Officer Report

Application No.: 25/90974/B Applicant: Barry Murphy Proposal: Replacement of existing dwellinghouse with two semi-detached dwellinghouses Site Address: East View Sulby Bridge Sulby Isle Of Man IM7 2EU Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 06.01.2026 _________________________________________________________________

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 above-ground floor development shall commence until a schedule of external materials and finishes, including manufacturer's details and specifications for render, cladding, roof tiles, fenestrations, and rainwater goods, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out other than in strict accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out to the highest standards of design and appearance, in the interests of visual amenity and compliance with Strategic Policy 5 and General Policy 2(b, c and g).

• C 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2025 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no extension, enlargement, alteration of the dwellings, and no garages, outbuildings, or other free-standing structures shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwellings hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, without the prior written approval of the Department.

• Reason: To control future development and protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the design quality assessed in the application, in accordance with Strategic Policy 5 and General Policy 2(b, c and g).
• C 4. The north-facing bathroom window in Dwelling B shall be glazed with obscure glass to Pilkington Level 3 (or equivalent) and shall be non-opening below 1.5m internal cill height. This specification shall be permanently retained thereafter.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupiers from overlooking and loss of privacy in accordance with General Policy 2(g).

• C 5. The only model of the Air Source Heat Pump that can be installed is the Mitsubishi PUHZW85VAA(-BS) Ultra Quiet Ecodan or another equivalent model with the same or lower noise output.

Reason: To ensure the development is implemented according to the plan/details submitted, as the Department has assessed the impact of the proposal on the basis of the specific use and the documents submitted.

• C 6. The Air Source Heat Pumps must be installed in accordance with the approved site plans (Dwg Nos. 1081-22 and 1081-23) showing their position and the supporting information, including clearance of 300mm from obstructions and air discharge facing away from neighbouring boundaries, and must be maintained as such thereafter.

Reason: To ensure the development is implemented according to the plan/details submitted, as the Department has assessed the impact of the proposal on the basis of the specific use and the documents submitted.

• C 7. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, the accesses, visibility splays, parking spaces, turning areas, and cycle storage shall be provided and surfaced in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans (Dwg Nos. 1081-22 and 1081-23). Once provided, all access, parking and turning areas shall thereafter be permanently retained as such.

Reason: To ensure highway safety and adequate parking provision in accordance with Transport Policy 7 and General Policy 2(i).

• C 8. The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the flood mitigation measures set out in the Flood Risk Assessment prepared by Barry Murphy Construction (dated 13 October 2025), including finished floor levels at 16.00m AOD, open-faced boundary treatments, solid ground floor construction without airbricks, raised electrical points, and engineered surface water disposal. These measures shall be implemented prior to occupation and retained thereafter.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of future occupiers and ensure compliance with Environment Policies 10 and 13 of the Strategic Plan.

• C 9. The landscaping works shall be carried out in full accordance with the Site Plan as Proposed (Dwg No. 1081-23), including the planting of native species and the protection of retained trees.

All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of any unit, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which die or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: To ensure appropriate landscaping and maintain local character in accordance with

• Environment Policy 4.

C 10. Prior to the installation of the swift nest bricks, detailed specifications shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The swift nest bricks shall then be installed in the locations shown on the Plans and Elevations as Proposed (Dwg No. 1081-24) before the occupation of the dwellings and retained thereafter.

Reason: To provide nesting opportunities and enhance biodiversity in accordance with

• Environment Policy 5.

N 1. The applicant is advised that the existing building may support roosting bats. A preliminary bat assessment by a qualified ecologist should be undertaken prior to demolition, and any mitigation required must comply with the Wildlife Act 1990. DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team should be consulted for statutory advice.

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

The proposal complies with the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016), including Strategic Policies 1, 2, 3(b), 4, 5, 10 and 11, General Policy 2, Environment Policies 4, 5, 10, 13 and 42, and Housing Policy 4, together with the Residential Design Guide 2021. The principle of development is established, and the revised scheme addresses previous refusal reasons by delivering a design that respects local character while incorporating sustainability measures. Privacy safeguards for neighbouring occupiers, improved internal layouts, and flood mitigation have been secured, and biodiversity enhancements are included. Safe access and parking arrangements meet Transport Policies 4 and 7. The development represents an efficient and sustainable use of land within a designated residential area and is considered acceptable in accordance with the Strategic Plan and other material considerations.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the following documents and plans: Documents

• o Cover Letter (16 Oct 2025)
• o Planning Statement (16 Oct 2025)
• o Flood Risk Statement (16 Oct 2025)
• o Air Source Heat Pump Product Information (16 Oct 2025)
• o Site Photographs (16 Oct 2025)
• o Drawing Register (16 Oct 2025) Plans
• o Location Plan - Dwg No. 20 (16 Oct 2025)
• o Existing Site Plan - Dwg No. 21 (16 Oct 2025)
• o Proposed Site Plan 1:200 - Dwg No. 22 (16 Oct 2025)
• o Proposed Site Plan 1:100 - Dwg No. 23 (16 Oct 2025)
• o Proposed Plans and Elevations - Dwg No. 24 (28 Oct 2025)

_________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal

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

• o DOI Highways Division - No objection subject to conditions, which have been imposed.
• o DOI Flood Risk Management Team - No objection

It is recommended that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal on the basis that they have submitted a relevant objection:

• o Lezayre Parish Commissioners

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given the Right to Appeal as they have submitted an objection that meets the specified criteria:

• o 6 Carrick Park, Sulby _________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS MADE WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS OBJECTING TO THE APPLICATION, BUT THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of East View, Sulby Bridge, Sulby, which is a detached two storey traditional Manx stone Cottage painted white with a single storey garage/outbuilding to the south that sits to the West of the highway. The dwelling has a footprint of 10m by 5.6m and the outbuilding a further 6.6m by 5.6m, with a total floor area of 80m2. - 1.2 The site is broadly level and shares a boundary with Mill View to the south and to the rear No.8 Carrick Park (Hillview) and also at the rear is No.7 Carrick Park. The design of the existing dwelling on site is such that does not allow views into neighbouring dwellings or their gardens from first floor level. - 1.3 Currently, the site is covered in mature overgrown vegetation which has fully enveloped the entire site area, such that access is currently not achievable into the site, whether through the vehicular access, or pedestrian access.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Replacement of existing dwellinghouse with two semidetached dwellinghouses. - 2.2 The proposal would include the demolition of the existing traditional dwelling on site, and its replacement with a new two storey semi-detached building on site. - 2.3 The new dwellings would be an amendment of the design proposed under PA 25/90189/B which was refused for the site. The key changes to the dwelling proposed when compared with the recently refused scheme would include the following:

• a. Alterations to the building layout to keep all bedrooms on the upper floor with other living spaces positioned on the ground floor.
• b. Extending the roof over the previously proposed porch on the north elevation to create an integrated porch with alterations to the floor layout of the dining area. This will allow for the creation of a full height front window to serve bedroom 2 which previously relied solely on a rooflight and relocation of the bathroom with new obscure glazed window serving the bathroom in place of the rooflight which was previously proposed here.
• c. Creation of an asymmetrical pitched roof incorporating a catslide on one side over the northern semi-detached dwelling, in place of the previous symmetrical pitched roof.
• d. The key change on the west (rear) elevation would be the dropping of the eaves on the left side to accommodate the integrated porch. There would be no change to the south elevation.

