Inspector's Report

Appeal No: AP24/0042 Application No: 24/00522/B

________________________________________________________________ Report on Planning Appeal – written representation case ________________________________________________________________ Site Inspection held on: 25 November 2024 _____________________________________________________________

Appeal by: Ms Patricia Ingram

Against the refusal of planning approval for the demolition of single-storey extension and erection of rear two-storey extension at 15 Hatfield Grove, Douglas

________________________________________________________________ Introduction

• 1. This report provides a brief description of the appeal site and its surroundings, the proposal which is subject to the appeal and relevant policy. The cases for the appeal parties are then summarised, fuller details being available for reference in the appeal case documents. My assessment, conclusion and recommendation follow.

Preliminary matter

• 2. Issues have been raised in respect of the potential disruptive nature of construction works at No 15 Hatfield Grove on neighbouring residents. Also, the possible effect of the new construction relating to existing structures within the property boundaries of neighbouring dwellings, has been a concern for residents. It is very likely that construction work at No 151, a terraced house, has already resulted in some noise and disturbance to neighbours. However, this would be short-lived as any permitted works move towards completion. The impact on other neighbouring structures would be a civil matter between property owners, and any planning permission would not override the rights of a neighbouring homeowner to allow access or inclusion of their property in any works by a third party. Therefore, I have not considered either of these matters further in this report.

Site and surroundings

• 3. The appeal site is located within the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area. This part of the Conservation Area is characterised by long terraces of two-storey houses closely addressing the street, with only small rear yards, many being back-to-back. The rear yards include a gate opening out onto a narrow back lane providing rear access to all the houses, although not suitable for vehicles.
• 4. No 15 is a typical mid-terraced house. Each house in the terrace has a single storey, mono-pitched, tiled roof element which projects out into the rear yard. The mono-pitch roof slopes down towards the neighbouring house’s rear yard with the guttering overhanging the boundary. No 15 is no exception and the single storey element previously accommodated the kitchen and bathroom. At

• 1 The internal stripping out of the building is well advanced as I saw at my site visit.

the site visit it was apparent that the interior of No 15 was being prepared for a total refurbishment.

• 5. The neighbouring homes are, in the main, the same in terms of the relationship between the single storey rear elements of the houses and the rear yards. Even given the relatively small footprint of the rear yards, the juxtaposition of the single storey elements, one to another, with the intervening yards does provide some sense of openness between buildings.
• 6. The terraced houses on the other side of the rear lane2, similarly have small yards, but include two storey, pitched roofed rear outriggers which are obviously original to the design of the terrace.
• 7. No 19 Hatfield Grove, to the west of the appeal site, has been extended in a very similar way to that now proposed3. Relevant policy4
• 8. The appeal site is within a predominantly residential area as identified by the Area Plan for the East. The planning policies most relevant to the appeal are contained within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP).
• 9. IMSP General Policy 2 (GP2) sets out the considerations required for development to be permitted and includes, that proposals should not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality. Policy compliant development should respect the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them.
• 10. In July 2021 the Residential Design Guide (RDG) was published, the aim of which is to help all of those involved in the design process to work together to improve the quality of the built environment. It is intended to apply to any residential development within existing villages and towns, including individual houses, conversions and householder extensions. Whilst I appreciate the RDG is just a guide, its aims and purposes reflect those within the IMSP those being that the design of new development can make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Island. Of particular relevance in this case is the guidance in relation to impacts of proposals upon neighbouring properties.

Case for the Planning Authority5

• 11. The appeal site lies with the Conservation Area. Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) states, (4) where any area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act. This sets out the approach to be taken in determining planning applications, which includes

• 2 Fronting Wesley Terrace.
• 3 The resident of No 19 has confirmed that the two storey extension on their property similar to that now proposed at No 15, was built in the 1990s without the benefit of planning permission, although they say retrospective permission was granted.
• 4 Policies of most relevance.
• 5 Source Planning Officer’s Report, Planning Statement of the Planning Authority and its accompanying documents.

giving great weight to the asset's conservation when considering the impact of a proposed development on the asset.

