pitched tiled roof is an acceptable form of development for increasing the floor area for residential use. The proposed extension would be introducing a slightly larger (depth) built form on the rear elevation and in terms of size, height and the general appearance, it would be considered proportionate to the rear elevation and designed to serve that specific purpose in terms of a sunroom / living room extension. When finished to match the rear elevation it will ensure the built form is visually in keeping with the character and appearance of the dwelling house. - 6.4 When viewing the proposed extension, it would not be readily visible from a public vantage point as the majority of the bulk extension would be screened by the dwelling house and garage. The property being on a corner only those views when travelling into the cul-desac could be achieved, however these would mainly be of the upper proportions of the eaves and roof. Those views from the public highway to the side, would be read within the contact of the property and the residential curtilage and would not appear out of character. On balance it would not be apparent or overly dominant on the streetscape, if viewed from the public highway. - 6.5 This aspect is deemed to be an acceptable form of development without harming the visual character and quality of the street scene or to the property itself in accordance with STP5, GP2(b,c) and Ep42. (ii) NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES
6.6 In terms of whether there is any material harm to the neighbouring amenity, taking into consideration the relatively flat nature of the street scene and intervening distance from the proposals to the neighbouring properties built forms to the south (No.8). It is considered that the proposed extension would not lead to any overlooking leading to a loss of privacy over and above existing levels from the existing conservatory. Nor would the proposals have an overbearing impact from the built development upon either neighbour to the rear or side. Also the built form and distance of the proposals would not result in a loss of light or outlooking, specifically to those aforementioned neighbours from the proposed extension. - 6.7 In this case, the design of the extension being limited to single story and it's siting on the rear elevation biased towards the end of the dwelling, has not resulted in any objections or comments from the adjoining neighbours having been previously notified of the application. On balance, these aspects would be considered to be compliant with those sections of General Policy 2(g).
7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 The planning application would be an acceptable form of development within a defined residential area that has been designed to ensure that it would not harm the host dwelling in terms of visual appearance nor would the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties amenities be affected by the proposals. - 7.2 As such the proposals would comply with Strategic Policy 5, Spatial Policy 3, General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). The application is therefore recommended for approval.
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:
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):
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.
Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner
Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has beenproduced in this form for the benefit of our online service/ customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
