Loading document...
Application No.: 25/91066/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs John Williams Proposal: Replacement of existing pitched roof dormer with flat roof dormer to west elevation Site Address: 44 Patrick Street Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1BS Planning Officer: Russell Williams Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 06.02.2026 Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.
When regard is had to the appearance of the rear elevation and proposed development, very little additional harm will arise to the character or appearance of the dwelling or Conservation Area given its existing appearance and, therefore, on balance the proposal is considered to be acceptable in this instance and complies with General Policy 2, Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan, Policy CA/2 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 and the Residential Design Guide.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the following plans and drawings, date stamped 11 November 2025: 2025-041-101 Site Location, Existing and Proposed Site Plan
Right to Appeal None
1.1 The site comprises a semi-detached, two storey cottage which sits on the western side of Patrick Street, overlooking the industrial area to the west.
1.2 The building is finished in rendered walls, slate roof and
1.3 The building has been extended historically to the rear with the additional of a modest mono-pitched white uPVC conservatory and a large dormer window to the roof.
2.1 The application seeks planning permission to replace an existing dormer window to the rear roof slope of the dwellinghouse.
2.2 The new dormer window will be flat roof in design with a white uPVC window to match and grey Cedral cladding to the cheeks and face.
2.3 The dormer window will allow the existing converted roof space to be used as a formal bedroom following the installation of new stair cases in the dwelling and improved head room to meet Building Regulation standards.
3.1 The application site is identified as being zoned for Predominantly Industrial Use on the 1982 Local Plan and the Peel Local Plan 1989. The site is not within, but adjoins the Peel a Conservation Area. The site is in flood zone 1 and falls outside an Area of High Landscape Value.
3.2 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application;
General Policy 2 General Development Considerations
Environment Policy 35 Development within Conservation Areas 42 Existing settlements
Housing Policy
3.3 Paragraph 8.12.1 (Extensions to Dwellings in built up areas or sites designated for
residential use) is pertinent: "As a general policy, in built up areas not controlled by Conservation Area or Registered Building policies, there will be a general presumption in favour of extensions to existing property where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general."
"When considering proposals for the possible development of any land or buildings which fall within the conservation area, the impact of such proposals upon the special character of the area, will be a material consideration when assessing the application. Where a development is proposed for land which, although not within the boundaries of the conservation area, would affect its context or setting, or views into or out of the area; such issues should be given
special consideration where the character or appearance of a conservation area may be affected."
4.2 The Residential Design Guide applies.
5.1 19/00059/B - Installation of replacement windows to front elevation - Refused 5.2 15/00697/B - Replacement of existing polycarbonate conservatory roof with light weight roof tiles - Permitted
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 No consultee replies received.
6.2 No representations have been received from members of the public.
7.1 The key considerations in the determination of the application is the impact of the new dormer window on the character and appearance of the dwelling and Conservation Area.
7.2 The impact of the replacement dormer window will be solely to the rear of the dwellinghouse, as it cannot be seen from the road frontage along Patrick Road and would only be visible within limited glimpsed views from the industrial estate, on lower ground to the west.
7.3 The dormer window will appear overly bulky due to its massing within the small roofplane of the dwelling, however, the existing dormer window is also oversized for the scale of the dwelling.
7.4 As noted at paragraph 4.10.5 of the RDG, "the position within the roof plane, size, and proportion are also important aspects to consider. The size of any dormer should be secondary to the size of the roof in which it will be positioned." Paragraph 4.10.6 of the RDG goes on to advise that "dormers that would be as wide as the house, and run flush or close to the elevations/roof ridge of the house, will not normally be supported."
7.5 Ordinarily a dormer window of this scale would not be permissible, but regard needs to be had to the existing appearance of the dwellinghouse to the rear and to the justification for the new addition to the roof.
7.6 The dormer window is required in order to create sufficient headroom within the converted roof space to meet Building Regulations such that the room can be safely occupied as a bedroom. The submitted photographs demonstrate the existing issues with this being possible and the justification is noted.
7.7 The appearance of the rear elevation of the dwellinghouse has been severely compromised by the erection of the first floor uPVC conservatory which dominates the appearance of the building when seen from the rear gardens of properties in the immediate setting. It is assessed that the flat roof dormer window would be subservient visually to the two storey outrigger to the rear and whilst its massing would normally be resisted, when compared to the existing appearance of the rear elevation, there will be little change.
7.8 The proposal will not be visible from public vantage points in the Conservation Area and as a result, the character and appearance of the heritage asset will be preserved.
8.1 When regard is had to the appearance of the rear elevation and proposed development, very little additional harm will arise to the character or appearance of the dwelling or Conservation Area given its existing appearance and, therefore, on balance the proposal is considered to be acceptable in this instance and complies with General Policy 2, Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan, Policy CA/2 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 and the Residential Design Guide.
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:
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):
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 : Permitted Date: 04.03.2026 Determining Officer Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton 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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