2.4 The new layout for Building B would provide for a ground floor comprising a porch leading into a central hall, with a lounge positioned to the front and an open-plan kitchen and dining area to the rear. The dining space opens onto the garden through sliding doors, and there is a covered external area adjacent to the lounge with direct access to the front (east) elevation. At first floor level, the layout includes three bedrooms, with the master bedroom featuring a dressing area, ensuite bathroom, and access to a balcony via sliding doors. Bedroom 2 is located to the north elevation, and Bedroom 3 is adjacent to the landing. A family bathroom is also provided on this level. - 2.5 The proposed dwelling would still provide:

• a. Two parking spaces per dwelling within the curtilage;
• b. Covered bike storage for three bikes within each site;
• c. Provision of 1 ASHP per dwelling: Mitsubishi PUHZ-W85VAA(-BS) Ultra Quiet Ecodan Air Source Heat Pump, measuring 1050mm wide x 480mm deep x 1020mm high, installed with clearance in front of the unit and air discharge facing away from the neighbouring boundary;
• d. Installation of solar panels. A row of solar panels would be installed on the southern roof plane to serve both dwellings, with four panels serving each dwelling. No details are provided on the type of solar panels or energy output.
• e. New soakaways are to be provided in front and within the rear gardens (about 1m from the boundaries to alternative drainage system to both dwellings. Details of capacity are not provided.
• f. Each dwelling is to have electric charging points

2.6 The application is supported by a Planning Statement prepared by Sarah Corlett Town Planning Consultancy Ltd which details the following:

• 1. The site lies within a designated residential area and a sustainable settlement, aligning with Strategic Policies 1, 2, 10, Spatial Policy 4, and Housing Policy 4.
• 2. The proposal optimizes the use of the site and is consistent with the settlement hierarchy.
• 3. The northern elevation has been modified to include a projection and a bathroom window with obscure glazing and restricted hinge, addressing previous overlooking concerns.
• 4. Internal layout changes ensure all rooms now have windows, improving residential amenity compared to the last refused scheme.
• 5. The updated Flood Risk Assessment addresses new flood mapping and includes mitigation measures such as soakaways or discharge to the public surface water sewer, subject to percolation tests.
• 6. Vulnerable accommodation, including bedrooms, is located on the first floor, outside flood risk zones.
• 7. The design retains traditional features with limited modern intervention, reflecting the mixed character of the area and respecting the streetscape.
• 8. The Appeal Inspector previously concluded the design is visually attractive and respectful of context, which remains relevant to the current proposal.
• 9. Two parking spaces per dwelling are provided along with turning space on reinforced grass and visibility splays of 70m, consistent with Strategic Plan standards.
• 10. Biodiversity enhancements include the incorporation of swift brick boxes and native tree planting, aligning with Environment Policies 4 and 5.

2.7 The Flood risk assessment prepared by Barry Murphy Construction (13 October 2025) submitted with the application details the following:

• 1. The site is located within a fluvial medium likelihood flood zone (1 in 100-year event), with no identified risk from surface water or tidal flooding.
• 2. The proposed development increases the footprint by approximately 40sqm (from 94sqm to 134sqm) and raises the finished ground floor level to 16.00, which is 590mm higher than the existing dwelling.

• 3. The drained roof area will increase by 57sqm due to a steeper roof pitch, resulting in a total roof area of 173sqm.
• 4. Surface water disposal will follow two options:

• a. Option 1: Engineered soakaway system, subject to percolation testing and design approval prior to commencement.
• b. Option 2: Direct connection to the main public surface water sewer at the junction with Main Road and Carrick Park, with attenuation if required.

• 5. Percolation testing is to be carried out in accordance with BRE Digest 365 (1991) standards, controlled by condition due to current site constraints.
• 6. Flood mitigation measures include:

• a. Raised ground floor level.
• b. Engineered and controlled surface water disposal system.
• c. Open-faced/perforated boundary treatment to allow floodwater movement.
• d. Solid ground floor construction without airbricks or below-ground ventilation.
• e. Electrical points set at a minimum of 450mm above finished floor level.
• f. Stepped damp-proof course and ground levels maintained 225mm below finished floor level.
• g. All sleeping accommodation located on the first floor.

• 7. The boundary treatment and drainage proposals are designed to prevent increased flood risk to neighbouring properties and represent an improvement over the existing uncontrolled system.
• 8. The applicant is willing to accept conditions requiring submission and approval of a detailed engineered surface water drainage design prior to construction and withdrawal of permitted development rights for further extensions and boundary walls.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 Site Specific:

• 3.1.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area recognised on the Sulby Local Plan of 1998 as Predominantly Residential. The site is not within a designated conservation area, and there are no registered trees on site. The Updated Flood Map (2025) identifies the entire site as being subject to medium fluvial flood risk. In addition, part of the highway to the front and surrounding land is shown as being prone to surface water flood risk, with most of the wider area classified as having high fluvial flood risk.

3.2 National: STRATEGIC PLAN

• 3.2.1 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application:

• 1. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations.
• 2. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources.
• 3. Strategic Policy 2 - Development focussed in existing towns and villages.
• 4. Strategic Policy 3 - Development to safeguard character of existing towns and villages and to avoid coalescence.
• 5. Strategic Policy 4 - Development to protect or enhance setting of Registered Buildings, landscape quality and biodiversity, and not result in unacceptable environmental pollution.
• 6. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact.
• 7. Strategic Policy 10 - Sustainable transport.
• 8. Strategic Policy 11 - Housing needs.
• 9. Spatial Policy 4 - Need for new development to maintain the existing settlement character, be of appropriate scale (local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities). Sulby included.
• 10. Environment Policy 4 - Protection of species and habitats.
• 11. Environment Policy 5 - Mitigation against damage to or loss of habitats.
• 12. Environment Policy 10 and 13 - Development and flood risk.
• 13. Environment Policy 22 - Protection of environment and/or residential amenity from pollution.
• 14. Environment Policy 42 - Designed to respect the character and identity of the locality.

• 15. Housing Policy 1 - Housing needs.
• 16. Housing Policy 4 - New Housing to defined existing towns.
• 17. Housing Policy 6 - Residential development to be undertaken in accordance with development brief or Paragraph 6.2 of Plan.
• 18. Transport Policy 1 - Proximity to existing public transportation services.
• 19. Transport Policy 4 - Highway Safety
• 20. Transport Policy 7 - Parking Provisions.
• 21. Paragraph 4.3.8:
• 22. "The design of new development can make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Island. Recent development has often been criticised for its similarity to developments across the Island and elsewhere - "anywhere" architecture. At the same time some criticise current practice to retain traditional or vernacular designs. As is often the case the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. All too often proposals for new developments have not taken into account a proper analysis of their context in terms of siting, layout, scale, materials and other factors. At the same time a slavish following of past design idioms, evolved for earlier lifestyles can produce buildings which do not reflect twenty first century lifestyles including accessibility and energy conservation. While there is often a consensus about what constitutes good and poor design, it is notoriously difficult to define or prescribe."

