Officer Report

Application No.: 25/90841/C Applicant: Tiffany Crookall Proposal: Additional use of self-contained annex for long-term letting (Class 3.3) Site Address: Annex 11 The Abbey Woods Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 5PL Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Site Visit: 12.11.2025 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 24.12.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The proposal is considered contrary to General Policy 2(c) and (g), Strategic Policy 2, and Housing Policy 17 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, together with Section 6.5 of the Area Plan for the East and the Residential Design Guide (2021). The introduction of an additional independent dwelling within the curtilage of 11 Abbey Woods would depart from the established pattern of single-household plots that defines the estate, eroding its low-density character and increasing severability risks. While Housing Policy 17 supports conversions, this is conditional on safeguarding amenity and respecting local character, which the proposal fails to achieve. The Strategic Plan directs new housing to appropriate locations and seeks to maintain settlement integrity by directing new housing to appropriate locations, rather than enabling ad hoc subdivision within established single-family curtilages. Accordingly, the principle of development is not accepted. - R 2. Whilst the proposal introduces no alterations to the building itself, the functional changes arising from independent occupation, including fenced subdivision, dedicated parking, and separate servicing, would materially fragment the plot and disrupt the coherent pattern of single-household curtilages that defines Abbey Woods. The estate is characterised by open landscaped frontages and minimal boundary treatments, creating a uniform and spacious street scene. The proposed layout introduces physical and functional subdivision, servicing clutter, and intensification incompatible with this planned character. These outcomes fail to respect the site and surroundings in terms of layout and spaces around buildings, contrary to General Policy 2(b), (c), and (g), Strategic Policy 5, and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, together with Section 6.6 of the Area Plan for the East and the Residential Design Guide (2021), which require development to maintain local distinctiveness and make a positive contribution to the environment. - R 3. The proposal fails to provide satisfactory amenity for future occupiers of the annex and compromises the amenity of the host dwelling. The fenced garden allocated to the annex is extremely limited in depth, creating a visually confined space with fencing positioned close to primary habitable room windows. Outlook from the lounge is restricted to fencing within 2.0-

2.6 m, and the bedroom outlook is dominated by hardstanding and parked vehicles. The shared servicing zone at the annex entrance accommodates parking, garage access, and bin storage, eroding privacy and usability. These outcomes fail to respect spaces around buildings and do not provide satisfactory amenity standards as required by General Policy 2(d), (e), (g), and (h) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and conflict with the Residential Design Guide

(2021).

• R 4. While the proposal meets numerical parking standards under Transport Policy 7, the spatial arrangement creates a shared functional zone for parking, garage access, bin storage, and pedestrian movement. This overlap forces pedestrians, including annex occupiers with buggies or prams, to navigate an area dominated by vehicles and servicing activity, increasing conflict and reducing safety. These outcomes are contrary to General Policy 2(h), Transport Policy 6, and Strategic Policy 10(c), which require safe and convenient access for all highway users and integrated servicing arrangements.

_________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal

It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:

• o Douglas City Council - No Objection
• o DOI Highways - No Objection _________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site comprises the residential curtilage of 11 The Abbey Woods, Douglas, a substantial two-storey detached dwelling with an attached double garage. The property is located within the Abbey Woods Estate, a modern cul-de-sac accessed from Johnny Ballanard Road. - 1.2 The estate is characterised by large, detached dwellings of one and two storeys, set within generous plots with landscaped front gardens and long driveways. Properties exhibit a consistent suburban design language, with rendered elevations, pitched tiled roofs, and minimal boundary treatments, creating an open and spacious street scene. The cul-de-sac layout provides a quiet residential environment with no through traffic. There is no evidence of plot subdivision or high-density development; all dwellings function as single-family homes. Onstreet parking is minimal, with reliance on private driveways and garages for vehicle storage. - 1.3 The dwelling comprises a substantial two-storey detached house with a prominent central entrance and first-floor balcony feature, forming the main block of the building. The overall frontage is asymmetrical, due to the presence of a single-storey annex and an attached double garage positioned to the north-west side. The annex is physically connected to the dwelling but designed as a subordinate element, with its own internal accommodation and separate entrance. The property occupies a generous corner plot within the Abbey Woods culde-sac, featuring a curved driveway, landscaped front garden, and four off-road parking provision.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Additional use of self-contained annex for long-term letting (Class 3.3). The annex, which is physically attached to the main dwelling but internally

independent, provides a bedroom with en-suite, lounge, and kitchen/dining area, forming a fully self-contained unit.

