Inspector's Report

Appeal No: AP24/0033 Application No: 24/00415/B

________________________________________________________________ Report on Inquiry into Planning Appeal ________________________________________________________________ Inquiry held on 26 November 2024 Site Inspection undertaken on 25 and 26 November 2024 _____________________________________________________________ Appeal by: Jimmy and Janine Cubbon

Against the refusal of planning approval for ground floor extension and alterations and conversion of existing roof into habitable space by raising the roof, erection of 2 dormers and installation of roof lights at 1 Bradda View, Ballakillowey, Colby

---

Present

For the appellants – Chris Millar – Penketh Millar Ltd

Jimmy and Janine Cubbon – appellants For the Planning Authority – Belinda Fettis Senior Planning Officer Others Nick Peterson – resident 3, Bradda View Colby Norma Peterson - resident 3, Bradda View Colby _________________________________________________________________ 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 matters

• 2. Appendices A and B of the Statement of Case for the Planning Authority offer a simulation of the extent and impact of the appeal proposal both in the landscape and in terms of impact on the living conditions of neighbouring residents.
• 3. However, at the Inquiry the Planning Officer confirmed these images were produced without particularly reference to scale, perspective or any of the normal factors applied when producing accurate photomontages in which one can have confidence when making decisions using such tools.
• 4. Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt I have given these simulations little weight when considering the proposal and its impacts due to the uncertainty in the accuracy of the resulting representation. The decision should be made as a

• matter of judgement and having visited the appeal site and viewed it in the context of its surroundings1.
• 5. Planning permission was granted under reference 20/01340/B for a ground floor extension on the north-west side of the bungalow with a matching hipped roof integrating with the existing low-level pitched roof. At my site visit I saw that the footings had been dug out and the steel work installed for this extension. As a single storey extension work could still proceed as permitted to provide an extension to the kitchen area. However, the appeal proposes the footprint of this permitted extension to become the ground floor of the gable end, roof extension providing a covered first floor deck area. I shall consider it on this basis as an integral part of the overall proposed scheme.

Site, surroundings and the appeal proposal

• 6. The appeal site is located on a prominent corner plot of a cul-de-sac development (Bradda View) just outside of Rushen and Port Erin, but in an established pocket of homes set between the A7 and the Ballakillowey Road. Upon entering Bradda View, which slopes up from the main road, on both sides of the cul-de-sac are very similar detached, single storey homes with comparatively low-profile hipped roofs of insufficient height to accommodate rooms in the roof space without remodelling. The further extent of Bradda View sees the road drop away and the style of development changes to two storey detached houses which do reflect the roof design and external materials of the neighbouring bungalows. Due to the change in levels along Bradda View one is not aware of the change in house type from single storey to two storey on entering Bradda View from the main road, nor when viewing the cul-de-sac from Ballakillowey Road in either direction.
• 7. To the west on the other side of Ballakillowey Road are the open fields and countryside out towards Bradda Head, including some views over Port Erin with the sea beyond.
• 8. The appeal site, No 1 Bradda View, is a single storey detached bungalow typical of the neighbouring properties. Its plot is slightly elevated above the main road and, along with No 2 Bradda View, it presents as a visual introduction to a very pleasant development of what appear to be homes which have retained their commonality in design, character and appearance. No 1 has a frontage to both Bradda View and Ballakillowey Road and its plot is defined on these sides by a low stone wall with a maturing hedge above.
• 9. The appeal proposal involves the raising of the ridge height of the bungalow roof and the re-modelling and extension of the roof to accommodate two bonneted dormers on the front elevation to Bradda View, a gable ended extension to the side fronting Ballakillowey Road and the introduction of a gable ended addition over an existing built form to the rear, to allow for living space to be accommodated above. Relevant policy2
• 10.The appeal site is located within an area identified for Residential use on the Area Plan for the South (APS). The planning policies most relevant to the appeal are contained within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP).

• 1 Inspector visited on two occasions as set out above.
• 2 Policies of most relevance.

• 11.IMSP paragraph 8.12.1 sets out that "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”.
• 12.IMSP Strategic Policy 3 (SP3) identifies that proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by amongst other things having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character.
• 13. IMSP Strategic Policy 5 (SP5) requires new development, including individual buildings, to be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island'. A positive contribution means making places which are attractive and safe areas to live, work and invest in. In order to achieve this, it is essential that detailed design proposals be based around an understanding of constraints and opportunities of the site and that the proposal responds positively to local context, in terms of its scale, form, layout, materials, colouring, fenestration and architectural detailing.
• 14.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. In addition, development does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality.
• 15.IMSP Environment Policy 42 (EP42) states that new development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality.
• 16.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 along with guidance in relation to impacts of proposals upon neighbouring properties.
• 17.Paragraph 3.2.2 of the RDG states that "Extensions should generally have the same roof pitch (angle) and shape as the existing dwelling and the height (roof ridge) should be lower than that of the main building. Also, section 4.9 highlights the importance of careful consideration in respect of corner plots. Paragraph 4.9.2 states, "Extensions in these locations should not be visually over-dominating or disrupt the sense of openness between the properties and the streetscene."

