Inspector's Report

Report by Mrs Jennifer Vyse DipTP, MRTPI, DipPBM Following an Inquiry into a Third Party Appeal Held on 23 September 2025 Site inspection carried out on the same day

Appeal Ref: AP25/0015 Application Number: 25/90102/B Address: Site of former Ballatiki, Shore Road, Ballaugh IM7 6AZ

The appeal is made by Mr N and Mrs S Lewis against the decision of DEFA Planning to grant approval to Mr J Wood for the erection of a dwelling on the site of a former dwelling, "Ballatiki”.

Introduction

• 1. This Report provides background information, a brief description of the appeal site and its surroundings, the proposal the subject of this 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.

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

• 2. The description of development set out on the planning application form is ‘Amendment of 23/00739/B’. That application relates to a permission for the erection of a dwelling to replace former dwelling “Ballatiki”. However, as discussed at the Inquiry, there is no apparent mechanism under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 (or the Town and Country (Development Procedure) Order 2019) to add retrospective matters to an earlier permission. Accordingly, the application falls to be considered on its face. Namely, as being for the development as now built, as described in the Planning Statement that accompanied the application and

• as shown on the drawings that accompanied the application, which are listed
• at Annex B below. Thus, were the appeal to be unsuccessful, the applicant would have a new, standalone permission upon which to rely. Consideration of the appeal on this basis, which approach was discussed and agreed at the Inquiry and which is reflected in the description of development used in the header above, leads to no prejudice to any party.

• 3. Whilst I understand the appellants’ frustration at the retrospective nature of the application, the planning system allows for the submission and consideration of such applications on their own particular merits, irrespective of their retrospective nature.
• 4. Concerns are also expressed in the grounds of appeal in relation to the handling of the planning application by DEFA Planning and at the lack of response to a formal request to investigate a breach of planning whilst unauthorised work on the property was underway. However, these are not matters for me as part of my remit in reporting on this appeal, which is confined to the planning merits of the respective cases.

PLANNING HISTORY

• 5. PA22/01404/B Erection of a dwelling to replace former dwelling ‘Ballatiki’

– permitted but third party appeal allowed and decision overturned.

• 6. PA23/00739/B Erection of a dwelling to replace former dwelling ‘Ballatiki’

– permitted. Third party appeal unsuccessful. THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

• 7. The recently built appeal property comprises a detached, one-and-a-half storey, four-bedroom house within the curtilage of a former dwelling on the northeastern side of Shore Road, northwest of The Cronk. Shore Road is a long cul-de-sac leading to Ballaugh Beach and is fronted by a variety of dwellings along its northeastern side.
• 8. The appeal property, which has a cranked footprint, sits gable end on to Shore Road, lying parallel to the northwestern site boundary with the adjacent property, Sunsets, the home of the appellants. To the east, is a substantial two-storey detached dwelling, Ballakinnag House.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

• 9. Permission is sought for the dwelling on the site which, whilst very similar to the earlier permitted scheme (23/00739/B), varies in a number of respects:

• • addition of gabled dormer to northwest elevation with a window serving a bedroom;
• • change of external wall material from Marshalls Darlstone to Cromwell Rustic Faced Ash;
• • change of wall cladding from Stone grey to Slate Grey;
• • change of roof finish from steel standing seam to Spanish Slate with lead flashing;
• • repositioning of dwelling on plot - slight rotation in orientation to run parallel with boundary to northwest; and
• • closing up of one of the original vehicular accesses, to be retained as pedestrian access, with new walling.

PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE 1982 Development Plan

• 10. The Development Plan shows the site within a designated Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV). It is located in open countryside for the purposes of planning policy and is not zoned for development.

Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016

• 11. In part, General Policy 2g) seeks to protect the amenity of local residents.
• 12. Together and among other things, Strategic Policy 3b), Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2b), c) and g) and Environment Policies 1 and 2 seek to protect or enhance the character and appearance of an area.

Residential Design Guide (2021)

• 13. Among other things, the Design Guide refers to a separation distance of over 20 metres as likely to be sufficient to ensure that overlooking is not a concern between elevations that contain windows serving habitable rooms

• that face each other. It confirms that the distance can be relaxed where the design or orientation is such that the privacy and amenity of neighbouring occupiers is not compromised.
• 14. It also advises that whilst new residential development should be informed by the best qualities of existing residential areas, that does not mean that all new residential developments should seek to replicate the appearance of older ones, with good quality contemporary design being encouraged. Nevertheless, it is important that the design of new residential developments respects the character of the neighbouring buildings and surrounding area.