2.2 The annex will function independently from the main dwelling, with its own internal facilities, while remaining within the shared curtilage and retaining access to the garden areas. Entry to the annex will be via a dedicated door on the north-west elevation, and area which also provides access to the garage and the bin storage area serving the main dwelling. - 2.3 Provision is made for one allocated off-road parking space positioned directly in front of the annex, together with the two other parking provisions for the main house (beside the garage). A dedicated bin and recycling storage area for the annex is shown adjacent to the side boundary, but outside the fenced area allocated to the annex. - 2.4 No external alterations are proposed to the building itself; however, the site layout will be modified to include a fenced and gated area around the annex, together with the introduction of the dedicated parking space and bin storage arrangements described above.

- 3.0 PLANNING POLICY

3.1 Site Specific:

• 3.1.1 The site lies within an area designated as Predominantly Residential Use on the Area Plan for the East (Map 4 - Douglas). The site is not within a Conservation Area or Registered Tree Area, and there are no registered Trees on site. The site is also not prone to flood risks.

3.2 Area: AREA PLAN FOR THE EAST 2020

• 3.2.1 Given the location of the site and the nature of the proposed development, the following parts of the Area Plan for the East Written Statement are considered relevant:

• 3.2.1 Section 6.5: Ensuring the efficient use of land and buildings "6.5.1 The density of development should be in keeping with the character of the local area. Higher densities will be more appropriate in the central areas of Douglas, Onchan, Laxey and Union Mills. Much of Douglas' celebrated seafront contains four and five storey hotels and apartment blocks which provide a distinctive visual image of the Capital and a highly practical form of space conscious living for a modern town.

• 6.5.2 Lower densities may be considered more acceptable in instances where there are site specific constraints, a need to provide additional levels of infrastructure or where the current character or appearance of the area necessitates a development of a lower density.
• 6.5.3 The subdivision of buildings for residential use can provide an appropriate source of housing and can lead to the more efficient use of existing buildings. Subject to other Strategic Policies, as well as the Proposals in this Plan, particularly in relation to amenity and the design of any alterations to allow the subdivision, such proposals will be supported.
• 6.5.4 In recent years, the Douglas town centre in particular has lost some of its population. The town effectively empties after the working day. Historically, people lived above the work spaces of shops, offices and workshops in Douglas creating a vibrancy that is perhaps lacking today. This Plan encourages the reintroduction of people living in the mostly vacant floors above the town's shops and offices12. More people living in the town will, it is hoped, create a more vibrant environment which will have a positive impact upon the daytime and particularly, the night-time economy within the town and will also enable us to respond to changes in new and emerging working patterns."

• 3.2.2 Section 6.6: Principles of good design

• 6.6.1 In the Strategic Plan, Strategic Policy 5 states that 'New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island'.

• 6.6.2 A positive contribution means making places which are attractive and safe areas to live, work and invest in. In order to achieve this, it is essential that detailed design proposals be based around an understanding of constraints and opportunities of the site and that the proposal responds positively to local context, in terms of its scale, form, layout, materials, colouring, fenestration and architectural detailing.
• 6.6.3 This, in turn, depends on good understanding of the local character of the individual settlements in the East. Local character is defined by the natural and physical features of an area, including its topography, the pattern of streets and public spaces, the street scene, the density of development, the scale and form of buildings and the materials used in construction.