4.0 OTHER MATTERIAL CONSIDERATIONS - 4.1 Residential Design Guidance 2021

• 4.1.1 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. Section 2.0 on Sustainable Construction, Section 5 on Architectural Details, and 7.0 on Impact on Neighbouring Properties, are considered relevant to the current application.
• 4.1.2 Paragraph 3.6.3 "The Site Assessment Framework for the Area Plan for the East contained broad assumptions about typical densities for different locations and types of developments (see Figure 3.A below), and these can provide a helpful starting point. However, these should not be taken as targets and does not mean, however, that developments should be so densely developed that they provide inadequate outlook, amenity space, car parking, or an overall attractive environment to see or be within. In reality, the development that takes place may be of a higher or lower density and, as determined by the context of the site and/or the location."

4.2 IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025 seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary. Section 21 deals with Habitat loss actions through promoting a policy of 'no net loss' for semi-natural Manx habitats and species and to ensure that unavoidable loss is replaced or effectively compensated for. - 4.3 Section 68 of the Flood Risk Management Act (2013) indicates that any published Flood Risk Management Plan and the extent to which the proposed development creates an additional flood risk are material considerations.

5.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 5.1 The application site has been the subject of the following previous planning applications that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. These include:

• 1. PA 06/01940/B for Alterations and extension to form additional living accommodation Approved. The scheme proposed a first floor, pitched roofed extension over the existing garage/store, which had its roof ridge set considerably lower than that of the main dwelling, making it appear as a subordinate extension. The existing hardstanding was also to be

• extended by the removal of the existing hedge and part of the existing lawn, to provide an additional off-street parking provision (total of two spaces). This scheme which did not propose any first-floor windows to the sides and rear of the dwelling was not implemented.
• 2. PA 10/01160/A for Approval in principle for erection of a dwelling. This was refused on

8 December 2010 for the following reason: "Whilst the area is designated for residential development, the planning application does not adequately demonstrate that a dwelling could be satisfactorily accommodated within the constraints of the application site, particularly providing a safe and convenient access and manoeuvring space which would not adversely affect the neighbouring property Riverside in terms of noise and loss of privacy."

• 3. PA 20/01452/B for Erection of a replacement dwelling - Refused. The application was refused on the following ground: "The proposal is considered contrary to General Policy 2 b, c, & g and Environmental Policy 42 and the recent Residential design guide 2021 as the design would be read at odds with the character of the surrounding street scene and is considered over development for the site leading to an adverse visual harm with a perceived harmful impact upon the neighbouring properties. It is therefore concluded that the planning application is recommended for refusal." The scheme proposed a total built frontage of 22.4m and a ground floor area of approximately 170sqm (including integral garage).
• 4. PA 24/00106/B for Demolition of existing dwelling; construction of 2 replacement dwellings; minor relocation of existing entrance and formation of new entrance was refused at Appeal (AP24/0031). During the Officer Assessment, MUA Drainage made the following comments, and these were not re-assessed by the Appeal Inspector: "6.2 Manx Utilities Drainage have stated that they had requested minor changes to the general site plan for the above planning application. They also state that the drawing, 1081-11 rev A, now indicates a proposed Surface Water drain connection to existing public drains, whilst noting that the drainage route proposed is purely indicated as an alternative should percolation testing prove inadequate for the preferred soakaway system (31 May 2024)."

The Appeal Inspector in recommending refusal made the following comments which are considered relevant in the assessment of the current application: "49. No issue is taken with the principle of the development proposed, the site lying within Sulby, a village identified in Spatial Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan as being appropriate for some residential development. The main issues in this case therefore, relate to the effect of the development proposed on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and its effect on the living conditions of adjoining occupiers, in particular the occupiers of No 6 Carrick Park, by reason of outlook and privacy.

Character and Appearance

• 50. Among other things, the Residential Design Guide seeks to encourage creative, innovative and locally distinctive designs that respond to the changing needs of the Island's communities. At paragraph 1.1.2 it confirms that it is not intended to stifle creativity, or to promote planning by numbers and off-the-peg designs. Rather it looks to provide a supportive context for good quality designs, be they traditional or modern. Paragraph 1.2.3 confirms that all applications will be judged on their own merits, taking account of the likely effect on neighbouring properties and the character of the building or street.
• 51. The Planning Authority describes the appeal scheme as overdevelopment. There is focus too on the mathematical density of development on individual plots in the vicinity, compared with the plots proposed. However, the most meaningful test, it seems to me, is how the development would be experienced on the ground in its site specific context and what harm there might be as a consequence of the scheme. The fact that a development maybe of a

• different scale or density from its immediate surroundings does not automatically equate to harm.
• 52. I saw that there is quite a mix in terms of building size, type and style in the locality of the appeal site, with no strong or coherent design theme to the streetscene here. Mill View and East View are of a completely different scale, design, and indeed density, in comparison with the much larger Carrick Park dwellings and plots which are clearly seen behind. Riverside, to the north, sits at a lower level, gable end on to the road, adding further variety to the streetscene. This is not a location therefore, where there is a strong sense of uniformity and consistency in terms of design. Whilst that does not mean that anything goes, it does allow for more flexibility than might otherwise be the case, including a modest, contemporary design approach.
• 53. I recognise that the proposed dwellings would be semi-detached, whereas the other dwellings here are mainly detached, but I see no harm in that. Indeed, a little further along Lezayre Road to the south, Lhen View and Holly Bank comprise a pair of semi-detached dwellings adjacent to the road. I also saw detached properties sitting quite happily next to semi-detached dwellings around the Sulby Bridge bend.
• 54. The proposed properties would be much smaller than the Carrick Park dwellings, but then Mill View and East View are already much smaller. Moreover, the building footprints of each of the proposed dwellings are not greatly dissimilar to the existing building footprint for East View. On that basis, albeit that they are semi-detached, the two dwellings proposed would not, in my view, result in any material harm to the established character or appearance of the area. In coming to that view, I am mindful that they would not be visually 'hemmed in': Mill View to the south is set some way off the shared boundary, separated by a single-storey detached garage building and vegetation. Moreover, the site is not adjoined by buildings to the north, the rear garden to No 6 Carrick Park separating it from Riverside, roughly 30m away. There are no buildings opposite either, the site facing open fields.
• 55. As for the proposed design, yes the development would be around 1.5m higher than the cottage it would replace, but it would still only be 7.5m to the ridge, just over 5m to eaves. The frontages to both dwellings would be traditional, with a single window to either side of a central entrance porch, with three first floor windows, all with a vertical emphasis, sitting below a pitched slate roof. Very similar, in fact to the frontages of Mill View and East View and, further to the south, Lhen View. Each property would also have a chimney.
• 56. For the most part, the walls would be painted smooth render. However, the gable end to Dwelling B, which would sit adjacent to the main road, would be of a more contemporary design. Half would be in timber/composite cladding and the other half would be recessed to provide for a small balcony area at first floor level, facing east. The recessed part of the gable would be fully glazed. To my mind, the treatment of the roadside gable adds interest to the elevation, creating profile and light and shade. I consider the proposed design to be visually attractive. Whilst this element of the scheme is different, it is sufficiently respectful of the character of the surrounding area so as not to appear jarring or incongruous.
• 57. All told, I consider that there would be no harm to the character or appearance of the area as a consequence of the size, design or density of the dwellings proposed. There would be no conflict, in this regard, with Strategic Policy 3(b), Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2 (b), (c), (g) and (f) and Environment Policy 42, which together and among other things seek to protect the character, appearance and identity of an area. There would be no conflict either with the Residential Design Guide, which encourages good quality, contemporary design where it is informed by, and is respectful of, its context. Living Conditions