Case for the Planning Authority3

Visual Impact

• 18.The existing roof line of No 1 Bradda View is of a hipped design and has multiple ridges, the highest ridge being measured around 5.5m in height, dropping down around 0.4m and 1m lower than the main ridge. There is a dual pitch roofed porch with a ridge around 1.3m lower than the highest ridge. The increases in ridge heights are proposed to be around 1m, then around 1.3m and 2m respectively. In addition, two gables are introduced, one with a small first floor window in the north-east elevation, the other with a balcony in the north-west elevation above the already approved ground floor extension.
• 19.Paragraph 4.9.3 of the RDG states that extensions on a corner plot should not project further than the building line of those properties on adjacent roads, whilst still respecting the existing dwelling. Taking account of the already approved extension, this proposal does not include elements that are forward of the existing building. However, by virtue of the height and multiple roof elements it would introduce a dominating feature in the street scene of Bradda View, contrary to paragraph 4.9.1 of the RDG.
• 20. Looking onto the site from Ballakillowey Road in either direction on approach to the appeal site there are single storey bungalows. Travelling north on the A36 the first two storey building is around 190metres away. Travelling south on the A36 the first two storey building is around 87metres away. The Ballakillowey Road comprises a mix of building design on its east side and agricultural fields on its west side. The road rises steeply from its junction with Ballafesson Road, the A7 and the A29, and as it nears the bend in the road before Bradda View the gradient lessens. Between the junction and Bradda View the roof line steadily rises with the gradient of the road. Where the road levels off the bungalows start and continue for another 200 or so metres.
• 21.The single storey properties that exist within the street setting of Ballakillowey Road, and the area of Bradda View close to the junction with Ballakillowey Road. The skyline from either direction and from the field opposite is one of taller buildings north and south, however, those taller buildings are on different land levels, some lower some higher and in both cases a distance of two or more buildings away from the appeal site. Therefore, the view leaving Bradda View is one of openness, with the field ahead, across the road. The view travelling north is one of openness because the taller buildings stop and the single storey buildings occur until further up the hillside, adding to the visual openness of this area of Ballakillowey Road. Similarly in reverse heading south, the single storey buildings occur until the land falls away to the south, which is where the two storey buildings begin to such affect that the roof height of the 3rd dwelling south from the junction with Bradda View, although not single storey, its’ roofline is similar to the adjacent bungalow. The result is a seemingly continuous roofline which adapts to the topography. If the height of no.1 Bradda View was increased those visuals would change and because the buildings around it are single storey, the taller building amongst them would dominate the skyline

• 3 Source Planning Officer’s Report, Planning Statement of the Planning Authority and its accompanying documents.

• 22.Paragraph 4.10.1 states that dormer extensions are unlikely to be supported where they are publically visible, unless they already form a positive characteristic of the property or streetscene. There are no dormers on the roof slopes of the existing dwellinghouse or on the dwellings close by the appeal site. The character of this hipped roof bungalow would be obliterated and, in its place, a somewhat uncharacteristic mix of gables, hips, and dormers.
• 23.The RDG offers initial guidance on extensions in which notably the landscape character is protected by scale position and materials. Development within corner plots is identified as a delicate site requiring careful consideration and this is highlighted in paragraph 4.9.2; "Extensions in these locations should not be visually over-dominating or disrupt the sense of openness between the properties and the streetscene”. General Policy 2 expects development to respect the site and wider surroundings so as not to adversely impact either.

Impact on amenities of neighbouring residents

• 24. The introduction of two dormer extensions on the south-west elevation do not introduce window to window relationships with the opposite dwellinghouse, No 2 Bradda View, simply because the dwellinghouse is single storey. However, although separated by the cul-de-sac road, due to the distance and orientation, it is considered that they do introduce overlooking to No 2. Furthermore, the increased height and scale of the dormers introduces a dominance that does not presently exist.
• 25. The first floor window in the north-east elevation will introduce overlooking to the amenity of No 11 The Chase. It is noted that this is the front garden of the dwellinghouse and the window would not introduce any window to window relationships. However, as the view over the fields is the prevalent view it is likely to be a well-used amenity area, thus overlooking is a consideration.
• 26. Due to the orientation of the dwellings and direction of the sun, raising the roof will cast a shadow over the windows and rear amenity areas of No 3 Bradda View, and possibly the front of No 11 The Chase. Raising the roof is considered to result in an overbearing impact upon No 3. Protection of residential amenity applies to the existing and future occupants of the appeal site and other neighbours. It is amenity protected for future generations. The proposal is considered to harm the residential amenity of the existing and future occupants of adjacent residences to varying degrees. Conclusion
• 27. The proposal results in a dwellinghouse that has no resemblance to the original dwellinghouse. It is not so much that the design is not good, more that due to its position and existing vernacular, the design is of an inappropriate scale and vernacular in this location, on this property. Paragraph 3.2.2 of the RDG states that "Extensions should generally have the same roof pitch and shape as the existing dwelling and the height should be lower than that of the main building". Section 4.9 highlights the importance of careful consideration in respect of corner plots. Paragraph 4.9.2 states, "Extensions in these locations should not be visually over-dominating or disrupt the sense of openness between the properties and the streetscene."