3.3 National: STRATEGIC PLAN (2016)

• 3.3.1 Relevant Strategic Plan Policies:

• 1. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations.
• 2. Environment Policy 42 - new development should be designed to take into account the character and identity of the area.
• 3. Housing Policy 1 - Refers to housing needs which includes enabling 5,100 additional dwellings (net of demolitions), and including those created by conversion, to be built over the Plan period 2011 to 2026.
• 4. Housing Policy 4 - New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages.
• 5. Housing Policy 17 - Allows for the conversion of buildings into flats.
• 6. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources.
• 7. Strategic Policy 2 - Priority for new development to identified towns and villages.
• 8. Strategic Policy 3 - Development to respect the character of our towns and villages.
• 9. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact.
• 10. Strategic Policy 10 - development should promote integrated journeys, minimise car use and facilitate other modes of travel.
• 11. Spatial Policy 5 - new development will be in defined settlements only or in the countryside only in accordance with GP3.
• 12. Transport Policy 1 - Proximity to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes important for new development.
• 13. Transport Policy 4 - New and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan.
• 14. Transport Policy 7 - Parking considerations/standards for development.
• 15. Community Policies 7, 10 and 11 provide guidance in respect of minimising criminal activity and reducing spread of fire, while Infrastructure Policy 5 deals with methods for water conservation.

- 4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Residential Design Guide (2021)

• 4.1.1 This document provides advice in Section 7 deals with impact of developments on neighbours. Paragraph 7.2.2 defines the various tiers of rooms and windows on a dwelling, and this includes the following:

• o Primary Habitable Rooms: Living Rooms, Dining Rooms, Kitchens which includes dining facilities and Conservatory;
• o Secondary Habitable Rooms: Bedrooms and kitchens; and
• o Non-Habitable Rooms: these include bathrooms, utility rooms, hallways/corridors, stairs/landings, garages, porches, and storage.

• 4.1.2 Section 3.1 deals with Local distinctiveness. Section 3.1 of the Residential Design Guide (2021) highlights that new development should respond to the character and context of its surroundings, which are shaped by locally

• distinctive patterns of development, landscape, culture, and biodiversity. Proposals should respect established building lines, heights, and orientation, maintain a positive relationship with neighbouring properties and movement patterns, and, where possible, retain mature landscaping features that contribute to the area's identity. Where context has been weakened by previous development, opportunities should be taken to enhance quality and reinforce a strong sense of place.
• 4.1.3 Section 3.6 on Efficient Use of Land: This section complements Strategic Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan (2016) by reinforcing the need for developments to make efficient use of land while maintaining design quality and residential amenity. Although the Residential Design Guide does not prescribe specific density standards, it requires that developments provide adequate outlook, amenity space, and car parking, and avoid overdevelopment that compromises these standards. This principle aligns with the indicative density ranges set out in the Residential Design Guide (see Figure 3.A), which serve as guidance rather than fixed targets. The overarching aim is to achieve efficient land use without detriment to local distinctiveness, neighbour amenity, or the character of the area, whilst maintaining the prevailing density of the locality, which in this case is low density

• as defined in the Guide.

4.2 Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2019

• 4.2.1 The Use Classes Order 2019 defines Class 3.3 as: "Use as a dwellinghouse for occupation by a single household, whether as a principal residence or otherwise. This class does not include use as a hotel, guest house, or self-catering tourist accommodation." This definition is relevant as the proposal seeks to establish an independent dwelling within Class 3.3.

4.3 Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2025

• 4.3.1 Article 5 - General Conditions provides: "No part of a development falling within a Class specified in Schedules 1 and 2 may contravene any condition imposed on a grant of planning approval in accordance with section 10(1)(a) of the Act." This is material because the annex was originally approved as ancillary accommodation under PA 09/00893/B, and any change to independent occupation would contravene that condition unless varied by a new permission.

• 4.3.2 The Order also defines key terms relevant to this application:

• o "Dwellinghouse" means a building used in accordance with Class 3.3 of the Use Classes Order ("dwellinghouses").
• o "Curtilage" means the area of land attached to and around a building, used with the building and within which the building is set (for example, the garden and driveway of a house).

4.4 Affordable Housing Standards Design Guide (2016)

• 4.4.1 While the proposal does not involve affordable housing provision, the Affordable Housing Standards Design Guide (2016) is considered a relevant material consideration because the Isle of Man currently lacks statutory or supplementary guidance prescribing minimum external environment standards for residential development. This document sets out clear principles for creating safe, attractive, and functional living environments, including measurable standards for external arrangements.

• 4.4.2 Key benchmarks include:

• a. Garden provision: Gardens to houses should be a minimum of 7.0 metres in length, wherever possible, to ensure adequate private amenity space (Section 2.4.5, p.17).

