Officer Report

Application No.: 25/90876/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Robert & Virginia Ranscombe Proposal: Removal of existing lean-to store, replacement of conservatory with part single-storey and part double-storey extensions to rear elevation of existing dwellinghouse Site Address: 3 Westham Lea Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1PD Senior Planning Officer: Jason Singleton Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 04.11.2025 _________________________________________________________________

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.

• C 2. No development shall commence until a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

N 1. The applicant is advised they should install a bird nest cup or alike to the east elevation eaves prior to the commencement of works for house martins. The applicant is also advised that if the works are to start between April - September then they should take measures to prevent birds from nesting on the north elevation of the property over the winder so that the presence of nesting birds do not hold up the works. It would be an offence to destroy or block access to a nest site when it is in use.

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

The planning application would be an acceptable form of development that has been designed to ensure that it would not harm the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties and its design would comply with General Policy 2 and the principles of the Residential Design Guide 2019.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This decision relates to drawings and supporting information received on 7th October 2025, referenced; 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.

_________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal None

_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report THE SITE

1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 3 Westham Lea, Castletown. The property located to the north of the internal estate road within a cul-de-sac of 4 large residential houses that is accessed from junction with Arbory Road and Arbory Street. - 1.2 The property is characterised as being a two storey detached dwelling in a 'L' shaped footprint, finished in a painted render with a pitched tiled roof and a chimney sack to one end. To the west of the house is a detached single story double garage with a hipped tiled roof. - 1.3 To the rear of the property is an attached Upvc conservatory that is accessed from the living room and extends out into the rear garden area and patio. The property sits within a generous curtilage on a corner plot. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Proposed is demolition of rear conservatory and the construction of part single-storey and part two-storey extension off the rear elevation. The extension would be no wider than the width of the house and measuring a depth of 5.1m extending into the patio area and a total width of 12.5m across the rear elevation. The two story element would be biased to one side and measurers 5.3m wide and 4.2m deep. - 2.2 The increased footprint would allow for the re-orientation of the internal layout to create a larger kitchen area and dining area to the ground floor and a reorientation of the first floor sleeping accommodation and would create a new bedroom in the two storey part. - 2.3 The proposed extension would be finished in a part light grey zinc cladding finish and a part silvered timber clad finish to the vertical proportions with a parapet flat roof. - 2.4 Other smaller material alterations proposed are;

• o installation of a roof light centrally positioned on the rear roof scape;
• o re-configuration of the roof space and the installation of a velux window to the rear;
• o the installation of a flue as part of the extension;
• o covered walkway between the garage and the house;
• o blocking up of the hearth windows;
• o new side doorway linking the garage and the house;
• o new window to the west elevation at first floor level;
• o widening of the window to the east elevation (Kitchen).

2.4 The proposed works are solely contained to the rear / side elevations. PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 91/01534/B - Erection of 4 dwellings with garages, Plots 1 - 4, land at Arbory Road, Castletown.

• PLANNING POLICY
• 4.1 The site falls within an area zoned as Residential on the Area Plan for the South Map 5Castletown. The site is neither within a conservation area nor within an identified flood risk area. There are registered trees on the boundary but these are unaffected by the proposals.

4.2 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application; Strategic Policy

• 2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages
• 3 To respect the character of our towns and villages

5 Design and visual impact Spatial Policy 2 Castletown is defined as a Service Centre General Policy 2 General Development Considerations

4.3 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." - 4.4 Residential Design Guide (2021) This document 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 properties and sustainable methods of construction.

REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Castletown Parish Commissioners had not commented at the time of writing.

5.2 DoI Highways Services had not commented at the time of writing. - 5.3 DEFA, Forestry commented; (28 Oct 2025) with no objection; "There are registered trees on site and other trees of note, but by and large these are not overly impacted by the current proposal. Therefore we have no objection to the proposal but if you were minded to approve this we would ask for a standard tree retention condition to be applied". - 5.4 DEFA, Ecology (31/10/25) with no objection, but seek a bird box for house martins to the east elevation eaves.