• 12. The proposed rear extension has a ridge lower than the ridge of the main house. Its appearance is typical for a rear extension to a Victorian terrace, so it is considered that the proposal preserves the character of the Area and passes the test outlined above.
• 13. For the same reason the appeal proposal is not considered to adversely impact on the character of the area, the two-storey outrigger not being an uncommon feature in this area characterised by Victorian terraces.
• 14. Therefore, the main issue, in this instance, is the impact of the proposed twostorey extension on the living conditions of neighbouring residents at No 17 Hatfield Grove 6.

Impact on living conditions

• 15. The terrace has narrow plots. Each house and its existing rear boundary wall as well as its respective single-storey extension has an overshadowing and overbearing impact on neighbouring properties. Therefore, only the additional impact from the first storey of the proposal is relevant.
• 16. No.17 abuts the proposed extension. The ground floor window opening onto the rear yard serves a kitchen/dining area, which makes the opening a primary window for a primary room according to 7.2.3 of the RDG. Regardless of whether this room has a window on the front elevation or not, the increased height would fail the 45-degree rule and the overall height of approx 5.8m right next to this opening is considered to increase the overbearing impact on No 17.
• 17. No.13 abuts the site but not immediately to the proposed extension. The proposed extension only clashes with the 45-degree line from the rear elevation of No.13 by a small corner. Therefore, it is considered that there is no overbearing impact on No.137.
• 18. The proposal passes the 45-degree rule with No.19, so it is considered to have no overbearing impact on No.19.
• 19. The proposed extension would cast additional shadows to both properties to the west and east of it. Although the rear elevation of the terrace is south-facing, the existing shadowing caused by boundary walls is already less than desirable and the situation should not be made worse. Therefore, it is considered that the additional overshadowing impact is not acceptable.
• 20. There is no window on the first floor so there is no additional overlooking impact.

• 6 IMSP GP2 (g).
• 7 The sunlight analysis was not provided within the application so it should be excluded from the appeal. The analysis is still qualitative and not quantitative, given it does not show the specific shadows created by both existing and proposed structures. This means it’s not any different from using the 45 Degree Rule and therefore can’t overweigh the 45 Degree Rule. Further, the analysis also does not show the date the analysis is simulated. Given the length of daytime, it can be assumed that the date is in March or September. The analysis provided is moderate and does not represent the long shadow cast by the proposal in summer or the short daylight scenario in winter. Therefore, the sunlight analysis provided is deeply flawed and should not be considered a sound argument against the 45 Degree Rule.

• 21. There is a general presumption in the favour of extensions and alterations to existing properties8, where such works would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent properties or the surrounding area in general. This goes hand in hand with IMSP Policy STP5 which sets out that new development should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island.
• 22. The existing terrace has narrow plots, which leave the back elevation and rear yards with already poor outlook and lighting. This is a strong reason to maintain the existing amenities for the back elevation and rear yard of No.17 rather than impose a new structure that would further diminish these already poor amenities.
• 23. The proposed two-storey rear extension would make worse the existing overshadowing and overbearing impact on neighbouring properties. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to comply with IMSP General Policy 2 (g) and section 7.3-7.4 of the Residential Design Guide and so the appeal should be dismissed.

Case for the Appellants9 Character and appearance – Conservation Area

• 24. As the proposed rear extension has a lower ridge line, than that of the main dwelling and is approximately two thirds of the width of the house, it is considered to be subordinate in appearance. The proposed extension also follows similar design cues and appearance for a typical rear extension to a Victorian terrace.
• 25. The planning officer’s determination is that the proposal does in fact preserve and enhance the character of the conservation area. There is no reason to disagree.