• b. Privacy and boundary treatments: Rear gardens should be enclosed with timber fencing, railings, walls, or hedges, with high fences (minimum 1650 mm) where gardens abut pedestrian routes (Section 2.4.7, p.18-19).
• c. Parking design: Spaces should relate to the homes they serve and be attractively integrated, with minimum dimensions of 5.00 m (ideally 5.50 m) x 2.50 m, and disabled spaces

at 3.30 m wide (Section 2.4.4, p.17).

• d. Footpath widths: Approach routes should allow inclusive access, with private paths at 900 mm, communal paths at 1200 mm, and gateways at 850 mm clear opening (Section 2.4.6, p.18).
• e. Bin storage: Wheelie bins should be located within the curtilage, screened but accessible from kitchens and collection points (Section 2.4.12, p.20).

• 4.4.3 Although intended for affordable housing, these standards represent the least acceptable level of provision for any dwelling. In the context of this application, where the annex is proposed to operate as an independent dwelling, these principles provide a clear framework for assessing whether the external arrangements, such as the fenced curtilage, dedicated parking, and bin storage, deliver a satisfactory level of amenity and do not compromise the character or functionality of the site.

4.5 Historic UK Case Law and Appeal Decisions

• 4.5.1 Several cases and appeal decisions provide guidance on curtilage definition, ancillary use, and severability. These authorities confirm that the question of whether land or a building forms part of a residential curtilage, or remains ancillary, is a matter of fact and degree, judged by physical and functional association rather than ownership alone.

• 1. Dancey & Co v SoS & Lewes DC (1980) - Established that curtilage is defined by intimate physical and functional association with the dwelling. Land or buildings separated by fencing or operating independently fall outside curtilage.
• 2. Methuen-Campbell v Walters (1979) - Held that a paddock separated by a fence was not within curtilage because it lacked functional integration with the dwelling.
• 3. Barnett v SoS (2009) - Confirmed that curtilage cannot be extended merely by convenience or site plan; it is fixed by lawful use and planning history.
• 4. South Somerset Appeal (2011) - Refused a certificate for a mobile home where land had independent access and hardstanding, concluding it was functionally separate from the dwelling.
• 5. Brentwood Appeal (2013) - Found that incremental domestication (fencing, planting, separate servicing) constituted a material change of use and undermined ancillary status.

• 4.5.2 These decisions consistently hold that functional independence, such as separate access, dedicated parking, fenced curtilage, and individual servicing arrangements, facilitates severance even if physical attachment remains. Where a building is intended for separate occupation, the risk of future subdivision is materially increased. This principle is directly relevant to the current proposal, which introduces infrastructure enabling the annex to operate as a standalone unit, contrary to the pattern of single-household plots that defines the estate.

- 5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 The site has been the subject of the following planning applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of the current application:

• 1. PA 85/01267/B for Erection of four-bedroomed house with double garage, Plot 11, The Abbey Woods, Ballanard Road, Douglas. This was approved by the Planning Committee on 10.01.1986.
• 2. PA 05/00568/B for Single storey extension and conservatory on rear elevation and driveway alterations. This was approved on 25 May 2005, and subject to three conditions. Condition 2 states thus:

• The proposed "Home office" use may be used only by residents of the dwelling for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling as such, and not by other persons or for any other purpose.
• 3. PA 09/00893/B for Conversion of garage to provide additional living accommodation, erection of an attached garage and amendments to driveway - Approved. The restrictive condition imposed under PA 05/00568/B was not carried over to this application.
• 4. PA 25/90648/C for Additional use of existing annexe as tourist accommodation. This was withdrawn. The application sought to allow the annex to operate as tourist accommodation, introducing a commercial element beyond its ancillary function. Before withdrawal, the applicant indicated an intention to amend the proposal for long-term residential letting. The case officer confirmed this would constitute a material change of use, effectively creating a new dwelling, and advised that a fresh application was required. The officer also highlighted the need to demonstrate adequate amenity for both units, including garden provision and parking, and noted a floor area discrepancy compared to the 2009 approval. The application was subsequently withdrawn.
• 5.2 Whilst not directly related to the site, it is also important to review the history of applications for the cul-de-sac to better understand the implications of the proposed development. A review of the cul-de-sac's planning history shows no approvals for creating independent dwellings or subdividing curtilages. Of 41 applications submitted, three were withdrawn (including PA 2590648C for tourist use of the annex at this site) and two refused on grounds of overlooking. There is no evidence of any permission allowing for a separate Class

3.3 dwelling within the estate.