• 58. The main concerns in this regard relate to No 6 Carrick Park, the rear garden to which is laid mainly to lawn, with a large, raised decking area at the eastern end, adjacent to the A3. The front elevation of proposed Dwelling B, would face north, looking straight across the rear garden of No 6. Windows to two habitable rooms are shown at first floor level on this elevation, to a bedroom and first floor lounge. There is a third window, but that is to a bathroom and would be obscure glazed.
• 59. In terms of overlooking and privacy, the Residential Design Guide focuses on windows serving habitable rooms that face each other, suggesting a 20m separation. It does not, so far as I can see, deal with situations such as here, where dwellings are set at right angles to each other - the dwellinghouse at No 6 is offset to the northwest of Dwelling B. It is pertinent to note though, that the minimum 20m separation shown on Figure 7.B in the Design Guide (shown below) implies minimum garden lengths of 10m as being unlikely to give rise to privacy concerns.
• 60. In this instance, the garden in front of Dwelling B would be around 9m from the boundary with the garden to No 6. As is clearly demonstrated on the plan at Fig 1 of the Authority's appeal statement (shown below) the whole of the rear garden to No 6, including that part of the garden closest to the house which might be expected to be most heavily used, and the decking area, would be in full view of those first-floor windows.
• 61. The appellant suggests that since one of the windows would be to a bedroom, that would minimise overlooking concerns. However, the first-floor windows in the figure in the Design Guide would be expected to be bedroom windows and so that is already taken into account. Moreover, one of the windows would be to a lounge, a room likely to be more heavily used than a bedroom, with people sitting for longer and looking out. Indeed, siting the lounge at first floor and including the number of windows shown to that room, suggests that the intention was to maximise the opportunity for views out. I recognise that the other two windows to the lounge would be within the east facing gable elevation of Dwelling B, one of which would comprise sliding doors giving access onto a balcony space. But, even were I to agree with the appellant that the north-facing lounge window proposed would somehow be secondary to those, it would still facilitate direct overlooking of the adjacent garden from a habitable room.
• 62. In terms of window-to-window distances, the rear, east facing elevation of No 6 Garrick Park contains three large dormers and a rooflight. As I saw during my site visit, the dormer nearest to the appeal site is to a bedroom, and below that, at ground floor level, is another bedroom window. However, they would be more than 20m away at their closest.4 Moreover, views would be oblique, rather than direct. I find no material harm in this regard.
• 63. I recognise that the outlook for the occupiers of No 6 would change as a consequence of the development proposed, as it would for the occupiers of Nos 7 and 8 Carrick Park. However, there is already a dwelling on the plot, albeit currently overgrown. The appeal scheme would bring slightly taller built development closer to the site boundaries, but the overall modest scale of the proposed dwellings means that they would not be seen as unduly overbearing in their context. I find no material harm in this regard either.
• 64. I note concerns in relation the potential for noise from the proposed air source heat pumps. However, as confirmed by the planning officer, that is a matter that could be controlled by condition were the appeal to succeed.
• 65. To conclude on this issue, whilst I find no harm in relation to any loss of privacy in terms of window to window views, the relationship of the first floor bedroom and lounge windows with the rear garden to No 6 Carrick Park is such that the entire space would be directly overlooked, resulting in a material loss of privacy for the adjoining occupiers. There would be conflict

therefore, with General Policy 2(g) and (k) and the Residential Design Guide which seek, among other things, to protect such interests.

Other Matters

• 66. Whilst a small part of the site is identified as being at risk of flooding, I note that the adjacent main road, which rises here, is not included within the area of flood risk. In any event, the appellant's Flood Risk Assessment confirms that the floor level of the proposed dwellings would be 0.21m above the existing ground floor level, some 0.2m above the level of the adjacent road. It also confirms that the property benefits from flood defence works carried out in 2005. I am mindful, in this regard, that the DoI Flood Risk Management Team raises no objection. Whilst I note the comments of the Commissioners in relation to flood risk, there is no substantiated evidence before me to support their concerns.

OVERALL CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

1. I have found no harm in relation to the effect of the development proposed on the character and appearance of the area. Neither have I found any harm in relation to any window to window overlooking or outlook. I have, however, found that overlooking of the entirety of the rear garden to No 6 Carrick Park, and the consequent loss of privacy, would be unacceptable. That is not a matter that could reasonably be overcome by conditions. On balance therefore, for the reasons set out above, and having considered all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed and that the decision of the Authority to refuse planning permission be upheld.

Reason: Whilst there is no objection in principle to residential development of this site, and nor would there be any harm to the established character and appearance of the area, there would be unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 6 Carrick Park with particular regard to privacy, prejudicing use of the rear garden. That brings the development into conflict with General Policy 2(g) and (k) and the Residential Design Guide, which seek to protect such interests. "

• 5. PA 25/90189/B for Erection of two semi-detached dwellings in place of existing detached dwelling (amendments to PA 24/00106/B) - Refused (23 June 2025). Reasons for refusal:

• R 1. The revised North Elevation, which removes first-floor windows, undermines the architectural coherence and contextual sensitivity of the development. This alteration disrupts established vernacular character, weakening integration with the surrounding area, contrary to General Policy 2(b, c, g), which requires developments to respect local identity, scale, and form. Additionally, the proposal fails to meet Environment Policy 42, which mandates that new developments reflect existing architectural character, and Strategic Policy 5, which seeks highquality, contextually responsive design.
• R 2. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) does not sufficiently demonstrate that the

proposal would not result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on-site or off-site, for future occupants of the proposed dwellings. Additionally, the assessment fails to consider whether the development would contribute to increased flood vulnerabilities or intensify flooding in the area, contrary to Environment Policy 13, which requires developments to prevent flood hazards beyond the site boundary. Furthermore, the FRA lacks key technical assessments, including flood flow modelling and percolation testing, failing to meet the requirements of Environment Policy 10, which mandates appropriate mitigation measures for flood-prone areas.