Impact on living conditions

• 26. It is recognised that an element of overbearing and overshadowing already exists to each of the terraced properties at ground floor level, and as such only the additional impact created by the erection of the first-floor extension should be considered.
• 27. The proposed two storey extension has been designed with no windows looking into No.17 from either the ground or first floor level. Reference has also been made to another refused application at 23 Hatfield Grove10. Each application is determined on their own merits, however the Inspector’s conclusion on application 11/00429/B11 sets out that the actuality of a two-storey extension presented no harm, but the inclusion of the balcony would contravene the privacy of the neighbouring dwellings.

• 8 IMSP paragraph 8.12.1.
• 9 Source Statement of Case of the Appellant (dated September 2024) and rebuttal dated November 2024. The Statement of Case includes the outcome of a simple sun path tracking tool which has not been reproduced in this statement but has been considered in the assessment below.
• 10 Dismissed at appeal October 2011 – 11/00429/B.
• 11 Determined at appeal.

• 28.No.19 has erected a two-storey extension which also could be considered as a typical example, and while the following applications have never seen fruition, permissions were previously granted for two more two storey extensions on Nos.9 & 13 Hatfield Grove.
• 29. The addition of the extension is unlikely to exacerbate the level of overshadowing caused to the neighbouring property (No 17) to an unacceptable level for the following reasons.
• 30. With regards to natural light, the nature of the neighbour’s already confined yard, being approximately 1.65m wide (East to west) x 3.5m long (South), and enclosure on all four sides by tall walls, means it is likely that the enclosed yard is already shaded until around 11am when the sun is close to being in its most southernly position and light is coming directly over the rear boundary wall.
• 31. As the existing rear yards of all the properties on this side of Hatfield Grove benefit from facing close to due south, it is not anticipated the proposed extension would have an unacceptable level of overshadowing and is likely to be outside of the path of the sun by 11am.
• 32.The proposed outlook from the ground floor would differ given there is already an existing extension in place, and from the first floor the proposed extension would not create an overbearing impact given that the neighbouring windows are set away from the boundary wall and the direct outlook is towards the back of an existing two storey terrace.
• 33.The planning officer gives Primary status to the ground floor dining room window. The potential loss of light to this window is a major consideration in the Department’s determination of this proposal. This window services an open plan dining/living area which benefits from large windows to the front of the property and so should be considered as secondary windows, thus giving less weight to the impacts.
• 34.The proposed two storey extension would have a modest impact on the residents of No.17. It would be short lived, with the sun reaching a position high enough and far enough due south to counter act this in most cases by 11am.
• 35.No.13 Hatfield Grove is situated to the east of No.15 and the proposed extension is situated as far as possible away from the rear yard and windows serving habitable rooms in this house. This proposal would have virtually no impact on No.13, a point accepted by the planning officer.
• 36. Several references have been made to the 45 degree rule from the Residential Design Guide 2021.

• 37.While this approach is sensible in most situations, this advice/guidance should not be universally adopted as a standard, as it is impractical to achieve in some instances such as ours where the development is on a terraced property that is barely more than 4.5m wide.
• 38.Paragraph 4.6.7 of the RDG states this is for guidance only, and passing the test does not mean automatic approval, nor the reverse. As such each property should be assessed on its own merits.
• 39.The RDG also sets out at paragraph 4.6.8 that the 45-degree approach will not always be appropriate and in certain cases there will be other factors that will carry as much, and potentially more weight, such as orientation, and changes in levels.
• 40.The RDG is not planning policy, it is a guide, a useful tool for all parties but should not outweigh those policies set out by the Town and Country Planning Act and the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
• 41.The planning officer has stated that there is no presumption in favour of development. This is simply not true, under the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, General Policy 2, which states that development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of the Strategic Plan, will normally be permitted subject to criteria a - n.
• 42.This application has been well thought out, achieves the objectives set out by the Appellant, preserves the character of the conservation area, and generally accords to all the principles set out in General Policy 2 a - n. The appeal should therefore be allowed.