• 28. There is a continuous thread through the Strategic Local Plan that development must protect or enhance the landscape and protect residential amenity. By virtue of the increased height and overall volume of extensions this proposal would result in a dominating feature within the streetscene and disrupt the sense of openness. The design would have an overbearing impact upon existing and future residential amenity for the neighbouring dwellinghouses, but, in particular, Nos 3 and 2 Bradda View.
• 29. In weighing up the planning balance, there are large two storey dwellinghouses at the end of the Bradda View cul-de-sac. However, these are on ground significantly lower than the appeal site. There are two storey dwellinghouses at either end of Ballakillowey. However, these do not occupy corner plots and they are at different gradient locations along Ballakillowy. Therefore, those dwellinghouses with or without extensions are an entirely different scenario.
• 30. Therefore, for the reasons set out above the proposal is considered contrary to the RDG, Strategic Policy 3 and General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

Case for the Appellants4

• 31. In consideration of this request to appeal the refusal, reference is made to the Residential Design Guide July 2021 (hereinafter referred to as “Guide”). As noted in this document, ‘the aim of this guidance….to work together to improve the quality of our built environment…encourage creative, innovative and locally distinctive designs that respond to the changing needs of our communities’. We are keen to work together to find a suitable way in which 1 Bradda View can be enhanced in sustainable yet sympathetic way to ensure that this almost 40 year old, 3- bedroom bungalow can reasonably be altered to better house families in accordance with more current and future housing demands in terms of maximising our existing footprint, enhancing the sustainability of the property whilst at the same time modernising the property in a way that sympathetically retains key elements that reflect the character of the property where possible.
• 32.We are ourselves a young family of five with two working parents and three children in full-time education. The RDG makes reference to ‘ensuring our properties contribute to making our Island an even better place to live and work’. The buildings in Bradda View Estate are all now over 30 years old and whilst most have had some form of extension or alteration (as noted in the refusal) no alterations have yet been made to No 1 Bradda View and we are aware that we are the only non-retired residents in all 7 bungalows within Bradda View. Character and appearance
• 33. The full cul-de-sac (Bradda View and Bradda View Grove) is made up of 31 houses. 7 are bungalows and all others are much larger, two-story houses. The style of the houses differs in the part of the cul-de-sac known as Bradda View Grove. No 1 forms part of the cul-de-sac estate but sits on the entrance as an end of row plot.

• 4 Source Statement of Case of the Appellants (dated 15 September 2024). This includes supporting photographs to the appellants’ case, but have not been reproduced in this report, although they have been considered in the Inspector assessment below.

• 34.Due to the steep climb into the estate and the layout and great distance between the bungalows, the bungalows cannot be all viewed together from any one vantage point. In accordance with 1.2.3 of the RDG – ‘effect on neighbouring properties and the character of the building or street’ – noting that No 1 Bradda View, whilst a ‘corner plot’, is an end of road property as far as Bradda View is concerned as it is situated on the entrance to the estate. It also sits on Ballakillowey Road which has a very different and inconsistent lay of houses. Nos 2 & 3 Bradda View form part of Bradda View Estate and No 11 The Chase is on Ballakillowey Road.
• 35.Clarification regarding the use of the word ‘dominating’ feature of the street scene of Bradda View is sought. The larger window on the proposal is on the west side of the house that overlooks the agricultural fields. The west side of the house is adjacent to Ballakillowey Road. On entrance to Bradda View Estate, due to the undulation in the level of the road into the estate itself, the west side of the house has no bearing on the street scene of Bradda View. The proposal to introduce multiple roof elements was to take into account the street scene of Bradda View by retaining a hip on the Bradda View Estate side and ensuring the dormers are in keeping with the shape of the porch nor do they extend beyond the line of the porch.
• 36.Whilst the plans do include two dormers on the Bradda View side, there are countless examples across the island of the addition of dormers to bungalows to enable utilisation of roof space and develop properties without significantly impacting the footprint of a property. In line with the comments of the Senior Planner following submission of our first set of drawings, the then gabble end was removed and replaced with a hipped roof to reduce the visual impact for neighbours in Bradda View. We would like to challenge the statement that the addition of two dormers for secondary habitual rooms are classed a ‘dominating feature’ as there are only 3 bungalows on the left side of the estate before the houses then progress in to significantly larger, two-story dwellings.
• 37.All houses on Ballakillowey Road and the rest of the hillside are a complete mix of 2 story houses, bungalows, dormered-bungalows, 3 storey houses, all completely different in character. Whilst our house sits at the entrance to Bradda View estate, the elevation of the road means that 1 Bradda View is already the dominant property upon entrance. As the estate then slopes down from Ballakillowey Road as you pass only 3 bungalows before reaching much larger, 2-storey houses, all have varying roof lines as a result of the undulation of the road. The last house as you travel up Ballakillowey Road, immediately before Bradda View Estate is not a single storey bungalow and has recently been extended to include new dormers. On the Island there are many examples of dormers having been added to houses where originally there were none.
• 38.The proposal is for the hipped roof on the east side of the house adjacent to No 3 Bradda View to remain. This adjustment was made following discussion with the Senior Planner. The two dormer windows have been suggested for secondary habitable rooms only. The suggested gable is on the north facing side of the house. This is not visible from Bradda View Estate in any way.