• R 3. The proposal fails to provide satisfactory residential amenity, as the removal of all firstfloor windows in Dwelling B eliminates external outlook and restricts natural light access, resulting in a substandard living environment. This design compromises both residential quality and passive security, contrary to General Policy 2(h), which requires developments to ensure appropriate living conditions, and General Policy 2(m), which emphasizes natural surveillance and personal safety. Additionally, the scheme conflicts with RDG 2021 (Paragraph 3.6.3), which

warns against density-driven designs that undermine residential standards. Given these deficiencies, the proposal is considered unacceptable in terms of amenity provision and fails to comply with the relevant planning policies.

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.

6.1 Comments from Consultees

• 6.1.1 DOI Highways Division find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as the proposed accesses and visibility splays, and internal driveway layouts are acceptable for the proposals. They request conditions to ensure accesses, parking, and vehicular turning, and cycle storage, shown on the approved plans to be implemented before first occupation and retained thereafter (5 November 2025).
• 6.1.2 Manx Utilities Drainage have not made any comments on the application although they were consulted on 30 November 2025.
• 6.1.3 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Comments (20 March 2025):

• 1. No objection to the proposal subject to conditions.
• 2. The application acknowledges the loss of the existing front hedge to facilitate construction works; replacement features include new native boundary hedges and five new native trees, although ash may not be advisable due to disease prevalence. Measures for the protection of an existing tree have also been included.
• 3. The proposed plans include the installation of six swift nest bricks on the north and west elevations to mitigate the short-term loss of nesting habitat.
• 4. The existing building has potential for roosting bats due to its traditional Manx cottage form, countryside location, proximity to the Sulby River (50m), and presence of multiple bat records nearby. A preliminary bat assessment by a qualified ecological consultant is recommended prior to demolition. If bats are present, avoidance and mitigation measures will be required, and DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team must be informed for statutory advice.
• 5. Conditions requested if approved:

• a. Landscaping to be undertaken as per the Site Plan as Proposed (Dwg No. 1081.23).
• b. Swift boxes to be installed as per the Plans and Elevations as Proposed (Dwg No. 108124).

• 6. They provide an advisory regarding bats under the Wildlife Act 1990.

• 6.1.4 Lezayre Commissioners (14 November 2025):

• 1. The Commissioners object to the proposal, although the decision was not unanimous.
• 2. Concern was raised that the issue of drainage has not been tested.
• 3. It is unclear whether the proposed properties will connect to a sewerage system or rely on an existing pipe at a neighbouring property.
• 4. If an existing pipe is to be used, confirmation is needed that access rights have been granted and that the pipe is capable of handling additional sewerage.
• 5. The Commissioners suspect that the site currently only has a septic tank.
• 6. The majority of Commissioners remain concerned that the plans continue to represent overdevelopment of the site.

• 6.1.5 DOI Flood Risk Management Team have stated that they are satisfied with the FRA provided and do not oppose the application (29 December 2025).

6.2 Representation from Neighbours

• 6.2.1 Owners/Occupiers of 6 Carrick Park, Sulby (20 November 2025):

• 1. Objects strongly to the proposal, citing continued invasion of privacy and disappointment that amendments do not address previous concerns.

• 2. Considers the northern elevation, even as modified, to remain an eyesore, closer to their boundary than the current property, and indicative of overdevelopment of the site.
• 3. Raises highway safety concerns, stating that future kerbside parking over the brow of the hill will create an accident risk when vehicles cross the centre line to pass parked cars.
• 4. Disputes previous design assessments describing the scheme as visually attractive, asserting that the design is not in keeping with the surrounding area and that the plot is too constrained for two dwellings.
• 5. States that rotating one property by 90 degrees results in overlooking No. 6 Carrick Park, compromising privacy.
• 6. Argues that the northern elevation undermines architectural coherence and contextual sensitivity.
• 7. Rejects comparisons to Riverside, noting that Riverside faces the river and is singlestorey, unlike the proposed development which overlooks No. 6.
• 8. Maintains that the visual impact of the northern elevation remains a valid reason for refusal.
• 9. Believes the proposal fails to maintain existing settlement character and will negatively affect the character and appearance of the area.
• 10. Highlights inadequate parking provision and unacceptable impact on highway safety.
• 11. Raises concerns about potential noise from air source heat pumps, noting lack of detail on their location or mitigation measures.
• 12. Questions whether flood risk testing has been carried out and insists results should be published before permission is granted.
• 13. Objects to the return of a first-floor window on the northern elevation, whether opaque or not, as a clear invasion of privacy both actual and perceived.
• 14. Expresses concern that future alterations to windows could worsen overlooking issues.
• 15. Concludes that proposed amendments are negligible and do not address fundamental issues of privacy, visual impact, and site overdevelopment.

- 7.0 ASSESSMENT

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

• 1. Impacts on the character and appearance of the site and area (STP3, STP5, GP2, EP42, RDG'21);
• 2. Impact on Neighbouring Amenity (GP2(g), EP 22 & RDG'21);
• 3. Amenity for future occupants (GP 2h, STP 1b & Paragraph 3.6.3 of RDG 2021);
• 4. Highway Safety (STP10, GP2 h&i, TP4&7);
• 5. Potential Flood/Drainage Matters (GP2, EP 10 & 13);
• 6. Biodiversity Impacts (EP 4, EP 5 & GP2).
• 7.2 The principle of development has already been accepted under PA 24/00106/B. As such, this matter does not require reconsideration. The current proposal retains the essential characteristics of the earlier scheme, including its overall design approach, building footprint, height, and spatial relationship with the site and surrounding context. The layout and positioning remain substantially consistent with what was previously deemed acceptable.

- 7.3 VISUAL IMPACT

• 7.3.1 In considering the visual impact of the proposal, it is important to first acknowledge the site context and the Appeal Inspector's previous findings. The locality is characterised by a varied mix of building sizes, types, and styles, with no strong or coherent design theme. This absence of uniformity allows for a degree of flexibility in design, provided that proposals remain respectful of their surroundings and deliver high-quality, contextually responsive architecture. The Residential Design Guide reinforces this approach, encouraging creative and locally distinctive designs that avoid "anywhere architecture" while responding positively to site-specific context.

• 7.3.2 Against this backdrop, the revised scheme responds to the mixed character of the locality by combining traditional elements with contemporary detailing. The front elevations

retain features previously endorsed at appeal, including pitched slate roofs, smooth rendered walls, and vertically aligned fenestration, ensuring visual continuity with nearby cottages such as Mill View and Riverside. At the same time, the roadside gable incorporates modern treatments, including a recessed glazed section and balcony, adding interest and variety without appearing incongruous. Importantly, the previous concern regarding a blank first-floor north elevation, which was considered harmful to architectural coherence under PA 25/90189/B, has been resolved. The revised design introduces a catslide roof and a discreet bathroom window with opaque glazing, preventing an unarticulated façade and restoring proportional rhythm. These refinements, together with the improved east elevation, create a softer transition between traditional and contemporary elements. This balanced approach accords with Strategic Policy 3(b) and Environment Policy 42.

