Officer Report

Application No.: 25/90001/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Rob & Vivian Mercer Proposal: Extension of existing dwelling including new dormer structures, replacement of windows, doors and front porch Site Address: Mannin Veg Gansey Port St Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5LA Planning Officer: Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken: 30.07.2024 Site Visit: 30.07.2024 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 11.03.2025 _________________________________________________________________

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. The rear dormer and rear roof terrace hereby approved shall be externally clad in dark natural slate to all sides and rear elevations and retained as such thereafter. Reason: in the interest of visual amenity.
• C 3. The dormers hereby approved shall not be constructed any higher than the central ridge line of the existing house nor any higher than the central ridge line of the adjoining property and shall be constructed in full accordance with those details shown on drawing number 12-01 Rev L and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: the proposal has been considered on this basis and that the dormers do not project any higher than the existing central ridge and remain well below the chimney stacks.

• C 4. The rear terrace glazing hereby approved shall not be any higher than 1.1m above the finished floor level of the rear terrace hereby approved, and shall be no taller than 1.3m above the finished floor level of the second floor (FFL 105.320) and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: for the avoidance of doubt given the discrepancies between the heights shown in the approved drawings - noting both heights have been assessed and considered acceptable.

• C 5. Within 12 months of the front porch hereby approved first coming into use, the front pillar and walls must be finished in full accordance with the details shown on drawing number 12-01 Rev L and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: in the interest of best maintaining the original character of the properties set back slightly behind a small enclosed yard, and in the separation from the highway and maintaining symmetry with the adjoining neighbour.

• C 6. No approval is granted to any works on or encroaching into the public highway. Reason: in the interest of highway safety and in response to DOI Highway comments.

• N 1. The applicant is encouraged to consider the installation of UV coating to glazing areas throughout the property to help best mitigate and prevent bird strike to their property in the interest of local bird habitat in their coastal area.
• N 2. The applicant is reminded that any works on land outside of their control would require the permission of the landowner. This is most relevant to those works proposed at the rear as well as works along the highway edge, and the applicant is reminded that no approval is granted to any works outside of the red lines as shown on the approved plans.

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

Subject to conditions the proposal is considered to be an acceptable level of development having within bounds acceptability in terms of visual and neighbouring amenity as to accord with General Policy 2 (b, c, g, h and i) and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and not to undermine the principles of Environment Policy 35 and the Port St Mary Character Appraisal.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the following drawings and information:

• o Drawing number 12-01 Rev L - Proposed Elevations
• o Drawing number 10-02 Rev K - Proposed Floor Plans
• o Drawing number 10-00 Rev A - Existing Floor Plans
• o Covering email correspondence

• - all dated online 21 Feb 2025 and published 26 Feb 2025 and

• Drawing number 12-00 o Design and Access Statement o Planning Statement

• - all dated online as published 02 Jan 2025 _________________________________________________________________

Right to Appeal

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

• o Port St Mary Commissioners - No objection
• o Department of Infrastructure - No objection subject to conditions which have been applied

_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

1.0 SITE - 1.1 The site relates to Mannin Veg, Gansey Road, Port St Mary. A traditional two storey semi-detached dwelling with an existing flat roof dormer on the front elevation facing over the bay. The property is set back slightly from the highway and has a small walled front yard. At the rear there is an existing outrigger finished with a cat slide roof. There is terraced garden space at the rear access only by a side gate part way up the slope of the rear boundary. Sitting at the top of the hill behind the house is field 414756.

2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed are a number of extension and alteration works to provide additional living space these include:

• o Removal of the existing front dormer and installation of new replacement flat roof dormer
• o Installation of new flat roof dormer to rear with central patio doors
• o Infilling of existing rear yard and upwards first floor extension resulting in loss of existing cat slide.
• o creation of rear flat roof terrace above first floor accessed from proposed rear dormer.
• o Demolition and rebuilding of front garden wall and pillars
• o Erection of new flat roof front porch
• o Installation of replacement windows

- 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 The site has been subject to three previous applications, most relevant in this case being 24/00607/B for the erection of front porch, rear extension, pitch dormer roof, rear terrace and roof, window and door alterations which was REFUSED.