• 39.As said, there are 7 bungalows of similar style on the whole of the hillside that is made up of Ballakillowey Road, Bradda View and all other estates accessed from Ballakillowey Road. In accordance with 2.2.1. of the RDG, raising the roof height in this way would enable us to reuse where possible the existing roof tiles in order to retain the character of the house. In accordance with 2.3.2. of the RDG, we would minimise the heat-loss area (exposed elements) to floor area. Rather than extend the existing footprint, the design maximises the use of the existing building in the form of heat and energy. The bungalow at present is very inefficient in terms of efficient heating.
• 40.In accordance with 1.5.4. of the RDG, whilst not a direct planning matter, reference to certain design approaches as being relevant may be necessary. As it currently stands, due to the age of the house, there is no provision for insulation in the roof for example.
• 41.We would challenge the statement that the character would ‘obliterated’ by the current proposal. The proposal was drawn up in such a way that considers the impact of the street scene of Bradda View by retaining the hip. The dormers serve two secondary habitual rooms only. The proposed gable has been included to maximise the use of the space without having an impact on Bradda View as this cannot be seen from the estate. It is sympathetic to both the character of Bradda View and the mix of properties on Ballakillowey Road. There are many other defining characters of the properties in part of Bradda View, primarily the use of Yorkshire stone. Alterations to other defining characters (movement away from the brown windows, dark doors etc) have already been made to many of the houses. The external materials are proposed to match the existing.
• 42.1 Bradda View, whilst a ‘corner plot’ is an end of road property as far as Bradda View is concerned, as it is situated at the entrance to the estate only. It also sits on Ballakillowey Road which has a very different and inconsistent lay of houses. Nos 2 & 3 Bradda View form part of Bradda View Estate and No 11 The Chase is on Ballakillowey Road. Whilst a corner plot, the houses within Bradda View and on Ballakillowey Road are significantly different. We would challenge the statement that 2 dormers are ‘over-dominating’. Whilst the dormers do represent a change, they do not result in a disruption to the sense of openness between the properties and the street scene Impact on living conditions
• 43.It is alleged there would be overlooking from the proposed dormers to No 2 Bradda View. We would question the distance as being over 20 metres from the proposed dormers which are for secondary habitual rooms, the degree of orientation is also questionable in line with the 25 degree rule referred to in the RDG. No 1 is already slightly elevated in comparison with No 2 so there has always been an element of dominance in terms of height. We have the full support of the current residents of No 2 and they have reviewed our plans and offered to provide written evidence of the same.
• 44.In respect of overlooking to No 11 The Chase the proposed gable and first floor window are proposed to house a secondary habitual room. This has not been

taken into consideration. The building nearest No 1 Bradda View on the grounds of No 11 is a garage. The garden of the property is located on the East side of their house and is not visible from No 1 Bradda View. When planning consider a right to a view non-material, it seems extreme to object on the basis that secondary use window would overlook a driveway that a family may use to utilise their view. In addition, the occupiers of No 11 do not agree with the PPO’s comments, are fully supportive of our plans to the extent that they have submitted an email to the Planning Department to evidence the same.

• 45.In response to the claim that the raising of the roof would cast a shadow over the windows and rear amenity areas of No 3 and possibly No 11. The primary habitual rooms of No 3 currently face South. There are then two small windows on the West side of their house that are currently shaded by No 1 Bradda View and one looks directly into our garage. Any shadow cast is currently done so by their own dwelling. Due to the distance and orientation we would challenge the statement that the impact of the raised roof would have any impact on the windows and the rear of No 3. Due to the distance between No 1 Bradda View and No 11 The Chase, we would challenge the statement that any shadow would be cast over any windows of this dwellinghouse or their rear amenity areas. The distance between No 1 and No 11 The Chase is too far for a shadow to be cast over their amenity areas beyond any shadow that is already cast by their own trees. In addition, our neighbours in No 11 The Chase have written to you directly to evidence their support of our application.
• 46.Response in relation to the suggestion that raising the roof would result in an overbearing impact upon No 3. The proposed increase is 1.1m and only 150mm at the eaves with the retention of a hipped roof on the side of the house that is adjacent to No 3. There is no overlooking element or any impact on shadowing so would challenge the statement that this could be considered to have an ‘overbearing’ (this term is seemingly applied in a subjective manner and is not defined) effect. The more modern and sustainable light and space enhancing additions to the property (large window and proposed gable) are on the Ballakillowey roadside of the building and were specifically proposed in such a way to retain the current roof pitch as far as possible in terms of Bradda View and minimise the impact of the extension for the occupiers of No 3 Bradda View. As a result, we would like to challenge the statement that the proposal would have an ’overbearing impact’ upon No 3 Bradda View. No 3 Bradda view currently does not have the views that our house has over the Ballakillowey Road. Their primary habitable rooms currently look directly into our garage and on to the street. Elevation of the roof with the proposed retention of the hip would have no additional bearing on the daylight into or view from their property beyond the current impact as a result of the orientation of our house. The suggested retention of the hip here was to ensure minimal impact upon No 3.
• 47.In response to the allegation that the proposal would harm the residential amenity of the existing and future occupants of adjacent residents to varying degrees, there is no basis given for this statement in the reasons for refusal. This goes against many of the principles referred to in the RDG. The proposal has failed to take into account the need for planning to encourage development of existing properties to bring them in line with the principles referred to in the