• 7.3.3 Building on this balanced approach, contemporary interventions such as solar panels, swift brick boxes, and high-level rooflights are integrated in a discreet manner that does not undermine the overall character of the dwellings. The roadside gable of Dwelling B retains its appeal through timber/composite cladding and recessed glazing, adding articulation and visual interest while remaining respectful of the varied streetscape. This treatment reflects Strategic Policy 5 and the Residential Design Guide, which encourage modern detailing where it complements local character and avoids visual discord.

• 7.3.4 The site layout demonstrates sensitivity to its edge-of-settlement position and proximity to the adjoining countryside across the highway, incorporating landscape measures that soften the built form and improve visual integration. Native hedging and tree planting reinforce the green edge, while grass-paved turning areas and permeable surfaces reduce the visual dominance of hardstanding. These measures support a design that respects the wider streetscape and contributes to biodiversity, consistent with General Policy 2(b) and Residential Design Guide.
• 7.3.5 In terms of scale and massing, the semi-detached form remains modest and proportionate, with ridge and eaves heights consistent with the Inspector's previous assessment. The dwellings do not appear overbearing and sit comfortably within a locality characterised by a mix of detached and semi-detached properties. The absence of a rigid design theme in the area allows for flexibility, and the proposed scheme achieves this without compromising visual harmony or creating an impression of overdevelopment. This evolution addresses the previous design tension, ensuring that the north elevation no longer presents a blank façade and that the junction between traditional and modern elements is visually coherent.
• 7.3.6 Overall, the revised scheme delivers a contextually responsive design that accords with General Policy 2(b, c, g), Strategic Policy 3(b), Strategic Policy 5, and Environment Policy 42, as well as the Residential Design Guide 2021. It preserves traditional cues, introduces contemporary detailing in a respectful manner, and integrates sustainability features without detracting from local character. The proposal would not result in harm to the character or appearance of the area and is considered visually acceptable.

- 7.4 AMENITY FOR FUTURE OCCUPANTS

• 7.4.1 The basis for refusal of the most recent scheme (PA 25/90189/B) centred on the firstfloor arrangement in Dwelling B, where two of the three bedrooms relied solely on rooflights, resulting in limited daylight, no external outlook, and diminished passive surveillance from principal rooms. The current proposal reconfigures first-floor accommodation to address these deficiencies. In Dwelling A, both the master bedroom and Bedroom 2 benefit from external front-elevation windows, while Bedroom 3 is the only room that relies on two rooflights; the family bathroom also has a clear-glazed front window. In Dwelling B, the master bedroom is served by full-height glazing with balcony access on the east elevation; Bedroom 2 has a clearglazed external window to the east elevation; and only Bedroom 3 uses a single rooflight. The bathroom to Dwelling B includes an opaque-glazed north-facing window with the cill set at

approximately 1.5 m above finished floor level and side-hinged to avoid overlooking, thereby meeting privacy expectations without re-introducing the visual blankness previously criticised on the north elevation. This change, aided by the catslide roof form, restores functional daylight, outlook, and surveillance for principal rooms while maintaining the privacy safeguards highlighted in the appeal context.

• 7.4.2 General Policy 2(h) requires developments to provide satisfactory amenity standards, including functional living conditions supported by adequate space, access, and servicing arrangements. The Residential Design Guide 2021 expands on this by identifying outlook and daylight as essential components of amenity for new dwellings. While the revised scheme improves upon the previously refused layout, it does not achieve an optimum standard. In Dwelling A, one bedroom relies solely on two rooflights, and in Dwelling B, one bedroom relies on a single rooflight, resulting in limited daylight and no external outlook for these rooms. This falls short of the quality normally sought under policy and guidance. However, these are secondary bedrooms rather than principal rooms, and when considered alongside the improved provision for main bedrooms and overall layout enhancements, the shortfall does not, on balance, amount to a standalone reason for refusal. The limitation should nonetheless be acknowledged as a residual weakness in the scheme.
• 7.4.3 Further to the factors highlighted above, General Policy 2(m) promotes community and personal safety through natural surveillance and passive security. The revised scheme responds proportionately to these principles. In Dwelling B, the north-facing bathroom uses opaque glazing with a raised cill and side-hinged opening to maintain privacy while preventing harmful overlooking of No. 6 Carrick Park. Crucially, Bedroom 2 now includes a clear-glazed front-facing window, restoring street engagement and passive surveillance previously lost when the room relied solely on rooflights. Together with full-height glazing and balcony access to the master bedroom, these changes ensure principal rooms contribute to openness and security. The approach aligns with RDG 2021 (Section 2.6.1) guidance on balancing privacy and safety and reflects the Social Well-being Aim of the Strategic Plan (Paragraph 2.3). Overall, the scheme achieves an appropriate balance between surveillance and privacy in accordance with GP 2(m).
• 7.4.4 In considering why a single rooflight-only bedroom per dwelling is acceptable, the Residential Design Guide 2021 encourages design solutions that respond to context rather than rigid standards. The retained rooflight reliance is confined to Bedroom 3 in each dwelling, while all principal bedrooms now benefit from clear outlook and robust daylight provision. Modern rooflights, positioned to admit direct sky light and enable purge ventilation, can achieve satisfactory daylight factors and air change rates for smaller rooms, particularly where privacy constraints limit external openings. Crucially, the overall scheme ensures that the rooms most critical to amenity, principal bedrooms, are served by external windows or full-height glazing. On balance, this arrangement is proportionate and meets the intent of GP 2(h), while the scheme as a whole aligns with Strategic Policy 1(b) by delivering improved accommodation within site constraints rather than allowing efficiency to erode residential standards. The approach also reflects RDG 2021 Paragraph 3.6.3, which cautions against density-driven outcomes that compromise amenity; here, fenestration and layout choices elevate liveability despite plot limitations.
• 7.4.5 Accordingly, the revised scheme resolves the amenity shortcomings identified in the refused proposal and now complies with General Policy 2(h) and 2(m), Strategic Policy 1(b), and the Residential Design Guide 2021. The internal environment for future occupants is considered satisfactory, and the proposal is acceptable in amenity terms.

- 7.5 IMPACTS ON NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES

• 7.5.1 With regard to impacts on neighbours, the determinative amenity issue remains the relationship between Dwelling B and the rear garden at No. 6 Carrick Park. The appeal decision under PA 24/00106/B previously found unacceptable harm where first-floor habitable windows on the north elevation enabled comprehensive views across that garden. The present scheme

removes those habitable openings and introduces a single bathroom window on the north elevation, specified as opaque-glazed, side-hinged, with the bottom cill set at 1.5 m above finished floor level (FFL). At this cill height the opening sits above standing eye level for most occupants and well above seated eye level, thereby preventing meaningful outward views. The side-hinge further limits the opening angle and width for ventilation, ensuring the mitigation is effective in use. Bedrooms within Dwelling B are now orientated to the east elevation, with the master bedroom served by full-height glazing and balcony access and Bedroom 2 by a clearglazed external window, while only Bedroom 3 relies on a rooflight. This arrangement restores daylight and outlook for principal rooms without reintroducing harmful sightlines toward No. 6's garden. Taken together, these measures remove the direct overlooking that previously prejudiced the use of that garden and satisfy the privacy safeguards required under General Policy 2(g) and the Residential Design Guide 2021.