• 3.1.1 Whilst the rear infill, first floor upwards extension, rear roof terrace and replacement window works were considered acceptable subject to conditions, the application was refused due to the unacceptable and negative impact of the front and rear dormers as well as the front porch. The application was refused on the following two grounds:

• o R1. By reason of the design of the dormers particularly their scale, design, height and mass coupled with the misaligned front window design and their solid bulky top heavy appearance both dormers are considered to have a significant adverse visual impact on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling, streetscene and surrounding coastal area and having a negative contribution to the area contrary to Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2 (b, c, g) and Environment Policy 42 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016. The proposals would also undermine the principles of Environment Policy 35 in failing to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the proposed Conservation Area and the Port St Mary Character Appraisal
• o R2. Although having a subordinate height, by reason of the 2.3m projection and overall footprint of the front porch is considered to have an unacceptable and adverse visual impact on the overall character and appearance of the existing dwelling and having a negative impact and negative contribution on the overall streetscene and surrounding area minded that such large front porches are not typical features found throughout the older dwellings within the PSM proposed conservation area contrary to Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2 (b, c, g) and Environment Policy 42 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016. The proposals would also undermine the principles of Environment Policy 35 in failing to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the proposed Conservation Area and the Port St Mary Character Appraisal. 3.2 Other previous applications:
• o 98/01953/B - infilling of rear yard with new extension finished with catslide to match and new small peaked dormer at first floor - APPROVED
• o 98/01330/B - installation of new windows - APPROVED

- 4.0 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 The site is designated as 'Predominantly Residential' in the Area Plan for the South

(2013). The site is within a proposed Conservation Area. The site is not recognised as being at any flood risk. Directly adjoining the site is an area of Public Open Space (POS) and which is recognised as being of some ecological importance on the APS2013 proposals map.

4.2 The following policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 are particularly relevant to this proposal:-

• o Strategic Policy 5 - new development to make positive contribution;
• o General Policy 2 (GP2) - Development within land-use zones and general standards
• o paragraph 8.12.1 - presumption in favour of residential development in residential areas;
• o Environment Policy 35 - preserve or enhance conservation areas
• o Environment Policy 42 - new development must be designed to take into account character and identity of locality

4.3 Section 4 of the Residential Design Guide (RDG) covers extensions and 4.10 dormer extensions. - 4.4 Port St Mary Character Appraisal (PSMCA) contains reference to dormers on pages 9, 16 and 19 which recognises dormers in the area on Victorian properties and including 'McArd' style triangular dormers and inappropriate oversized and enlarged window openings. - 4.5 The PSMCA also acknowledges Gansey Bay as forming key views into the Conservation Area, and forming part of the largest area of POS. From page 8 of the PSMCA it recognises the variety of houses within PSM reflecting the different phases of its development. The strong continuous terrace at the top of the bay built in a curve reflecting the curve of the bay, most infill development along here has been designed sympathetically in form and mass, but detailed design like window styles and opening method being out of character. The St Mary's Bay apartments also being out of scale with its neighbours, and Dolphin Apartments both inappropriate in scale and character. Chapel Bay House (former boat house) is the only property along here recognised for being distinct and totally individual, not only for PSM but probably within the IOM. - 4.6 The following Policies from the Area Plan for the South 2013 are relevant:

• o Sections 3.12, 3.13, 3.14 - recognising the distinctiveness of Port St Mary and its traditional older buildings.
• o Landscape Area E9 - Bay ny Carrickey

5.0 REPRESENTATIONSCopies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This reportcontains summaries only.

5.1 Port St. Mary Commissioners - No Objection (dated 30/01/2025)

5.2 Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division - Do not oppose (14/01/2025) no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking, providing the front yard boundary area is the same size as the existing front yard boundary (to make sure the front boundary does not encroach onto the adopted public highway). - 5.3 Comments were also sought from DEFA RB officer and Manx National Heritage although no comments had been received at the time of writing the report 11/03/2025.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The IOMSP indicates at 8.12.1 that there is a general presumption in favour ofresidential development in residential zoned areas and so, just as the previous application, the

principle of alteration and extension of the property is acceptable. The test of success falls to whether the works would have adverse impact on the existing house, on the adjacent property or on the surrounding area in general. GP2 contains the general standards towards acceptable development, in addition consideration shall also be given to SP5, EP's 35 and 42, as well as consideration to PSMCA and the RDG in assessing that impact. Regard shall be given to the overall visual impact of the works on the existing dwelling and surrounding streetscene area, amenity impact on the neighbouring living conditions and whether there would be any adverse impact on highways or ecology.

6.2 Existing dwelling and Character of Site and Surrounding Area

• 6.2.1 The existing dwelling has a non-traditional flat roof box dormer covering most of the front roof, the slope of which looks already to have been adapted to created increased roof space and which is tile hung to best mimic a traditional roof. The adjoining neighbour has a similar box dormer and roof slope modifications, both have been adapted as a pair. Whilst these flat roof dormers are not typical for these older traditional dwellings, there are a number of them throughout PSM and this is recognised in the PSMCA. The existing dormers are both stepped in from each edge and are vertically aligned with the main windows and doors on the front elevations, this coupled with the tile hung frontage helps to mimic a traditional roof form when viewed from the front elevation. The works being no taller than the main ridge and chimney stacks helps to retain the overall mass, form and proportion of the original host traditional dwelling.
• 6.2.2 At the rear the property remains largely unchanged having a traditional slate roof cat slide out over the outrigger and with only small roof lights puncturing the form. When viewed from the gable side, it is this sloping catslide roof line that reinforces the traditional qualities of the dwelling, especially when compared to the front roof line which has quite clearly been altered.
• 6.3 Proposed Dormers