Other Parties Comments of neighbouring resident (No 13 Hatfield Grove Douglas)

• 43. I would like to object to the erection of the rear two storey extension on the basis of:

•  Loss of light Overshadowing/loss of outlook (although not loss of view as such)
•  Overlooking and loss of privacy
•  Effect on Conversation Area

• 44.In respect of the above I believe a two-storey extension would impact the light to my property adversely effecting my wellbeing/mental health and privacy. I already have limited access to direct sunlight in the hours of daylight and this would compound the issue. I spend a reasonable amount of time in my yard due to health reasons. I also understand the property is in a conservation area and

• previous applications have either been rejected (21 Hatfield Grove) or advised not to proceed. Acceptance of this application could result in more applications being submitted to the detriment of this conservation area.
• 45.None of the houses in this terraced row (other than no 19 which we understand was outside of the current planning remit) have a second-floor extension as proposed by 15 Hatfield Grove, and therefore, the proposed second floor extension would not be in keeping with the area. The majority of the houses in the road either have 2 bedrooms & a bathroom on the second floor or 3 bedrooms on the second floor with ground floor bathroom so a second-floor extension is not a common style in this area.
• 46.With regard to overshadowing, having lived in the property for some 24 years I can state that my property does indeed have minimal sunlight due to the nature of the surrounding buildings, but is not significantly in the shade all day and does have sunlight usually between the hours of 10am to approximately 3pm (in the summer). If a second-floor extension was to be erected I would anticipate the overshadowing would affect the already limited light to my property from approximately 11am onwards thus significantly reducing the current sunlight thus causing said overshadowing. In addition, whilst the 45 degree aspect only affects a corner of my property, the height of a second floor extension I believe will still affect my property in what is a tight terraced area.

Comments of neighbouring resident (No 17 Hatfield Grove Douglas)

• 47. Loss of light – if the two-storey building is accepted, this would restrict the light into our property severely in our kitchen and dining/lounge area, and we both, along with our extended family living in the property, feel that this would be detrimental to our health. The loss of light through our windows would have significant impact to our health and wellbeing and most importantly mental health.
• 48. The proposed extension would invade our space with the removal of the wall facing onto our property. There is currently decking placed and secured to that wall, to allow the family to sit outside in the daylight. Currently we have a maximum 15 hours, daylight including sunlight between 8am – 3.30pm, daily. The proposed extension would block our daylight via the windows within the kitchen and dining/lounge area and will also restrict the daylight/sunlight in the outside area, where we currently sit out daily, weather permitting, for health reasons.
• 49. The planning application will also cause overshadowing and we would be overlooked which would have an overbearing impact to all the family residing at this property. This would further impact on our privacy and ability to feel secure on our own property.
• 50. A previous planning application was rejected in 2011 at No 23 Hatfield Grove, for the following reasons - siting design, projection and height would result in demonstrable harm to the residential environment of No 21 Hatfield Grove in

• terms of overshadowing, loss of light, being overbearing and being visually intrusive.
• 51. For these reasons the proposal should be rejected. Comments of neighbouring resident (No 19 Hatfield Grove)
• 52. The extension would overlook neighbouring properties in Hatfield Grove and Wesley Terrace, compromising privacy. Also, it would put some properties in the shade. Some properties don't get any sunlight at any time of day. The lane is only a narrow service lane. I should add that my property, 19 Hatfield Grove, does have a 2-storey extension but this was built by a previous owner in the 1990s who did not have planning permission, but retrospective permission was granted.
• 53. Highway Services have considered the proposal and have no highways interest.
• 54. Douglas Borough Council have considered the proposal and have no objection. Assessment by the Inspector