THE CASE FOR THE APPELLANTS (MR AND MRS LEWIS)1 In summary:

• Ground 1:

• 15. In overturning the 2022 permission for the erection of a dwelling to replace Ballatiki, the Inspector found that whilst sitting partly on the footprint of the former dwelling, it would be closer to the shared boundary with our property, Sunsets. He considered that there would inevitability be a greater impact on our living conditions, acknowledging that the nearest habitable room of Sunsets was used for crafting and as a guest bedroom. Our appeal was upheld on the basis that there would be unacceptable harm to our living conditions, given that there would be less than 20m between the west facing window to the affected room and the dormer window on the proposed dwelling.2
• 16. A subsequent application in 2023 was again approved by DEFA Planning. That scheme removed the proposed dormer and moved the building 1 metre further away from the shared boundary. Despite ongoing concerns about overlooking and privacy, our subsequent appeal was unsuccessful and construction work began.3 However, the building work included the dormer window, notwithstanding that it had been a key issue in the earlier appeal.
• 17. As now constructed, the unauthorised dormer window clearly overlooks vast areas of our property, including our sitting room, craft room and garden terrace. Measurements taken from Google Maps show the dormer window to be within 20 metres of the sitting room and craft room windows.
• 18. It would seem that reversion of the build to include the dormer is considered a necessity to allow for the future inclusion of a lift. That was referenced by the applicant at both previous appeals. Bearing in mind that the issue of the lift was a consideration from day one, it seems unlikely that this issue would only become apparent during construction.
• 19. We fundamentally disagree with the comments in the committee report that: “As opposed to the Inspectors assessment, it can now be seen that there is no direct window to window view available between the unauthorised dormer window and the west facing craft room window to Sunsets, or any other window for that matter.” The re-siting of the new building now gives a prominent direct line of sight from the dormer window directly into the

• 1 Based on the written appeal statement of case
• 2 PA22/01404/B
• 3 PA23/00739/B

sitting room at Sunsets. If the impact on the craft room has reduced as the Officer reports, the impact on the sitting room is greatly increased, causing unacceptable overlooking.

• Ground 2:

• 20. Incorrect Strategic Plan Policies have been applied by DEFA Planning, in particular General Policies 2 and 3 and Housing Policies 12 and 14. The land the subject of this application is empty. It has been empty for over two years and before September 2021. The previous dwelling house was demolished by the current owner without any applications being made at the time for a replacement dwelling. The land is not zoned for development in the 1982 Development Plan - it is “white land” within the countryside. General Policy 3 resists development in the countryside with the exception of (d), the replacement of existing rural dwellings. Housing Policy 12 also allows for the replacement of existing dwellings in the countryside. Neither policy makes reference to ‘former’ dwellings. In this instance, the word existing cannot be applied to the previous dwelling house (Ballatiki) since it was demolished over two years ago. The Department’s consideration of the proposal under these policies is therefore flawed.
• 21. Housing Policy 13 deals with rural dwellings which have lost their former residential use by abandonment, which is not the case here as there is no dwelling at all on the site. Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, Housing Policy 14 sets out assessment criteria. Although not specifically containing the word “existing”, this Policy follows on from Policy 12 which requires the existence of a dwelling. Therefore, this policy should not have been considered absent an existing dwelling. There is no basis at all for the Department to have sidestepped specific wording in the policies and reach the conclusion that this application satisfies the requirements of replacing an existing dwelling based on the fact there was once a dwelling on the site.

• Ground 3:

• 22. In addition to the contention that the overall application of Housing Policy 14 is incorrect, where the planning officer has applied this Policy, it has been done so incorrectly.
• 23. Among other things, the policy states that where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it should generally be sited on the footprint of the existing, and should have a floor area that is not more than 50% greater than the original. Here, the new building has a floor area of 365 square metres compared with 196 square metres for the previous dwelling, an 86% increase. Whilst a replacement of different siting and size is allowed for where it would result in an environmental improvement, there is nothing that evidences any such improvement. Receiving maximum solar gain, the reason for its proposed movement, does not in itself amount to a sufficient environmental improvement in the terms of the policy.
• 24. The Policy also states that generally, design should accord with Policies 2-7 of Planning Circular 3/91. As noted in the officer’s report, in terms of its design, built vernacular and materials palette, this would not amount to a 'traditional styled' dwelling in accordance with the principles set out in the Circular.