• 5.2.1 A review of the planning history for the cul-de-sac shows four approvals for the creation of additional living accommodation/annexes:

• i. PA 8600122B for single-storey extension to form guest wing, Plot 4, The Abbey Woods, Ballanard Road, Douglas.
• ii. PA 8800351B for extension to form granny flat, 2 Abbey Woods, Tromode, Douglas.
• iii. 0600936B for conversion of approved garage extension to additional living accommodation at 14 The Abbey Woods.
• iv. PA 0900893B - At the application site (details in Item 3 at 5.1).

• 5.2.2 None of these annexes has been approved for independent occupation or separate curtilage use; all remain ancillary to their host dwellings.

• 5.2.3 It is also noted that PA 2000961C permitted the change of use of a garage at 9 The Abbey Woods for a personal training business. This approval was granted subject to strict conditions to ensure the use remained ancillary to the dwelling and personal to the occupant, ceasing if they vacated the property. Conditions prohibited employment of staff, limited hours of operation, and required the driveway to remain unobstructed for parking. This reinforces the sensitivity of introducing non-residential or intensified uses within the cul-de-sac and highlights that even minor ancillary uses were tightly controlled to protect residential character and amenity.
• 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.

6.1 Douglas City Council have no objection to the application (12 November 2025).

6.2 DOI Highways find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as there is suitable off-street parking for the proposed and existing uses of the building (5 November 2025).

6.3 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties. - 7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this application are:

• 1. Principle of establishing another independent residential unit within the site (General Policy 2; Strategic Policies 1, 3 and 5; Housing Policy 17);
• 2. Severability risks: the likelihood of further subdivision and cumulative effects estatewide (General Policy 2(g) and UK case law and appeal decisions referenced in Section 4.5);
• 3. Character and pattern of development: effects of functional subdivision and intensification within a low-density cul-de-sac (General Policy 2(b, c, g); Strategic Policy 5; Environment Policy 42; Residential Design Guide 2021, Sections 3.1 and 3.6);
• 4. Impacts on residential amenity: quality of the living environment for future occupiers of the annex and the host dwelling, including private amenity space, defensible space and servicing (General Policy 2(b, d, e); Residential Design Guide 2021, Section 7.0; Affordable Housing Standards Design Guide 2016); and
• 5. Parking, access and servicing (General Policy 2(f); Transport Policy 7; Strategic Plan Appendix 7).

- 7.2 THE PRINCIPLE OF ESTABLISHING ANOTHER INDEPENDENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT

• 7.2.1 The proposal seeks to allow the existing annex, historically ancillary to the host dwelling, to be occupied independently on a long-term letting basis within Use Class 3.3 (dwellinghouses). This constitutes a material change of use, creating a separate planning unit where the established lawful use is ancillary accommodation.

• 7.2.2 While Housing Policy 17 and Strategic Policy 1 encourage efficient use of land and recognise conversions as a source of housing supply, these objectives are not absolute. They must be balanced against General Policy 2 and Strategic Policy 5, which require proposals to respect local character, safeguard amenity, and deliver good design outcomes. The Strategic Plan directs new housing primarily to existing towns and villages or sustainable urban extensions (Strategic Policy 2; Housing Policy 4), not through elective subdivision of active single-family plots. Its emphasis is on reusing redundant buildings or vacant space above commercial premises, not creating additional dwellings within curtilages where the prevailing pattern is one household per plot.
• 7.2.3 The Area Plan for the East (Section 6.5) requires that "the density of development should be in keeping with the character of the local area." Higher densities are supported in central Douglas and Onchan, but lower densities are appropriate where the current character necessitates it. The RDG 2021 (Section 3.6) confirms that edge-of-settlement plots typically fall within the low-density range (5-10 dwellings/ha). Introducing a second household within this plot would depart from that pattern and erode the openness that defines the estate.
• 7.2.4 While external alterations are minimal, the Strategic Plan and RDG treat functional change as material because character is shaped not only by built form but by use intensity and servicing patterns. Independent occupation introduces separate refuse storage, parking demand, and visitor activity, which cumulatively alter the established rhythm of singlehousehold plots. The RDG (Section 3.1) emphasises that local distinctiveness depends on both physical and functional attributes; subdivision within a curtilage conflict with this principle. It also breaches Environment Policy 42, which requires new development in existing settlements to take account of the particular character and identity of the locality.
• 7.2.5 In principle terms, the proposal introduces a second household into a curtilage and street scene defined by single-household occupation. This is not a neutral change: it alters the functional character of the plot and increases servicing intensity (parking, refuse, deliveries, visitor movements). On this basis, the principle of development is not accepted. The following