Character and appearance – Conservation Area

• 55. The appeal site’s location within the Conservation Area requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance as a statutory duty.
• 56. The design of the proposed two-storey rear extension has proved to be uncontroversial. Its design presents a subservient addition to the main house, reflecting the existing roof form and respecting the domestic scale of the individual property.
• 57. However, in considering the character and appearance of a Conservation Area this goes beyond just the design of the proposal. The wider significance of the area needs to be considered and the impact of the proposal upon it.
• 58. As already highlighted the Conservation Area is characterised by lengthy Victorian Terraces. Some terraces include two-storey outriggers and others don’t12.
• 59. The long, essentially unbroken terrace of Hatfield Grove does not include the two-storey outrigger as a characterising feature. The introduction of such a rear extension, whilst mirroring those of the houses in Wesley Terrace, would interrupt the simple rhythm and balance of the Hatfield Grove terrace, which is an important contributor to the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area.
• 60. Such variations in the layout and composition of the various terraces, which make up this part of the Conservation Area, are important elements in considering character and appearance. It is these variations which establish the character of the area of dense urban housing centrally located in Douglas.
• 61. The introduction of the proposed two storey rear extension would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area as a whole. In

12Wesley Terrace, which backs onto Hatfield Grove and the appeal site, does include outriggers from which the proposed design takes some inspiration.

addition, granting permission could encourage other such additions to the terrace, which would further erode the contribution that Hatfield Grove makes to the overall significance of the Conservation Area.

• 62. I do appreciate the impact of the proposal on the Conservation Area has not proved an issue between the Appellant and the Planning Authority13. However, those objecting to the scheme have raised it as a concern and I concur with their reservations in this regard.
• 63. Therefore, I consider that the appeal proposal would unacceptably compromise the terms of IMSP Environment Policy 35 which indicates that within conservation areas only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area will be permitted and will ensure that the special features contributing to character and quality are protected against inappropriate development.

Living Conditions

• 64. The main focus of concerns for the Planning Authority and objectors, in respect of this proposal, rests with the impact on the living conditions of neighbouring residents. As already described, each of the terraced houses in Hatfield Grove14 has a small rear yard15, including a mono-pitched roof single storey rear element to the house, the side wall of which sits on the common boundary with the neighbouring house.
• 65. To the east No 13 adjoins No 15. The common eastern boundary between the houses is the side wall of the existing single storey element of No 13. Therefore, between the rear yard of No 13 and the proposed two-storey extension would be the mono-pitched single storey element of No 13 and the rear yard of No 15. There are no first-floor windows in the proposed outrigger.
• 66. Therefore, the proposed extension would be located at a sufficient distance and orientation from the private areas of No 13, in the rear yard, to avoid an unacceptable loss of light or overshadowing during the majority of the day. In addition, with no first-floor window proposed there would be no loss of privacy.
• 67. Similarly, No 19 would be at some distance to the proposal and would not be unacceptably impacted upon by the extension.
• 68. Therefore, the impact on the living conditions of neighbouring residents centres on those relating to the occupiers of No 17 Hatfield Grove. This property lies to the west of No 15. The existing mono-pitched roof to the rear element of No 15 has an eaves level on the boundary with No 17 comparable with the simple rear boundary wall of the yard which would be just over 2 metres in height. The proposed extension would add a second storey onto the single storey element, the side wall of which would stand on the common boundary between the two houses. This would result in a blank wall of some 4.873 metres in height rising up over the small rear yard of No 17.
• 69. In addition, the corresponding mono-pitched rear element of No 17 accommodates a kitchen which flows through to the dining and living space towards the front of the house. The kitchen includes a window looking out onto

• 13 They both assessed the proposal in this regard and found no harm.
• 14 A continuous terrace.
• 15 Generally orientated to the south.

the rear yard and the blank wall and roof of the existing single storey rear element of No 15, with the roof pitching away from No 17. The dining area benefits from a part glazed door out onto the rear yard and the living area has two medium size windows to the front elevation of the house.