• 25. The Policy then states that “exceptionally”, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact. There is nothing to explain why it was felt this exception should be applied.
• 26. The exception continues: “designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in general, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building.” There is no incorporation of stone and slate still in place as the site has already been cleared. Moreover, the new fabric does not match the materials of the original building.
• 27. Finally the Policy allows for consideration of proposals for a larger dwelling where it would replace a dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact. Again we have reference to the replacement of an “existing” dwelling which we do not have here, but in any event, the design has resulted in an adverse visual impact. The design is not in keeping with or similar to any other residential property in the immediate area. The roof cladding is designed specifically for urban environments, not this countryside location. There is no re-use of stone or slate as detailed in Housing Policy 14 and the general fabric of the building is not finished to match the materials of the original building in any way. Furthermore, it is a much larger building much nearer the road at the front of the proposed site.

THE CASE FOR DEFA PLANNING4 In summary: Principle of Development

• 28. Notwithstanding that the site benefits from an extant planning permission for a replacement dwelling, the appellants take issue with the principle of development. Whilst the description of development for the instant application does not refer to this being a replacement dwelling, the description does confirm the application to be an amendment to application 23/00739/B. In any event, the fact that the previously approved scheme was not lawfully implemented caused Officers to assess the proposal afresh, including the principle of the development as a replacement and the associated impacts, as required by Housing Policies 12 and 14.
• 29. Housing Policy 12 was not used in assessing the appeal scheme, with no reference made to the policy in either the reason for approval or within Section 7 of the Officer report. Further, the appellants do not state what policies they consider should have been used in the assessment of the development if Housing Policies 12 and 14 do not apply.
• 30. There has been no material change in circumstance since the previous application was approved, save for the implementation of that scheme. The Department is satisfied that the correct and relevant Strategic Plan policies have been used in assessing the principle of the appeal scheme and the associated material considerations, with the principle found to be acceptable.

• 4 Based on the officer’s report and the written appeal statement of case.

Change in Materials

• 31. The proposal sees a slightly lighter stone used for the wall than previously permitted and use of a darker composite cladding. The roof changes from standing seam sheets to Spanish slate. These alterations are generally very modest and do not represent significant departures from the previously approved scheme. The change in the appearance of the dwellinghouse as a consequence of the materials changes does not give rise to any visual harm to either the building, street scene or wider setting of the site and the proposals are therefore acceptable and in accordance with General Policy 2, Environment Policies 1 and 2 and Housing Policy 14.

Living Conditions

• 32. The minor revision to siting results in the dwelling now being positioned approximately 2.85m from the shared boundary, compared with the previously refused scheme that included the dormer window, where the new dwelling was around 1.52m from the boundary.
• 33. Whilst the dormer window looks directly into and across the front garden of Sunsets, this is not considered to cause an unreasonable level of harm. Nevertheless, the Inspector dealing with the first appeal (which scheme included a dormer window in a similar position to that as now built) found that less than 20m would separate the nearest west facing window to the craft room at Sunsets and the dormer, and that when looking out from that larger west facing window, the new dwelling and dormer window would be in view. He found unacceptable harm to the living conditions of occupiers of Sunsets in that regard.
• 34. However, officers have visited the site and inspected the outlook and views available from the now constructed dormer and modest window that has been installed. When entering the bedroom off the main landing, views out are directed towards the coastline - it is not possible to see either the neighbouring dwelling or its front gardens from the doorway. When standing at the window in question and looking directly outwards, it is possible to view the front garden of Sunsets and glimpse the frontage to Sunsets. Contrary to the Inspector’s assessment, it can now be seen that there is no direct window to window view available between the dormer window and the west facing craft room window to Sunsets, or indeed any other window.
• 35. The Appellants state the separation distance to be less than 20m, relying on a measurement taken from Google Earth satellite photography. However, that is neither an accurate nor reliable means for the purpose of measuring the window to window distance. The applicant, on the other hand advises that the distance between the two windows has been independently surveyed twice and that both measurements exceed the 20m distance referred to in the Residential Design Guide (the measurements being 20.2m and 20.78m).
• 36. When scaling from the submitted plans, the distance is very marginal, but it stands to reason that with the dwelling now sited approximately 1.3m further from the boundary than in 2022, the distance will be at or around 20m. It is worth noting that the measurements are taken in 2D and do not account for the change in elevation between the first floor bedroom window