• RDG. There should be support for families who wish to enhance and modernise existing properties, in this case one that is over 30 years old, without sacrifice to residential amenities in the sense of outdoor space. Future occupants are likely to include younger families and not just retired persons. Private amenities in the form of retention of useable garden space is key. Retaining the outdoor recreational space in our garden is important as this is where our children play sports safely which is why we were reluctant to extend the footprint of the house any further. Paragraph 4.1.5. of the RDG - to extend the footprint would require a loss of private amenity, external space. In addition, it is no longer the case that teenagers leave home and don’t return. Future occupants are likely to include teenagers and adults into their twenties, while they try to fund their own property acquisitions. We do not feel, therefore, that this element of residential amenity of future occupants of adjacent residents has been taken into account at all.
• 48.In addition, more modern extensions that include an element of extended glass to bring in natural light and maximise local views are increasingly regarded as important. As it currently stands the hallway that runs the length of the bungalow has no daylight whatsoever with no windows or access to natural light. We would also like to refer to paragraph 2.6.1. of the RDG which recommends that consideration is given to neighbours and any concerns they may have. When I approached our neighbours in No 3 to discuss if there were any elements of our proposed extension they may be amenable to reviewing with us, they confirmed that they just don’t want to see the roof line of our house changed. As we are the only owners of a bungalow with a young family, we are the first to give consideration to an extension of the bungalows. All other neighbours have been openly supportive of our approach, recognising that whilst the first to submit an application like this, it is expected that future needs of families will be similar to ours.
• 49.Finally, reference to paragraph 1.1.1. of RDG, the purpose of our application was to enhance the living space of a local five-person family in a modest way that includes an element of ‘locally distinctive’ designs in a way that responds to the changing needs of our communities as the more modern expectation is that young families increasingly seek one bedroom per child. The bungalow is currently 3-bedroom property. The purpose of the design as submitted was to future-proof the house in a number of ways whilst ensuring the style of the house is retained in line with all other houses in the estate, specially referencing the materials used whilst at the same time maximising the use of the existing footprint and addressing many outdated features of the house (in terms of sustainability such as lack of any insulation in the roof space).

Representation Resident No 3 Bradda View

• 50. The appeal proposal would result in a dwellinghouse that has no resemblance to the original dwellinghouse and that the design is of an inappropriate scale and vernacular in the location. It would result in a dominating feature within the streetscene and disrupt the sense of openness. It would have an overbearing impact upon existing and future residential amenity for the neighbouring dwellinghouses.

• 51.The raising of the roof is considered to result in an overbearing impact on No 3; and that the current appeal documentation doesn’t in any way mitigate the objections raised. The referencing of properties on the Sloc Road/Ballakillowey Road as the key comparator within the appeal documentation to differing building heights and designs, draws attention away from the real issue, the coherence of the Bradda View estate; and bears no relevance to the streetscene within the Bradda View estate. None of the properties within the estate have dormers within a raised roof space which would make the property stand out from afar from all the other properties within the estate whose height (bungalows and further inland, houses) was designed to conform to the contours of the land which slopes downwards away from the junction. Allowing this appeal would set an unwarranted precedent.
• 52.The appeal documentation states incorrectly that there are 2 small windows on the west side of my house. Apart from a window in the living room (width 44”; height 48”) which is opposite the garage of No 1 Bradda View, there is a bedroom window (width 68”; height 48”). Due to the size of these windows, I disagree with the appeal documentation statement with reference to point 7.14 that no shadow would be cast over any windows of my house or the rear amenity areas. A summerhouse (height 2.8 metres; length 5 metres; width 3 metres) has recently been erected within 12 feet of the said bedroom window. The appeal documentation makes reference to the bungalow at present being very inefficient in terms of efficient heating and lack of any insulation in the roof space. I can’t understand these statements as since the occupiers of No 1 have been in residence they have replaced the piped gas supplied heating system with an oil-fired heating system and new boiler; and it should be a simple matter to put down insulation in the roof space between the ceiling joists, as is the case in my house.
• 53.Within the appeal documentation assumptions have been made about the lack of impact of reducing the light that comes into my property without ever having been inside. The appeal documentation states “elevation of the roof with the proposed retention of the hip would have no additional bearing on the daylight into or view from their property”. I strenuously disagree with this assumption.
• 54.There is also reference within the appeal documentation to being “the only nonretired residents in all 7 bungalows within Bradda View”; and “future occupants are likely to include younger families and not just retired persons”. This seems to imply that we older people are not the future and that our views and interests are somehow less important. Bungalows may be more appealing to older people looking to downsize so it’s not necessarily the case that future occupants will be younger families.
• 55.A previous planning application 20/01340/B dated 12th January 2021 is referenced in the correspondence which I had no objection to and proposed the erection on the western elevation measuring 6.7m long and projecting approx. 3.3m from the main dwelling.