• 70. It is reasonable to class the part glazed door and kitchen window of No 17 as being primary sources of light for internal spaces for the purposes of this assessment as they are the only sources of light to these rear spaces.
• 71. The kitchen window and rear yard benefits from sunlight for much of the day which would vary with the seasons. With only a small area of private space it becomes even more important to maintain an area where residents can enjoy the open air in what is a very dense urban area.
• 72. The proposed two-storey extension wall16 set on the common boundary would over-shadow the rear yard of No 17 for much of the day creating a shaded and likely less inviting space to enjoy. It would visually dominate the neighbouring rear space looming up above the rear yard.
• 73. The existing outlook from the kitchen window, whilst not extensive does give the residents a view of their private space and I noted they had tried to cheer up the blank nature of the existing boundary wall with ornamentation. What is proposed would be more than two metres higher than the existing wall and would present a stark, blank and dominant feature which would shade the kitchen window from sunlight for most, if not all of the day, and reduce the amount of daylight entering to serve this living space. This would be similarly true of the window to the dining area although to a lesser extent due to its orientation and size of opening.
• 74. The Appellant suggests that light from the front windows would provide light to the living space at the back of the house. I cannot agree17. The kitchen and the back part of the dining area are at a distance to the front windows, and the overshadowing which would result from the two-storey extension, would not be mitigated by light entering through the front windows due to the size of the internal spaces.
• 75. Much has been made of the matter of the 45 degree approach set out in the RDG. The Appellant has drawn my attention to paragraphs 4.6.7 and 4.6.8 of the RDG which set out that the RDG and 45 Degree Approach is for guidance only and is not a rule to be slavishly applied. It will not always be appropriate and other factors will come into play which may carry as much and potentially more weight in any assessment.
• 76. In my judgement, having made a thorough inspection of the appeal site, the neighbouring properties and the environs, I consider that the appeal proposal would present a dominant feature which would overshadow the adjoining rear open space of the neighbouring property at No 17 Hatfield Grove, diminishing the levels of daylight and sunlight, both internal and external to the property and resulting in an unacceptably overbearing outlook for the residents of the house.

• 16 At a height of 4.873 metres.
• 17 At my site visit I made an internal inspection of No 17 and made my own assessment of lighting within the rooms on the ground floor.

• 77. In this way the living conditions of the residents of No 17 would be unacceptably harmed contrary to the terms of IMSP Policy GP2 (g). Conclusion
• 78. In considering this proposal I have found an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenities of the residents of No 17 Hatfield Grove resulting from the proposed rear two-storey extension.
• 79. Harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area has also been identified. This would be of considerable weight in the negative balance of the decision. However, the extent and severity of the impact and resultant harm to living conditions, as identified above, in itself, would be sufficient to weigh against the proposal and would justify the dismissal of this appeal.
• 80. In reaching this view I have taken into account that the Appellant is renovating No 15 with the intention of bringing the property back into the housing market either for sale, rental or self-occupation which should be encouraged. But this is not sufficiently weighty a benefit to outweigh the harms I have identified.
• 81. I have also taken into account the precedents suggested by the Appellant for an extension of this nature. However, each proposal should be determined on its own merits and I have made it clear why this particular two-storey extension would not be acceptable in this location.

Recommendation

• 82.Therefore, I recommend that the appeal be dismissed. If accepted, this recommendation will have the effect of upholding the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application. The reason for refusal is set out at Annex A. Should the Minister agree that there is an unacceptable impact on the Conservation Area, as set out in the report above, reason for refusal 2 has been added.
• 83. In the event that the Minister should agree with the Appellant’s case and decide to grant planning permission, recommended conditions are attached at Annex B below. They are based on the conditions suggested by the Planning Authority as part of their Statement of Case. The reasons for each condition are set out within the schedule.

Reason

• 84. The impact of the proposed two-storey extension would undermine the terms and objectives of the IMSP and the Residential Design Guide.

Frances Mahoney MRTPI IHBC

Independent Inspector

30th January 2025

Annex AReasons for Refusal

• 1. The proposed two-storey rear extension would exacerbate existing overshadowing, having a dominant, overbearing impact on No 17 Hatfield Grove. This would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the residents of that house, compromising the terms of General Policy 2 (g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide.
• 2. The proposal would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area, undermining the strategic aim of the IMSP to preserve, protect, and improve the quality of the environment, having particular regard to built heritage, and the terms of IMSP Environment Policy 35 would be unacceptably compromised.

Annex BSchedule of Conditions

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.