Loading document...
Our Ref A0125 JE/ht 15th May 2025
For the attention of The Planning Inspector Planning and Building Control Division Department of Infrastructure Murray House Mount Havelock DOUGLAS IM1 2SF
Dear Planning Inspector. RE Ref 24/91425/B, Riverbank Road, Ramsey Introduction: This appeal is submitted on behalf of the applicant, Ms. Jennifer Devine, against the refusal of planning application 24/91425/B for alterations to the dwelling at 26 Riverbank Road, Ramsey. The proposal involves modest extensions including a flat-roof rear dormer and balcony, along with internal alterations, while retaining the existing garage for parking (contrary to the case officer’s mistaken assumption that garage parking would be lost). The Planning Officer refused the application under delegated powers due to concerns about: (1) adverse visual impact on the area, (2) an overbearing presence and loss of light to the adjacent No.25, and (3) overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbours. This statement addresses each reason for refusal in turn and other material considerations, to demonstrate that the proposal is compliant with Isle of Man planning policy and would not cause unacceptable harm to the character of the area or neighbour amenity.
It should also be noted that the planning officer did not view the rear of the property, nor the rear of the neighbouring properties where the proposals are located and which constitute the location of their main reasons for the refusal.
Planning Policy Context: The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 provides the overarching policy framework for development. General Policy 2 (GP2) is particularly relevant. GP2 confirms that development in established residential areas is acceptable in principle provided it respects its surroundings and meets key criteria. In fact, GP2 explicitly indicates that house extensions will generally be permitted if it (b)“respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design…”. This policy demands design is such that any new additions are in keeping with the host dwelling and neighbourhood character. It also contains criterion (c) “does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape”. Ensuring that the design is in keeping with its surroundings, including the streetscape and local context. In addition, the Strategic Plan’s Environment policies reinforce these principles. Policy ENV23 requires that “When considering alterations and improvements to existing facilities the Department will require that consideration be given to the potential adverse impact of the proposed changes to existing neighbours” ensuring that new development does not harm the privacy, daylight, or outlook of neighbouring properties (indeed, the Officers report cited GP2(b, c, g) and ENV23 together when considering impacts on neighbours. Taken together, GP2 (b, c, g) and ENV23 set a clear expectation that alterations must be welldesigned, in keeping with the area’s character, and neighbourly in their impacts. The following sections demonstrate that the appeal proposal accords with these policies and that the refusal reasons are not substantiated by the facts or policy context.
Response to Refusal Reasons:
Crucially, the design and scale of the dormer reflect the character of the host dwelling and neighbouring properties, satisfying Strategic Plan policy requirements. GP2(b) and (c) require development to respect the site and surroundings in terms of siting, scale and design, and here those criteria are met: the dormer is proportionate to the roof, uses materials to match or complement the existing house, and maintains the appearance of a single-family dwelling. Far from “spoiling” the area’s character, the proposal is in keeping with established development which is mostly defined by 1960s bungalows using a mix of materials. Flat roof dormers are a common feature of 1960s bungalows generally. Futhermore, rear dormers and first-floor balconies are not without precedent on Riverbank Road. Nearby houses (for example, the adjacent No. 27 has flat and gable
dormers to the front and rear) already feature windows and dormer expansions overlooking the rear. Had the planning officer visted the rear of the property, this would have been abundantly clear. We also note that planning application 22/00113/B in the vicinity was approved with a flat roof rear balcony element. This demonstrates that such alterations are part of the local character and have been deemed acceptable in principle. The officer’s implication that a rear dormer would be an alien feature is therefore inaccurate. Given that the dormer is a common-sense design response to gain usable roof space (a dormer bungalow by definition often has roof extensions), and it’s confined to the rear, its visual impact is both negligible in the public realm and in harmony with the residential character of the area. The proposal thus complies with Strategic Plan policies GP2(b) and (c) and ENV23, which seek to prevent development that is incongruous or harmful to the character of the area and neighbours.
The planning officers assertion that the dormer occupies 2/3 of the rear roof is also false. The area is closer to 50% of the rear roof (or 25% overall). Regardless the assertion that 2/3 of a rear roof is too great of an area contradicts general planning opinion. The planning departments own updates to permitted development request that it be permissible to cover upto 50% of a roof area in dormers as being an acceptable area.