• and ground floor craft room window, so the measurement will be greater than that scaled off the proposed drawing.
• 37. In any event, given the fine margin in the distance between the windows and the 20m separation referred to in the Design Guide, it is appropriate to apply reasonable planning judgement in assessing impacts on privacy and amenity. The only way in which a view towards the craft room window can be achieved is by leaning into the window and deliberately seeking to look down and across at an approximate angle of 45 degree towards the adjacent property. Such an act is highly unlikely to occur as occupants would naturally make the most of the view towards the coastline and ocean rather than down and towards the neighbouring dwelling.
• 38. In coming to this view, the previous Inspectors’ decisions and conclusions, which are a material consideration, have been properly considered. The previous Inspector rested his judgement based upon the planning drawings, whereas with the dormer window now constructed, it is possible to assess the definitive impact and views available from the dormer window, allowing an informed assessment to be made. It is clear that no direct views have been created at a distance below 20m and it would only be possible to look towards the west facing craft room window of Sunsets in a deliberate, oblique manner that is highly unlikely to happen.
• 39. Having regard to the indirect and obscured sightlines involved, the development does not give rise to any significant and unacceptable level of overlooking and loss of privacy for the occupiers of Sunsets. The development therefore accords with General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 14 and advice within the Residential Design Guide.

Conclusion

• 40. The general design and scale of the replacement dwelling was previously found to be acceptable and in accord with the relevant policies. The appeal scheme seeks to regularise the siting of the building which differs from the approved scheme. Given that the previous scheme was found to have an acceptable relationship with the neighbouring property in regard to light and outlook, it stands to reason that the same conclusion can reasonably be made now, with the building further from the shared boundary. The impact of the minor changes do not result in any unacceptable harm upon the environment, visual amenity or the living conditions of adjoining occupiers. The Department is content with the assessment and application of Housing Policy 14 and General Policy 2 in these regards.

OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

• 41. Ballaugh Parish Commissioners: no comments received.
• 42. DoI Highway Services: no interest registered. INSPECTOR’S ASSESSMENT
• 43. It was no part of the appellants’ case that any harm has arisen as a consequence of the revised access arrangements, or through construction of the front boundary wall and formation of a pedestrian-only access. I have no reason to take issue with those changes. I note in this regard, that DoI Highways takes no issue with this element of the development. Indeed,

from what I saw on my site visit, removal of the former vehicular access, which was close the access to Sunsets, may even be beneficial in terms of highway safety. On that basis, the main issues in this case relate to:

• • the principle of development;
• • the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of Sunsets, having particular regard to overlooking and privacy; and
• • the effect of the design and altered materials on the character and appearance of the area.

Principle of Development

• 44. Much of the appellants’ case re-states concerns raised in previous appeals about whether the scheme could properly be described as a ‘replacement’ dwelling, since the original property (Ballatiki) had already been demolished when those earlier applications were submitted, arguing that incorrect policies had been applied and/or that potentially relevant policies had been misapplied. Whether or not that is the case, it was a matter of consensus at the Inquiry that, absent any successful appeal or legal challenge, the previously consented scheme (PA23/00739/B) stands and is extant. The principle of a new dwelling on the site is therefore established.
• 45. That extant permission provides a ‘fallback’ position against which the current scheme falls to be assessed. In essence, were this appeal to succeed, the applicant could revert to the previously approved scheme. As such, and again as agreed at the Inquiry, the outcome of this appeal turns on the acceptability, or otherwise, of the differences between the extant permission and the dwelling as now constructed on the site.

Living Conditions

• 46. As constructed, the dwelling includes a small gable and dormer window at first floor level on the northwest side elevation. The 2022 application for a new dwelling on the site included a dormer window in a similar position. The neighbours’ appeal against that approval was successful, with the Inspector concluding that there would be direct views from the dormer window into a room at Sunsets used for crafting and as a guest bedroom, over a distance of less than 20 metres, which would lead to unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the appellants in terms of their privacy.
• 47. Whilst the subsequently permitted 2023 scheme omitted the dormer window to overcome those concerns,5 the property as now built, which is set some 2.85m off the shared boundary6 compared with a separation from the boundary of some 1.52m in the 2022 scheme, reinstated it.
• 48. On the appellant’s figures,7 some 19.26m separates the dormer window from the front (west) facing window to the crafting room/occasional guest bedroom at Sunsets. I am mindful, in this regard, that Section 7.5 of the Residential Design Guide suggests that where a separation distance between

• 5 In that scheme, the bedroom is lit by a rooflight.
• 6 As shown on the ‘As built’ plan No B363-SP-01 RevA
• 7 Based on a measurement taken from Google Maps

windows that face each other is over 20m, overlooking is unlikely to be a concern. However, it also confirms that this distance can be relaxed, where the orientation is such that the privacy and amenity of a neighbouring property is not compromised.