• 7.5.2 Concerns regarding the proximity and height of the proposed dwellings have been reiterated by neighbouring occupiers, who fear that the development will appear dominant. These matters were examined at appeal, where the Inspector acknowledged the increased scale relative to the existing cottage but concluded that the modest ridge height, varied building pattern, and separation distances prevented an undue sense of enclosure. The current proposal retains the same footprint, ridge and eaves heights, and spatial relationship as previously assessed. While the perception of change is understandable, planning decisions must be grounded in objective harm rather than subjective impressions. Given the unchanged building envelope and the Inspector's earlier findings, the development would not be overbearing and remains consistent with GP2(b), (c) and (g).
• 7.5.3 Noise from air source heat pumps has also been raised. Each dwelling would use a Mitsubishi PUHZ-W85VAA(-BS) Ultra Quiet Ecodan unit. Although physically larger than the unit referenced in the earlier scheme, its acoustic performance remains equivalent: a sound power level of 58 dB(A) and a sound pressure level of approximately 45 dB(A) at 1 m, as tested to BS EN12102. These figures are consistent with the earlier model considered at appeal, which the Inspector found acceptable subject to conditions. The manufacturer confirms that the unit meets permitted development noise criteria and is marketed as 'Ultra Quiet,' designed for residential use. On this basis, and in the absence of any technical evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposal would not result in unacceptable noise impacts. A standard condition requiring installation in accordance with manufacturer guidance will ensure compliance with GP2(k) and Environment Policy 22.
• 7.5.4 Representations from No. 6 Carrick Park also refer to highway and general design matters. Highway safety is addressed in Section 7.6, where DOI Highways raise no objection subject to conditions. Design and streetscape effects are assessed in Section 7.3 and found acceptable having regard to the mixed local character. Boundary fence concerns are civil matters and carry no weight in planning terms. No drainage objections have been raised in the current round of consultation, and this matter is addressed separately under Section 7.7.
• 7.5.5 In conclusion, the acceptability of neighbour amenity turns on the treatment of the firstfloor north elevation of Dwelling B. As submitted, the elevation confines openings to an opaque-glazed, side-hinged bathroom window with a 1.5 m internal cill, and bedrooms are orientated to the east elevation, restoring outlook without creating harmful views toward No. 6 Carrick Park. Subject to conditions (i) removing permitted development rights limiting alterations and extensions to the dwelling, (ii) requiring the north-facing bathroom window to be obscure-glazed to Pilkington Level 3 (or equivalent), non-opening below 1.5 m internal cill height and retained as such; and (iii) controlling ASHP noise via requirement for installation in accordance with submitted details, the proposal would not result in unacceptable loss of privacy, overbearing effects, or noise disturbance. On that basis, the scheme complies with General Policy 2(g), (h) and (k) and the Residential Design Guide 2021, and is acceptable in neighbour amenity terms.

- 7.6 HIGHWAY SAFETY

• 7.6.1 The proposed access arrangements include the formation of a new entrance alongside retention of the existing access, with visibility splays illustrated on the submitted plans. These splays were reviewed by the Department of Infrastructure Highways Division and found acceptable for the scale of development proposed. The internal layout incorporates a turning area surfaced in reinforced grass, enabling vehicles to manoeuvre and exit the site in a forward gear. These measures satisfy the functional requirements for safe access and egress and align with Transport Policy 4 and General Policy 2(h & i), which seek to ensure convenient and safe movement without compromising highway efficiency.
• 7.6.2 Parking provision meets the quantitative standard in Transport Policy 7, with two offroad spaces allocated per dwelling and additional space for cycle storage. This satisfies Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan and reflects the Residential Design Guide's emphasis on integrated parking solutions. The site's location along a public transport corridor further enhances compliance with Strategic Policy 10, offering sustainable travel options and reducing reliance on private vehicles. Provision for three cycle spaces per dwelling reinforces modal shift objectives and aligns with the Strategic Plan's sustainable transport aims.
• 7.6.3 The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division has confirmed that the proposal does not present any material risk to highway safety, network operation, or parking capacity. Their review notes that the proposed access points, visibility splays, and internal driveway layout are acceptable, subject to conditions requiring implementation prior to occupation and retention thereafter. This position reflects the fact that the layout replicates that previously considered under PA 24/00106/B, which was found to be satisfactory.
• 7.6.4 On the basis of consultee advice and compliance with relevant policy tests, the development is judged to accord with Strategic Policy 10, Transport Policies 4 and 7, and General Policy 2(h & i). Subject to conditions securing the approved access, parking, turning areas, and cycle storage, the scheme meets established standards for highway safety and sustainable transport infrastructure. No evidence has been presented to indicate that the proposal would introduce new or residual impacts warranting refusal on highway grounds.

7.7 FLOOD RISK/DRAINAGE MATTERS Flood Matters

• 7.7.1 The updated flood mapping (2025) identifies the entire site as being subject to medium fluvial flood risk, with part of the highway to the front and surrounding land shown as prone to surface water flooding and most of the wider area classified as high fluvial flood risk. This context elevates the importance of compliance with Environment Policy 10, which requires development in flood-affected areas to incorporate appropriate mitigation, and Environment Policy 13, which stipulates that proposals must not increase flood risk within or beyond the site boundary. These policies, together with the technical requirements in Appendix 4 of the Strategic Plan, form the basis for assessment.
• 7.7.2 In response to these constraints, the applicant has submitted a revised and substantially more detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) dated 13 October 2025. The FRA acknowledges the site's flood zone classification and sets out a mitigation strategy that includes raising the finished ground floor level to 16.00, which is 590 mm above the existing dwelling and approximately 200 mm above the adjacent road level. This measure reduces vulnerability for on-site accommodation and is complemented by resilience features such as open-faced boundary treatments to allow floodwater passage, solid ground floor construction without airbricks, minimised low-level service penetrations, electrical points set at or above 450 mm from finished floor level, and all sleeping accommodation located at first floor. These provisions collectively address the requirements of EP10 and reduce the risk of displacement of floodwater onto neighbouring land.