• 6.3.1 The previous peaked dormer proposals were considered to be out of character, top heavy, bulky, obtrusive and of inappropriate design and finish having adverse impact on the dwelling and when viewed alongside its neighbour and from the streetscene and wider area. The proposal now splits the front and rear dormers into two separate elements. Front Dormer
• 6.3.2 The proposed front dormer now seeks to replicate the existing dormer, it has a matching position, flat roof design, width, height and proportion so as to not result in any new or adverse impact beyond the existing arrangement to warrant a concern. While it will have a slightly more contemporary design compared to the neighbours dormer this is not considered to be to such a degree as to harmfully set it apart or to negatively impact the pair or wider streetscene and is acceptable in this respect. Rear Dormer
• 6.3.3 These types of large dormers are not typical features on older traditional dwellings and often their installation of this size, scale and design and on semi or terraced properties like this can have negative and unacceptable visual impact as outlined in the Residential Design Guide and Planning Circular 3/91 as well as impact on neighbouring amenity through overlooking and overbearing impact.
• 6.3.4 The key public views are to the front elevations of both properties and to the side gable elevation of Mannin Veg, although when passing the site the eye is more so drawn to the bay and coastline beyond the properties. The notable contributors of the pair are their two storey traditional render frontages and run through front eaves line, their simplistic two up two down windows and door formation, and the large stack and large blank massing of the side gable and defined roof eaves line of Mannin Vig sloping into the bank at the rear.

• 6.3.5 Proposed now is a rear dormer of similar height and flat roof design as at the front. It will be slightly wider and sitting closer to the edge of the rear roof plane, but will be set in with a sufficient gap to ensure the existing strong gable eaves/roofline sloping back to the rear is maintained. The dark clad slate finish will also help to contract with the render and reinforce this sloping building line.
• 6.3.6 It is undoubtable that the dormer will be visible when passing the side gable, and will have some negative impact in not being a typical traditional feature, however minded that the rear roof slope is not a significant contributor there is some flexibility in its alteration. Taking into consideration the siting, position and design of the dormer being flat roofed, not projecting beyond the original building line, being dark tile hung and ultimately not interrupting the original sloping gable roof line, which is to be preserved, that its installation in this instance is acceptable. The proposed rear dormer is not considered to be so visually harmful as to result in any negative impact on how the existing dwelling it's viewed in the streetscene or surrounding area.

6.4 Rear Infill - Ground Floor

• 6.4.1 The infilling at ground floor between the existing outriggers duplicates that of the previous application and remains unobjectionable.

6.5 First Floor Upwards Extension

• 6.5.1 The increase of height at first floor results in the removal of the traditional cat slide roof and its replacement with a new flat roof extension which would be at odds with the traditional qualities of the main house and have some negative impact. However given its size, scale and position not projecting any further than the end of the existing cat slide, and the similar use of contrasting dark cladding materials helps to minimise its impact and ensuring the sloping edge of the original cat slide profile is retained. The works in this instance are not considered to be so unreasonable as to warrant a refusal or to cause significant adverse harm to the existing house or surrounding area. Again the set back position of the dwelling and proximity to the sloping bank at the rear help to mitigate the prominence of the works and are not considered to detract from the overall streetscene or to views of the coast beyond.

6.6 Rear Terrace

• 6.6.1 There are roof lights on the neighbours rear roof slope and these sit very close to the terrace and serve non-habitable spaces (hallway and a bathroom). The level, scale and height of the terrace itself would not be of such significant scale resulting in any significant overbearing or overshadowing impacts. The floor level of the terrace and roof lights means there would be some overlooking between the two properties and privacy impacts for both. In order to minimise this a screen was originally proposed along the edge nearest the neighbour's roof-lights; however by trying to solve one issue resulted in much greater outlook and overshadowing impacts on the neighbours roof-lights. The current proposed omits the screen and continues with lower level balustrade glazing. Minded of the roof lights serving a nonhabitable hallway space the proposal is not considered to result in any significant harmful overlooking and the reduced balustrade glazing helps to ensure no overshadowing and outlook issues. Also mindful that in reality the use of external terraces is rare given local weather and in this case too being north facing and likely in shadow of the dormer most of the day.