sections assess other relevant considerations, such as severability, character, amenity, and parking, to provide a full and reasoned planning judgment.

- 7.3 SEVERABILITY ISSUES

• 7.3.1 The existing site layout demonstrates a unified curtilage serving a single household, with access, garden space, and servicing arrangements. The annex, while internally selfcontained, is visually and functionally subordinate to the host dwelling, and its integration within the overall footprint reinforces its ancillary status.
• 7.3.2 The proposed changes introduce a fenced and gated enclosure at the rear, a dedicated parking space positioned adjacent to the garage, and separate bin storage facilities. These interventions materially alter the spatial logic of the site, creating a clear functional and visual distinction between the two units. While the annex remains physically attached to the host dwelling, the proposed layout effectively renders it semi-detached in operational terms. The fencing, separate entrance, and dedicated servicing arrangements establish the infrastructure for independent occupation, which is a strong indicator of severability.
• 7.3.3 It is acknowledged that the annex would continue to share the main driveway; however, shared access does not prevent severability where other measures, such as fencing, dedicated parking, and separate servicing, create functional independence. In this case, the proposal goes further: it seeks to allow the annex to be occupied separately on a long-term basis, which is the decisive factor. Separate occupation, combined with physical and functional subdivision, significantly lowers the threshold for future severance, whether through boundary realignment or separate title registration.
• 7.3.4 As discussed in Section 4.5, case law and appeal decisions (including Dancey & Co v SoS, Methuen-Campbell v Walters, and Barnett v SoS) confirm that curtilage and ancillary status are matters of fact and degree, judged by physical and functional association rather than ownership alone. These consistently hold that functional independence, such as separate access, fenced curtilage, and individual servicing, facilitates severance even if physical attachment remains. Where a building is intended for separate occupation, the risk of future subdivision is materially increased.
• 7.3.5 The proposal would disrupt the established pattern of single-household occupation that defines Abbey Woods. Introducing a second dwelling within a single plot represents a clear departure from this pattern and introduces functional subdivision into a low-density estate. If similar changes were repeated elsewhere, the cumulative effect would be significant: increased density, fragmented plot structure, and intensified servicing demands (parking, refuse, visitor movements). These outcomes conflict with General Policy 2(g), which seeks to prevent cumulative harm to local character, and Strategic Policy 5, which requires development to respect the established character and pattern of its surroundings.
• 7.3.6 For these reasons, the proposal raises unacceptable severability risks. It would set a clear marker for functional subdivision within an estate designed and approved on the basis of single-household plots, undermining the integrity of the original layout and the policy objectives that sustain it.

- 7.4 CHARACTER AND PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT

• 7.4.1 Abbey Woods is a planned residential cul-de-sac characterised by generous plots, open curtilages, and a coherent suburban design language. Its identity derives from landscaped frontages, minimal boundary treatments, and the absence of plot subdivision, creating a sense of openness and visual continuity. Street views confirm uninterrupted lawns and consistent single-household occupation, reinforcing the estate's low-density, high-amenity environment.
• 7.4.2 The proposal introduces a second household into this context, fundamentally altering the spatial logic of the estate. The creation of a fenced enclosure, dedicated parking, and

separate servicing for the annex fragments the plot and introduces functional complexity that contrasts sharply with the simplicity of the existing layout. While the annex remains physically attached, its operational independence introduces a dual-occupation model incompatible with the established rhythm of single-family plots.