ASSESSMENT

6.0 The key considerations in the determination of the application are;

• - Design and visual impact (STP2,5, Sp2, GP2b,c)
• - Neighbouring amenity (GP2g)
• - Trees and Ecology (GP2d,f) DESIGN AND VISUAL IMPACT

6.1 The site falls within the existing settlement boundary of Castletown and an area zoned for residential development, and principally the works (demolition and building and extension) to an existing residential dwelling would be in accordance with SP2 and STP2. - 6.2 The principle of extending at the rear for part single story (5.1m x 12.5m) and part two story (4.2m x 5.3m) manner is an acceptable form of development to a residential dwelling

• that would not erode much of the amenity space at the rear of the property. The proposed extension could be considered proportionate to the rear (north) elevation and designed to serve that specific purpose of habitable accommodation in design terms of size, height and appearance.
• 6.3 The provision of a flat roof with a parapet would help keep the overall profile low. It is also noted some flat roofed extensions are generally not considered (RDG'21 para; 4.7) to be an acceptable form of development where they involve poor design. However, there are a variety of styles available and a contemporary approach with architectural detailing that can be more appropriate. When putting this in context with this site, it can be seen that the design of this flat roofed extension being proposed here has been designed to be a contemporary addition to the main dwelling and has incorporated within its design other elements to enhance its appearance, in terms of use of materials and fenestration design and detailing, which can be an acceptable approach.
• 6.4 The use of high quality materials incorporating light grey zinc cladding and silvered timber cladding helps visually break up the massing of the extension and twinned with the proposed fenestration details using large aluminium framed glazing would help create a slightly contemporary appearance to the north elevation (rear) and would be read positively in contrast to the existing level of finish of painted render to the dwelling house. However, whilst different in material appearance, its design (when viewed from the rear) with large amounts of glazing and noting the design of the extension all helps to ensure the proposal is visually in keeping with the character and appearance of the dwelling house.
• 6.5 In this instance, the property being located off the main highway and within the corner of the cul-de-sac where the width of the extension does not extend beyond the limits of the dwellinghouse, places this property in a unique position where the extension of this design, size and level of finish could be acceptable. However, in other parts of the estate it may not be. Whilst the palette of finishes may not be to everyone's liking, it would add a level of interest to existing dwelling house and helps to ensure the new built form is complementary to the character and appearance of the dwelling house.
• 6.6 When viewing the proposed extension, it would not be readily visible from a public vantage point as the majority of the extension would be screened by the built form of the dwelling house. The property being on a corner plot and within a private estate, ensures there are no public views of the rear extension from the main highway of Arbory Road/ Street to the south.
• 6.7 Any views of the proposals from the surrounding residential properties, would be read within the context of the property and the residential curtilage which would not appear out of character.
• 6.8 These aspects of development are deemed to be an acceptable form of development that complies with those sections of General Policy 2(b) & (c). NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES
• 6.9 The level and scale of development proposed here, especially being to the rear would create additional living accommodation that is considered to be relatively modest and would be used in conjunction with the enjoyment of the main dwelling house.
• 6.10 When considering any adverse impact upon the neighbouring dwelling houses, those who boarder the site are; No.2 to the west and No.4 to the east and to the rear the gardens of Croft house.
• 6.11 Given the design, scale and siting of the development, the proposed rear extension is and the internal reconfigurations are not considered to materially harm the neighbouring

• amenity to either side or to the rear, through any loss of light, overbearing impact or loss of privacy as a result of the development.
• 6.12 Furthermore, the installation of the windows to ground floor aspect of the proposals would not offer any overlooking, equally the window to the first floor element would not be considered to allow for any overlooking to the properties at the rear given the distances and orientation of the surrounding properties involved given the size of the rear curtilage. This aspect would be considered compliant with those sections of General Policy 2(g). TREES AND ECOLOGY
• 6.13 The comments from DEFA are helpful in understanding whether there would be any adverse impact upon the surrounding mature trees on the boundary and the potential for bats or birds nesting at the property. It is noted neither of those consultees object to the proposals but (Ecology) seek reassurances that there is provision for house martins through the installation of a bird box or alike to the eaves part on the Eastern elevation. This can be secured through any approval via a note or condition. As such these aspects of the proposals are considered to be in accordance with Gp2d,f.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 For the above reasons, it is concluded that the planning application would be an acceptable form of development that has been designed to be an acceptable form of development and would not harm the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties and would comply with aforementioned planning policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and is recommended for approval. 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: 04.11.2025 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.