Furthermore, the assertion that the dormer would cause loss of light to No.25 is factually incorrect given the site orientation where the rear of the properties face south. The orientation of sunlight and the layout of the two properties mean that the new dormer will cast little to no additional shadow on No.25’s habitable rooms or garden. Any minor shadowing from the dormer would fall mainly on No.26’s roof when the sun is setting in the west. Importantly, the dormer sits below the highest point of the roof and does not extend beyond the existing roofline toward No.25, so it does not introduce any new obstruction to daylight beyond the house’s current profile. In planning terms, an extension must lead to a significant loss of light to justify refusal on that basis – here, any loss would be minimal. The case officer appears to have misjudged the sun’s path relative to the properties. We note that GP2(g) and ENV22 of the Strategic Plan protect neighbours’ amenities by resisting developments that unduly reduce natural light or outlook for adjoining residents. By the same token, developments that do not cause such harm are consistent with these policies. In this case, the proposal maintains compliance with GP2(g) and ENV22: it preserves No.25’s light and outlook and avoids any unduly overbearing impact. The lack of objection from the occupants of No.25 further underlines
that they expect to continue enjoying acceptable amenity if this development proceeds. In summary, the appeal proposal respects the neighbour’s amenity and satisfies policy criteria, and the reason for refusal on this point is not supported by objective evidence.
The balcony has been designed with privacy in mind as well. It is a modest recessed balcony on the rear elevation, intended to provide amenity space for the applicants without infringing on neighbours’ privacy. Direct views into next-door windows or immediate private areas are not possible. The side walls of the dormer “cheeks” and positioning of the balcony mean that a person would have to deliberately lean over or look back at an acute angle to even glimpse into the adjoining properties’ gardens except at long-range. In normal use, someone standing or sitting on the balcony will be looking out to the rear (over the appellant’s own garden and toward the wider outlook) rather than toward the sides. This design approach – where any potential lateral views are oblique and require conscious effort – is a common mitigation used in modern residential developments to prevent “undue” overlooking. It ensures that while some peripheral views of neighbouring gardens may be possible, they are neither intrusive nor easy to obtain, preserving a reasonable level of privacy for all parties. We would also highlight that neither of the immediately adjacent neighbours (No.25 and No.27, who are the only properties with a direct view of the proposed dormer and balcony) objected to the application. This strongly suggests that those who know the context best do not expect their privacy to be harmed. The planning authority’s concern about overlooking is therefore largely theoretical and not shared by the actual residents. Given the limited size and careful placement of the balcony, and considering measures inherent in the design, the proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy. It remains in compliance with Strategic Plan policies aimed at protecting amenity (GP2(g) and ENV22). In summary, the perceived overlooking impacts have been effectively addressed and mitigated by design, and the development will not cause any material privacy harm to neighbours.
Other Matters Parking and Access: The officer’s report suggestion that on-site parking would be compromised by the proposal (implying the loss of the garage space) is not applicable. The applicants driveway is sufficient for the required 2 cars which is what is required by planning policy GP 2. (h). In short, the development does not force any additional cars onto Riverbank Road. This clarification addresses any ancillary concern and confirms the proposal’s consistency with parking standards regarding adequate parking.
Factual Accuracy: We have noted above the specific factual corrections to the officer’s assertions (sunlight orientation, dormer prevalence, etc.). It is important that the appeal decision be based on the actual circumstances: a rear dormer on this house type will not cause the harms imagined. The evidence from the site and neighbourhood (including the absence of objections from the any of the affected or other neighbours) supports the appellant’s case that the proposal is reasonable and innocuous in its effects. The appellant simply seeks to improve her home to suit her growing family in a manner that others nearby have done, within the policy framework.
Conclusion: In conclusion, the proposed alterations at 26 Riverbank Road are in accordance with the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and will achieve a high-quality outcome without detriment to the area or neighbouring properties. The design respects the character of the existing building and street (fulfilling GP2(b) and (c) and ENV23) by keeping changes to the less visible rear and using a form and scale that complement the surroundings. The development also carefully protects neighbour amenity (fulfilling GP2(g) and ENV22): it does not unacceptably overshadow or overwhelm No.25, nor does it compromise privacy in a way that is out of the ordinary for the locale. The reasons for refusal, we submit, were based on misjudgments of the proposal’s impact. When assessed objectively against the relevant policies and factual context, the scheme emerges as a policy-compliant improvement to the property that would not cause any material harm.
On the contrary, permitting this development would allow the applicant to modernise and modestly expand her home in a manner that maintains the integrity of the area. The Strategic Plan encourages such sustainable use of existing residential properties – GP2 explicitly supports extensions that enhance properties while respecting their surroundings – and this proposal embodies that principle. We respectfully invite the Inspector to overturn the refusal and grant planning permission, as the proposal is consistent with the development plan and there are no overriding adverse impacts. Approving the appeal would be a reasonable and justified outcome, securing a development that aligns with both the letter and spirit of the Island’s planning policies.
Yours faithfully,
Jasmin Eastwood
BA(Hons), M(Arch), Dip. (Arch), R.I.B.A. Director (For and on behalf of McGarrigle Architects)
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