• 7.4.3 This outcome conflicts with General Policy 2(b), which requires development to respect its site and surroundings in terms of layout and spaces around buildings, and General Policy 2(c) and (g), which seek to prevent adverse effects on the character of the locality and cumulative harm to amenity. It also fails to meet the principles of Environment Policy 42 and Strategic Plan paragraph 7.34.1, which emphasise conserving settlement identity, avoiding over-intensive forms, and protecting the character and amenity of the locality.
• 7.4.4 The Residential Design Guide (Section 3.1) reinforces that local distinctiveness depends on both physical and functional attributes. By introducing functional subdivision into a curtilage designed for one household, the proposal disrupts the prevailing rhythm of development and undermines the sense of place that the Strategic Plan seeks to conserve. If replicated, such subdivision would erode the uniformity and openness that underpin the estate's identity.
• 7.4.5 On this basis, the proposal fails to sustain or enhance the qualities that define this part of the settlement's character as required by Strategic Policy 5 and is contrary to the design principles for existing settlements. It introduces a form of development incongruous with the established pattern of development within the estate and undermines the qualities that define its residential environment.

- 7.5 IMPACTS ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

• 7.5.1 The proposal introduces independent occupation within a curtilage designed for one household. While the annex provides internal facilities, its external arrangements fail to deliver a satisfactory living environment for future occupiers and compromise the amenity of the host dwelling. Impacts on Proposed Annex Occupiers
• 7.5.2 The fenced garden allocated to the annex measures only 2.6 m at its deepest point, far below the 7.0 m minimum benchmark set out in the Affordable Housing Standards Design Guide (2016). This represents the lowest acceptable standard for residential amenity, yet the proposal falls well short despite not being an affordable housing scheme. The enclosure creates a visually confined space dominated by hard boundaries, with fencing positioned approximately 2.6 m from the lounge bay window and 2.0 m from the patio door. Minimal planting does little to mitigate the sense of enclosure or improve outlook.
• 7.5.3 Outlook from primary habitable rooms is severely compromised. The lounge faces fencing within 2.0 to 2.6 m, creating an oppressive and visually confined environment, contrary to the Residential Design Guide (Section 7.0) and Strategic Plan paragraph 8.13.2(a), which require a pleasant, clear outlook from principal rooms. The bedroom outlook is dominated by the allocated parking space immediately in front of its windows and is further enclosed by offroad parking for the main dwelling adjacent to the garage. With an additional parking space proposed directly in front of the annex entrance, the annex is effectively surrounded by hardstanding and vehicles on three sides, resulting in a harsh, utilitarian setting that erodes visual amenity, privacy, and residential comfort.
• 7.5.4 There is no defensible space at the annex entrance. The approach area doubles as a parking bay, provides access to the main dwelling's garage, and accommodates bin storage for both units. This creates a shared functional zone immediately outside the annex door, undermining privacy and usability. Such an arrangement fails to provide the clear threshold space expected for residential entrances and is contrary to General Policy 2(d, e) and the Residential Design Guide, which require layouts to safeguard amenity and respect spaces around buildings.

• 7.5.5 Servicing arrangements further compromise amenity. The bin storage for the annex is positioned outside its fenced and gated curtilage, adjacent to the main dwelling's bins, and remains visually exposed despite the presence of a gate. This requires occupiers to leave their private space to access bins and introduces visual clutter in a shared area. The arrangement conflicts with the Residential Design Guide and the Affordable Housing Standards Design Guide, both of which require refuse storage to be integrated within the curtilage of the dwelling it serves. Impacts on Existing Main Dwelling Occupiers
• 7.5.6 The introduction of fencing and a gated enclosure fragments the host dwelling's garden, reducing its usable area and eroding the open character that defines the estate. This hard boundary interrupts the visual continuity of the plot and diminishes the sense of space previously enjoyed by the main dwelling. In addition, the shared driveway and servicing zone will experience increased activity from separate refuse handling, visitor movements, and parking turnover associated with the annex. These changes introduce functional clutter and movement into an area that currently serves only one household, reducing privacy and convenience for the main dwelling. This outcome is contrary to General Policy 2(g) and the Residential Design Guide, which require development to safeguard amenity and maintain coherent spaces around buildings.
• 7.5.7 The combined effect of garden fragmentation, additional parking, and intensified servicing fails to meet General Policy 2(b, d, e, g, h), which require development to respect spaces around buildings, safeguard amenity, and provide satisfactory servicing. It also conflicts with the Residential Design Guide (Section 7.0) and Strategic Plan guidance under Housing Policy 17 and paragraph 8.13.2, which emphasise a pleasant, clear outlook and access to external space for general amenity. On this basis, the proposal does not deliver a high-quality living environment for both occupiers and introduces a visually intrusive and functionally fragmented arrangement that undermines amenity for occupiers.