• 56.The proposed planning application represents a significant expansion of development on the site from this and from its original floor area (an increase stated as 130 square metres). In conclusion, I do consider that the original report and recommendations from the planning officer form a fair and very accurate summary of the impact of the proposed development; not just on my property but on the coherence and consistency of Bradda View as a whole

Representation Resident No 11 The Chase

• 57. Email dated 28 October 2024 – Raise no objections and are happy to let due process proceed, as appropriate.

Other Parties

• 58.The representations received at the application stage are as follows:

Arbory and Rushen Parish Commissioners- Design of the building seems good

but note the objections and request that the objections are carefully considered to ensure that the application complied with relevant legislation, regulation and policy.

DOI Highways Services - no interest. Resident's comments of which the following material points are listed: Objection

• o Scale of development will stand out.
• o All the existing dwellings have the same heights. The proposed roof line will stand out.
• o Raised back wall incorporating a first floor window will make the property highly visible.
• o Loss of light to multiple rooms of No.3 due to the proposed height.

Assessment by the Inspector

Extent of the proposed development in the context of the character and appearance of the immediate locality

• 59. Bradda View is an estate of houses and bungalows set within a relatively isolated pocket of homes surrounded by the open expanse of the Island countryside spilling down to the sea at both Port Erin and Port St Mary. The estate is made up of a mixture of single and two storey homes which do share some design features such as materials and comparatively low-profile hipped roofs.
• 60. The estate has been designed to take advantage of the topography of this part of the landscape. The approach to Bradda View rises up from the main road access and levels off, and it is here that there is a concentration of very similar detached bungalows all reflecting the same design features and, in particular, the low-profile, tiled hipped roof. It is these properties which serve as the visual introduction to the estate. Bradda View then drops away and it is here that the concentration of two-storey houses are accommodated. However, being set down in the landscape of the estate they are not obvious on entering Bradda View nor from wider views from the west, north and south. The sloping nature of this part of Bradda View absorbs the two-storey development into the surrounding landscape.

• 61. Therefore, on entering the estate the defining feature of the character and appearance of the immediate locality is the group of low-level bungalows set on either side of Bradda View5. The openness to the frontages, albeit some have boundary hedging, and the general uniformity in the form, bulk and mass of these buildings, as a group, creates an individual character for this part of the estate which makes a positive contribution to the environment of the Island.
• 62. No 1 Bradda View occupies a prominent corner plot at the entrance to the estate. No 2 is a reflection of the general form of No 1 and occupies the opposite corner plot. They set the tone for the estate development and, with the other neighbouring bungalows as a group, their composition enriches the design quality of the estate in a semi-rural location.
• 63. The existing low-profile roof of No 1 has insufficient height to accommodate rooms in the roof space. Therefore, it has proved necessary to design a proposal which raises the height of the roof to achieve floor space and room height to provide a master bedroom suite with dressing room, ensuite and covered balcony, a second bedroom with ensuite and a study. The front bedroom and study include the insertion of two bonneted dormers on the front elevation. The height of the roof has been raised only sufficient to accommodate the minimum head room required for first floor habitable rooms.
• 64. Much of the proposed new roof still maintains the hipped roof design, other than the gable-ended roof above the side extension with covered deck, facing out towards the open countryside beyond Ballakillowey Road, and the rear facing first floor gable end.
• 65. Considering the appeal proposal in isolation as an alteration and extension to No 1 Bradda View, the changes would not undermine the character of the individual property. This would include the introduction of the two frontage dormers, features which are not uncommon in the immediate vicinity or on the island in general.
• 66. However, the issue to be considered is the impact of the proposed re-modelling of the bungalow to include first floor accommodation, with the resultant increase in the height, mass and scale of the building6, in the context of the wider built environment and value of the characterising group of bungalows at the entrance to Bradda View, already identified above, which is firmly based on the openness of the appearance of the group and the unity of their design and character, the low profile of their roofs being a dominant contributory feature.
• 67. When travelling north along Ballakillowey Road one is aware of the open nature of the rural landscape to the west with the hills beyond. The residences which line Ballakillowey Road to the east are a mixture of designs, scale and heights. The road climbs towards Bradda View and beyond. The properties on the approach to Bradda View sit slightly down slope to the appeal site, so whilst they may be of a height greater than that of the bungalows in Bradda View, the topography of Ballakillowey Road serves to diminish their visual impact on the entrance to the estate.

• 5 Including a short off-shoot from the main estate road.
• 6 Which would include the front dormers.