• 7.7.3 The FRA also addresses surface water management through a two-tier disposal strategy. The primary method is an engineered soakaway system, subject to percolation testing to BRE Digest 365 (1991) and detailed design approval prior to commencement. Should soakaways prove unsuitable, a fallback connection to the public surface water sewer at the junction of Main Road and Carrick Park (approximately 47 m from the site) is identified, with attenuation incorporated if required by calculation. All roof outlets, hardstanding gullies and entrance drainage channels would discharge to the approved system, ensuring that runoff is captured and controlled rather than shed across plot boundaries. This approach reflects best practice and mirrors the configuration previously requested by Manx Utilities under earlier schemes.
• 7.7.4 While the proposal increases the building footprint from 94 sqm to 134 sqm and the drained roof area by 57 sqm (to 173 sqm), the FRA demonstrates that these changes are mitigated through raised floor levels, permeable/open boundary treatments, and engineered drainage solutions. In policy terms, compliance with EP13 depends on ensuring that runoff is managed so as not to increase flood risk off-site. The Department notes that neighbour representations queried whether flood risk testing had been carried out and requested publication of results before determination. These concerns are acknowledged; however, the updated FRA is now before the Department and has been reviewed by the statutory consultee on flooding. The DOI Flood Risk Management Team has confirmed that they are satisfied with the FRA and do not oppose the application. In circumstances where technical modelling and off-site flow analysis fall within the remit of DOI FRM, their position carries significant weight. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that any residual concerns about third-party impacts have been appropriately considered by the competent authority.
• 7.7.5 In light of the updated FRA and DOI FRM's position, the earlier flood risk reason for refusal is resolved. Mitigation will be secured through planning conditions requiring the specified finished floor level, resilience measures, retention of open-faced boundary treatments, and full compliance with the FRA. Subject to these safeguards, the proposal accords with Environment Policies 10 and 13 and General Policy 2, and flood risk does not weigh against the scheme. Drainage Matters
• 7.7.6 In assessing drainage elements of the scheme, it is noted that drainage remains a technical consideration in this case, even though no objections have been raised on this matter by neighbours in the current round of consultation. The sole neighbour representation focuses on privacy, design, and highway safety rather than foul or surface water disposal. However, Lezayre Commissioners continue to highlight uncertainty over foul water arrangements and soakaway performance, and these concerns warrant confirmation from the Drainage Authority.
• 7.7.7 Despite consultation on 30 November 2025, no updated response has been received from Manx Utilities Drainage Team. Notwithstanding, the drainage strategy shown on the current plans is unchanged from that previously accepted under PA 24/00106/B, incorporating a soakaway system supported by a contingency connection to the public drainage network should percolation tests prove inadequate. This fallback approach was specifically requested by Manx Utilities and remains embedded in the design (see Drawing No. 1081-12 rev A under PA 24/00106/B and now proposed 1081-23). In the absence of any new technical objection and given that the scheme reflects a configuration previously deemed acceptable by the statutory consultee, the arrangement is considered proportionate and reasonable for the site. Conclusion
• 7.7.8 The updated FRA and drainage strategy collectively address the site's flood and surface water constraints. Flood risk mitigation will be secured through planning conditions requiring the specified finished floor level, resilience measures, open boundary treatments, and full compliance with the FRA. The drainage approach, engineered soakaways with a defined fallback to the public surface water sewer, reflects a configuration previously accepted by Manx

Utilities and will also be conditioned. Subject to these safeguards, the proposal complies with Environment Policies 10 and 13 and General Policy 2, and neither flood risk nor drainage matters weigh against the scheme.

- 7.8 BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS

• 7.8.1 The site's prolonged vacancy and dense vegetation raise biodiversity considerations, particularly for nesting birds and roosting bats. Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policy 4 require development to protect or enhance nature conservation value, while General Policy 2(d) presumes against harm to protected wildlife or locally important habitats. The absence of an upfront ecological survey is a notable weakness, given the building's traditional form, countryside setting, proximity to the Sulby River, and nearby bat records. A preliminary bat assessment remains essential before demolition to confirm whether mitigation is required and to ensure that the proposal aligns with biodiversity safeguarding objectives.
• 7.8.2 Despite this omission, the DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team does not object subject to conditions and considers the proposed mitigation broadly acceptable. The submitted plans show new native boundary hedges, except at entrances, and five native trees to reinforce ecological value. The existing mature tree adjacent to Mill View will be retained and protected through a fenced Construction Exclusion Zone in accordance with BS5837:2012. To offset temporary habitat loss from hedge removal, six swift nest bricks will be installed on the north and west elevations. DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team also requires a pre-demolition bat survey by a qualified ecologist, with further measures if roosts are confirmed.
• 7.8.3 These measures, together with conditions securing landscaping, nesting provisions, and ecological survey compliance, provide a proportionate response to biodiversity impacts. While the lack of survey data is a shortcoming, the ability to address this through pre-commencement conditions ensures compliance with Strategic Policy 4, General Policy 2(d), and Environment Policies 4 and 5. Subject to these safeguards, biodiversity considerations are considered acceptable.

- 7.9 OTHER MATTERS

• 7.9.1 Concerns regarding overdevelopment have been considered in light of the Appeal Inspector's findings, which confirmed that the proposed scale and footprint would not result in harm to the character or appearance of the area. The current scheme retains the same proportional relationship and therefore does not raise new issues in this respect. Highway safety concerns relating to kerbside parking are mitigated by the provision of two off-road spaces per dwelling, reinforced grass turning areas, and visibility splays that meet Strategic Plan standards. DOI Highways Division has confirmed that the proposal presents no significant negative impact on highway safety or parking, subject to conditions securing the approved layout. Finally, to prevent any future alteration that could reintroduce overlooking or intensify built form, conditions will remove permitted development rights for additional openings and extensions. These measures ensure that residual concerns do not weigh against the scheme.

- 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 The proposal is not without shortcomings. The absence of an upfront ecological survey means reliance on advisory measures to secure biodiversity safeguards prior to demolition, and the internal layout leaves one secondary bedroom in each dwelling dependent solely on rooflights, which falls short of the amenity standards normally sought. These weaknesses weigh against the scheme but are proportionate to site constraints and do not, in isolation, justify refusal.

8.2 Balanced against these limitations are significant positives: the scheme resolves previous refusal reasons relating to privacy and design coherence, delivers a contextually responsive form that respects local character, and incorporates sustainability measures such as solar panels and permeable surfaces. Flood risk has been addressed in principle through a detailed FRA and a two-tier disposal strategy endorsed by the statutory consultee. Biodiversity

enhancements, improved internal layouts, and robust highway arrangements further strengthen the proposal. Subject to conditions securing mitigation and removing permitted development rights, the development accords with the Strategic Plan and is considered acceptable.

- 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 confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.

Decision Made: Permitted Date: 26.01.2026 Signed : Mr Paul Visigah Presenting Officer

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.

Planning Committee Decision 26.01.2026

Application No. : 25/90974/B Applicant : Barry Murphy Proposal : Replacement of existing dwellinghouse with two semi-detached

dwellinghouses

Site Address : East View Sulby Bridge Sulby Isle Of Man IM7 2EU

Presenting Officer : Paul Visigah (correct manually if not the case officer)

Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Planning Committee considered the application at its meeting on 26th January 2026 and agreed with the recommendation to approve the application subject to the officer's amendment to Condition 4. Right to Appeal was extended to 8 Carrick Park, Sulby (who had made a late representation).

The revised Condition 4 shall read: The north-facing bathroom window in Dwelling B, shall be glazed with obscure glass to Pilkington Level 3 (or equivalent) and shall be non-opening below 1.5m internal cill height. The west facing bathroom window on Dwelling A shall be glazed with obscure glass to Pilkington Level 3 (or equivalent). This specification shall be permanently retained thereafter.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupiers from overlooking and loss of privacy in accordance with General Policy 2(g).