- 7.6 PARKING, ACCESS AND SERVICING

• 7.6.1 In assessing parking and access arrangements, it is noted that the proposal will continue to utilise the existing driveway from Johnny Ballanard Road. No new access points are introduced, and the alignment and width of the driveway are sufficient to accommodate the traffic generated by the host dwelling and the annex. DOI Highways confirm that the arrangement raises no concerns regarding highway safety or network functionality, consistent with Transport Policy 4 and General Policy 2(h).
• 7.6.2 The submitted layout provides two off-street spaces for the main dwelling and one allocated space for the annex, with the possibility of additional parking within the garage and in front of the garage. While this exceeds the minimum standards set out in Appendix 7 and Transport Policy 7, the spatial arrangement introduces significant operational constraints. The annex space and the additional space near its entrance occupy the shared approach zone to the garage, meaning that when these spaces are in use, garage access is obstructed. This prevents the garage from functioning as intended and restricts manoeuvring capacity, particularly under full occupancy. These outcomes fall short of the requirement for safe and convenient access under General Policy 2(h) and Transport Policy 4.
• 7.6.3 The site benefits from proximity to an existing bus stop on Johnny Watternson Lane, supporting Transport Policy 1 and Strategic Policy 10(b) by promoting access to public transport and reducing reliance on private car journeys. This locational advantage aligns with the Strategic Plan's objective to integrate sustainable transport options and minimise car dependency.
• 7.6.4 No evidence indicates that the development would adversely affect highway safety or traffic flows on the local road network. The access point remains unchanged, and DOI

• Highways raise no objection. However, the internal layout introduces functional inefficiencies that undermine the quality of servicing and parking integration, contrary to the design principles in Appendix 7.
• 7.6.5 Taken together, the proposal meets technical parking standards but fails to deliver a coherent and convenient arrangement due to the shared use of the approach zone for parking, garage access, and pedestrian movement. When the annex space or optional space near its entrance is occupied, garage access is obstructed, and manoeuvring space is severely constrained. This arrangement also forces pedestrians, including annex occupiers, to navigate an area dominated by vehicles and bins, increasing conflict and reducing safety. These outcomes conflict with General Policy 2(h) and Transport Policy 6, which require safe and convenient access for all highway users, including pedestrians, and Strategic Policy 10(c), which seeks integrated and functional servicing. While highway safety impacts on the public road are negligible, the internal layout does not achieve the operational quality expected by policy.

- 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 The proposal offers some positive aspects: it makes efficient use of an existing building, introduces no external alterations to the building, and meets the numerical parking standards set out in Appendix 7 and Transport Policy 7. The site benefits from proximity to public transport, and DOI Highways raise no objection regarding highway safety. These factors align with Strategic Policy 10(b) and Transport Policies 1 and 7 by supporting sustainable travel options and minimising reliance on the public road network. - 8.2 However, the negatives are significant. Independent occupation introduces a second household into a curtilage designed for one, disrupting the established character of The Abbey Woods and increasing severability risks. External arrangements fail to provide adequate amenity for annex occupiers, with substandard garden provision and compromised outlook. Parking and servicing, while numerically compliant, are operationally flawed: the annex space and optional space obstruct garage access, constrain manoeuvring, and create conflict with pedestrian movement, contrary to General Policy 2(h) and Transport Policy 6. Taken together, these shortcomings outweigh the limited benefits, and the proposal does not achieve the level of design quality, amenity, and functional integration required by policy. On this basis, the application is recommended for refusal.

9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 9.1 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).

9.2 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.

9.3 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. - 9.4 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.

9.5 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 : Refused Date: 07.01.2026 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.