• 68. On approaching Bradda View from the north, coming down the hill along Ballakillowey Road, the homes of The Chase, which back onto the main road, sit within a dip before the road then continues its downward decent to the crossroads beyond Bradda View. Chalet bungalows are common in this dip and flat roof dormers are obvious features. However, the low roof profile of No 1 Bradda View is clear in view on the road decent, seen against the backdrop of No 2 with the gable end of Struan7 behind and distant views of Port Erin and the Bay beyond. To a lesser degree there is an awareness of the other bungalows in the wider group of Bradda View from more distant views from the north, but the visual group value becomes more important in respect of defining the character and appearance of this part of the estate, when seen from the immediate approaches to Bradda View from Ballakillowey Road, in both directions, and immediate views from the west.
• 69. The proposed increase in the roof height of No 1 Bradda View, along with the resultant increase in the scale, form and mass of the property, would introduce a dominant feature in the streetscene, emphasised by the resultant contrast with the other homes in the group. The appeal site location on the front corner plot of the estate would only serve to accentuate the proposed changes. In this way the appeal proposal would disrupt the coherence of the characterising group of homes at the entrance of Bradda View, adversely affecting the character of the locality. Thereby, the terms of IMSP Policies SP3, SP5, EP42 and GP2 (b), (c) and (g) along with guidance in RDG would be unacceptably compromised.
• 70. In reaching this view I have taken into account the design and scale of the already permitted ground floor side addition8. The design of the extant scheme integrates a matching hipped roof into the existing low-profile roof of No 1. Once completed the single storey extension would appear as an addition which has respected both the character and appearance of the main dwelling as well as that of the wider group.

Living Conditions

• 71. The Planning Authority and neighbouring residents express concerns in respect of the impact of the proposed increase in the height, scale and mass of the roof of No 1, on the living conditions of the residents of Nos 2, 3 Bradda View and No 11 The Chase. The impacts alleged include overshadowing, overlooking and loss of privacy.
• 72. Dealing first with the impact on No 11 The Chase. This is a bungalow set behind No 1. It has a wraparound driveway accessed from The Chase, but with a gravelled drive and a large double garage adjacent to the rear boundary of No 1. This gravelled area is clearly a utility, circulation space around the property with the private area of the residents’ garden located behind No 3 Bradda View.
• 73. In respect of the proposed relationship between No 11 and No 1 the concerns centre on overlooking. However, at the Inquiry upon examination of the proposed plans it became apparent that the only window which had an orientation towards No 11 was an ensuite bathroom window. This would likely be obscure glazed to preserve the privacy of those using the bathroom. It would

• 7 The first dwelling on the east side of Ballakillowey Road beyond Bradda View on the decent down towards Port Erin.
• 8 20/01340/B.

also have the effect of restricting views over the driveway of No 119. Therefore, this point does not need to be considered further and indeed even if the window was to have been clear glazed, overlooking to a gravelled drive area would not in itself have been sufficient grounds to dismiss this appeal on this ground alone.

• 74. Turning then to the impact on No 2 Bradda View. The concern is overlooking and loss of privacy from the proposed first floor dormers into the front windows of No 2. It was agreed at the Inquiry that the distance between No 1 and No 2, across the road, is in the order of 19.5 metres. It was also recognised that anyone standing at the dormer windows would be further back again given the position of the dormers up the roof plane.
• 75. However, any view from the dormers towards No 2 would be in a downward trajectory. At the site visit I noted that No 2 includes some frontage hedging which would serve to reduce the intervisibility between the two properties. Further, due to the open character of the Bradda View group already described, casual surveillance by passersby is possible. If direct overlooking into the front rooms of No 2 were possible from the proposed dormers, I consider, with the separation distance which exists between the front elevations of the two homes, it would be very limited and no worse than is already possible from the road.
• 76. This then leaves the impact on No 3 Bradda View. The concerns centre on the impact of the proposed increase in the height of the roof in respect of overshadowing and loss of light to rooms to the side of No 3 and to the garden area behind the bungalow.
• 77. Following the Inquiry I returned to Bradda View and viewed the appeal site from the inside of No 3, from the front lounge, where I noted the side window facing the boundary with No 1, is a secondary source of light, there being a large window to the front being a primary source, and from a rear bedroom which has a window facing towards No 1. I also noted that the rear gardens of both No 1 and No 3 are north facing.
• 78. It was agreed the distance between the lounge side window of No 3 and the common boundary with No 1 is 1 metre, whilst the bedroom window is 3.5 metres to the common boundary.
• 79. The side window to the lounge looks out onto the side wall of the garage of No 1 with an intervening wooden fence and trellis, some shrubs and other planting on the boundary on the No 1 side of the fence at this point, and the oil tank of No 1.
• 80. Mature planting on the common boundary with No 1 becomes more dense, well developed and higher on the side of No 3 further back into the site. This provides a considerable level of privacy for the residents of No 3 in their rear garden. The appeal proposal would not interfere with this.
• 81. The boundary treatments alluded to above already have an impact on light levels within the side rooms of No 3. The appeal proposes the heightened roof over the garage to be hipped and, therefore, pitching away from the boundary with No 3. The height of the ridge would be increased from that as existing, but the high point would be pitching away from the common boundary and the side elevation of No 3. Therefore, I do not consider that the proposed raising of the

• 9 Should the appeal be granted a condition has been proposed to ensure the installation and retention of appropriate obscure glazing.

roof would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring residents at No 3 Bradda View in respect of loss of light and overshadowing.