6.7 Terrace Glazing and Ecosystems

• 6.7.1 Details on the drawing indicate a UV coating system of glazing to be installed in an attempt to deter bird strike. The setback location behind the house where it is already somewhat enclosed is already expected to limit passing bird and bird strike and the area of glazing is fairly small so the anticipated strike is hoped to be low. The site is not a designated ASSI, is not a nature reserve nor within any recognised ecological area, it would be in the applicants interest to install strike prevention methods but is not a fundamental matter to condition in this instance given the small scale area of the glazing to the rear.

• 6.7.2 It is also noted that the drawing show the terrace glazing at different heights between the section and elevations. Minded of this, a note is to be added to best promote the bird strike measures being installed, but that a condition in respect of the glazing heights is added to ensure the glazing is installed no taller than 1.1m above FFL of the rear terrace and no taller than 1.3m above the FFL of second floor for the avoidance of doubt and both heights have been considered as part of this application and are acceptable.

6.8 Further Details Provided By Applicant Re: Neighbour Boundary and Rear Terrace

6.7.1 As part of the previous application, concern was raised as to the potential for the proposed works breaching the shared boundary and on parts of the site that may not be in full control of the applicant. The applicant provided further details explaining that the area of works are in full control of the applicant. Nevertheless a note will be added to the application to remind them of this.

6.9 Front Porch

• 6.9.1 There are two matters to consider in this respect and following on from the previous refusal, the visual impact of the porch itself on the existing dwelling and streetscene, and whether there are any potential highway impacts as a result of works along the highway edge. Porch - Visual Impact
• 6.9.2 The proposed porch remains contemporary in its style and design but now has a smaller design with a reduced footprint and slimmer flat roof profile. The proposal would block views of the original doorway and would create some unbalance to the frontage of the pair of dwelling and this would weigh against the proposal and having some negative impact as well as resulting in the loss of the existing pillar and wall which contribute to the traditional qualities of the frontage.
• 6.9.3 However, the reduced size and scale as well as the flat roof design does help to maintain a subordinate appearance and retains a gap between the upper floor windows. It is clear that its contemporary design is to have cohesion with other works proposed throughout the property including the new dormer and replacement windows.
• 6.9.4 Although now smaller and of more acceptable size and scale, it is accepted that yes the porch will have some negative impact compared to the simplistic and traditional arrangement of the frontages of these cottages. However taking into consideration that the conservation area is not formally adopted, the location at the end of the row of dwellings, the size and scale of the proposal not dominating or overpowering the frontage, that the property has already been subject to extension and alteration, and that there are some other porches found in nearby areas that the proposal in this case is considered to be within the bounds of acceptability not having such an adverse impact on the overall appearance of the dwelling and streetscene as to warrant a refusal in this case. Porch and Wall - Highway Impact
• 6.9.5 The proposal now reduced the projection and takes the porch away from the edge of the boundary - works are indicated to be within land owned by the applicant. DOI have indicated that providing the front yard boundary area is the same size as the existing front yard boundary (to make sure the front boundary does not encroach onto the adopted public highway) that they would have no concerns. A condition to remind the applicant that no approval is granted to any works on to the highway can be applied for the avoidance of doubt.

6.10 Replacement Windows

• 6.5.1 The existing window vary between 70/30 and 50/50 top opening casements finished in UPVC.
• 6.5.2 The proposed drawings do show a more consolidated and uniform appearance throughout the front elevation having all 50/50 glazing styles, however there still remains a lack of clarity in the opening methods and window material finish. Nevertheless given the

existing windows are top opening and in UPVC materials, the proposal for a more cohesive 50/50 style throughout whether top opening or sliding sash would be acceptable in this case.

6.11 Collectively - Proposed Dormers, rear terrace and infill and porch works.

• 6.11.1 Each element has been assessed independently above and considered to be acceptable in their own right (subject to conditions securing the finished cladding, colour and material finishes). Collectively the works will result in a notable visual change to the building compared to its existing arrangement. However minded of its location, position adjacent the rear sloping bank, the fact that the dwelling has already been subject to some change and minded that of the size and scale of the works not projecting above the existing chimneys or ridge line, and having a contrast between the dark clad extensions and the smooth render walls, that the proposals in this instance are not considered to be so harmful or adverse as to result in any unacceptable visual impact to the property itself, wider streetscene or surrounding area.
• 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 The proposed works are considered to be an acceptable level of development subject to conditions. The application is considered to comply with General Policy 2 (b, c, g, h and i) and Environment Policy 42 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and not considered in this case to undermine the principles of Environment Policy 35 or the PSM Character Appraisal. - 8.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE

8.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).

8.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:

• o applicant (in all cases);
• o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and
• o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.

8.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10.

8.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):

• o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant);
• o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area;
• o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and
• o in the case of a petition, a single representative. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management 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 : 13.03.2025 Determining Officer

Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management

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.