• 82. The rear garden of No 3 is of a good size with substantial boundary planting limiting views of the surrounding, neighbouring properties significantly. No 1 Bradda View stands to the west of No 3. Its low-profile hipped roof currently peeps up above the existing boundary planting of No 3.
• 83. I have no doubt that the increase in the height of the roof over No 1 would be apparent from within the garden of No 3. However, with the proposed hipped garage roof pitching away from the common side boundary and the new gable ended roof being on the Ballakillowey Road side, facing out towards No 11 The Chase, the separation distances, orientation and intervening boundary planting are all factors in my judgement which lead me to the conclusion that the proposed re-modelling of No 1 would not unacceptably impinge on the levels of light within the home or cause overshadowing within the rear garden of No 3.
• 84. Therefore, for the above reasons the living conditions of neighbouring residents would not be adversely harmed and the terms of IMSP Policy GP2 (g) would not be compromised. Conclusion
• 85. Therefore, for the reasons set out above I agree with the Planning Authority that the appeal proposal would present a prominent feature in the streetscene which would disrupt the uniformity and cohesion in the character and appearance of this part of Bradda View, which is of particularly importance in the approach to the housing estate, including maintaining a sense of openness. Consequently, the terms of IMSP Policies SP3, SP5, EP42 and GP2 b), c) and g) and the guidance within the RDG would be unacceptably compromised.
• 86. In reaching this view I have taken into account that the extending of No 1 Bradda View, in the way proposed, would provide a family with much wished for spacious and extensive accommodation than that which is already available to them within the bungalow. Also, that the intention is to provide a more sustainable and energy efficient building. Such an approach would assist in future proofing the housing stock of the Island going forward.
• 87. However, at the Inquiry the appellants themselves indicated that there may be other solutions to providing the extra bedroom space10 they seek, but that it would be at the cost of losing rear garden space, a consequence they do not wish to contemplate. That may be so, but the identified benefits of the scheme are not sufficiently weighty to outweigh the harms I have identified above.

Recommendation

• 88.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 relevant reasons for refusal are set out at Annex A taking into account my reasoning above. Should the Minister agree with all of the Planning Authority’s reasons for refusal Annex B includes the extra one in relation to the impact on living conditions which I reasoned was not justified.

• 10 There is already permission for the extension and opening up of the kitchen.

• 89. 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 C below. They are based on the conditions suggested by the Planning Authority as part of their Statement of Case, although a condition relating to the obscure glazing of the rear window in the gable ended roof addition has been added. The reasons for each condition are set out within the schedule.

Reason

• 90. The impact of the proposed development would undermine the terms, policies and objectives of the IMSP.

Frances Mahoney MRTPI IHBC

Independent Inspector

14 February 2025

Annex AReasons for Refusal

1. By virtue of the increased height and overall volume of extensions this proposal would result in a prominent feature within the streetscene which would disrupt the uniformity and cohesion in the character and appearance of this part of Bradda View, of particularly importance in the approach to the housing estate, including maintaining a sense of openness. In this way the proposal would be contrary to the Residential Design Guide, Strategic Policies 3 and 5, Environment Policy 42 and General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

Annex B

1. The proposed roof additions and increased ridge height would have an overbearing impact upon existing and future residential amenity for the residents of the neighbouring dwellinghouses in respect of overlooking and loss of light, but in particular Nos 3 and 2 Bradda View and No 11 The Chase. This would conflict with General Policy 2(g) of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide, which together and among other things, seek to protect such interests.

Annex CSchedule 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.

• 2. Prior to commencement, details of how surface water shall be managed within the site shall be submitted to the Planning Department for prior written approval. The approved details shall be implemented prior to the development being brought into use and thereafter retained.

Reason: To ensure surface water is managed appropriately and does not cause flooding elsewhere and to avoid contravention of Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 by allowing surface water to run onto the public highway, in accordance with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

• 3. The external materials and finishes of the extension shall match colour and texture of those on the existing building.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area in accordance with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

• 4. The approved rooflights shall be of conservation standard in so much as it is flush with the roof.

Reason: To protect the character of the building in accordance with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

• 5. Prior to the attachment or insertion of any external lighting to the building, outside seating or parking areas a sensitive low level lighting plan, following best practise as detailed in the Bat Conservation Trust and Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidance Note 8/23 on Bats and Artificial Lighting (2023) shall be submitted to Planning and approved in writing. All works must be undertaken in full accordance with the approved plan.

Reason: To ensure that the development has an acceptable impact on the environment in respect of Bats which are a protected species in accordance with Environment Policy 4 and General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

• 6. Details, including samples, of the proposed glazing, including the level of obscurity of the glass, for the proposed first floor, ensuite window on the rear elevation of the gable-ended addition hereby approved, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The agreed details shall be fully installed before first occupation of the new first floor living accommodation, and the obscure glazing shall be retained as agreed in perpetuity.

Reason: In the interests of preserving the living conditions of neighbouring residents.

The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following approved plans:

Site location and survey - Dwg no 20 1767 01 Ground floor proposed – Dwg no 20 1767 04 First floor/elevations proposed - Dwg no 20 1767 05