• 49. The first thing to note is that the windows at issue do not directly face each other and there is no ‘direct’ line of sight, rather, any views are oblique. Even then, they can only be realised when one is standing close up against the bedroom window, rather than from within the bedroom more generally. I also saw during my site visit, that the door to the first floor bedroom is not as shown on the submitted plans. Instead, it is sited further along the internal landing, such that on entering the bedroom, views through the window are channelled to the northwest, taking advantage of views directly out to sea. All told, whilst the separation between the windows may, on the evidence of the appellants, be slightly less than 20 metres8 I am content, based on what I saw during my site visit (which included taking in the views from within the bedroom at the new dwelling), that their privacy and amenity in terms of the craft room is not materially compromised.
• 50. Also of concern to the appellants is privacy in relation to their lounge, and a raised terrace to the front of the property. The lounge at Sunsets benefits from two large windows, one to the front facing the road, the other to the side, facing the appeal property. That window is separated from the dormer window by some 24 metres, well in excess of the 20 metre separation referred to in the Design Guide. The nearest part of the front terrace is further away still. I consider, in this regard, that there is no material harm in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy. I find no conflict therefore, with General Policy 2g) of the Strategic Plan or with the Residential Design Guide, which seek to protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers.

Character and Appearance

• 51. The appellants take issue with the design of the dwelling as constructed, including the external materials. In my view, the addition of the small gable and dormer window on the northwest elevation causes no harm in terms of the overall form of the property compared with the approved scheme. Indeed, it could be seen as an improvement, helping to break up the large expanse of roof.
• 52. As for the materials, the use of slate for the roof (instead of a steel standing seam roof) reflects the slate roof on Ballakinnag, the adjacent property to the southeast, and other properties in the vicinity. I find no harm either, as a consequence of the use of a slightly lighter grey stonework to the ground floor (instead of the darker grey stone as approved in 2022) or to the use of a darker grey woodgrain cladding to the first floor gable ends compared with the lighter grey cladding as approved, the cladding providing a pleasing contrast to the stone. In my view, whilst not a traditional styled dwelling, I found the property as constructed to have a crisp, contemporary appearance that sits well in its coastal location.
• 53. To conclude on this issue, I am satisfied that the differences in design and materials do not give rise to material harm to the established character and

• 8 In the absence of any agreed figures, I have taken the appellant’s measurement as representing a worst case scenario and have assessed the scheme on that basis.

appearance of the area. There would be no conflict in this regard, with Strategic Policy 3b), Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2b), c) and g) of the Strategic Plan and Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan, or with the Residential Design Guide which seek to protect such interests.

Conclusion And Recommendation

• 54. Since the principle of a new dwelling on the site is established through the extant 2023 permission (PA 23/00739), the focus for this appeal is the difference between that scheme and the as-built scheme. I have found that the relationship between the two properties is such that acceptable levels of privacy for the occupiers of Sunsets are retained. I have also found that the difference in terms of design and materials between the building as approved and as now constructed does not result in any material harm to the established character and appearance of the area.

• 55. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, and having considered all the matters raised, I recommend that the appeal be dismissed and that the decision of DEFA Planning to approve the application be upheld.

Reason: The principle of a new dwelling of a similar form to that now constructed on the site is firmly established. Whilst the separation between the dormer window and the front facing window to the adjacent crafting room/guest bedroom at Sunsets may be just shy of the 20 metres referred to in the Residential Design Guide, there is no ‘direct’ line of sight, with any views being oblique and even then only realised when close up against the window. The juxtaposition of the properties is sufficient to ensure that the privacy of the appellants in terms of the craft room is not materially compromised. The side facing lounge window and front terrace, also of concern to the appellants, are located well beyond the 20m distance mentioned in the Design Guide, considered as sufficient to ensure that overlooking is unlikely to be a concern. There is no conflict with General Policy 2g) of the Strategic Plan or with the Residential Design Guide in this regard.

The materials used are very similar to those approved previously, the building having a crisp, contemporary appearance that sits well in its coastal location, with no harm to the established character and appearance of the area. There is no conflict in this regard, with Strategic Policy 3b), Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2b), c) and g) and Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan, or with the Residential Design Guide.

• 56. In the event that the Minister should agree, recommended conditions and the reasons for them are set out at Annex C below. They are based on those suggested by DEFA Planning and were discussed in detail at the Inquiry. It was agreed that a suggested condition requiring completion in accordance with the materials shown on the drawings was otiose, since that aspect of the development had already been completed.

Jennifer A Vyse

Independent Inspector

26 October 2025

• ANNEX A Appearances

FOR THE APPELLANTS:

Michael Jelski Advocate and Director, Dickinson Cruikshank Ramsey Sophie Christian Trainee Advocate, Dickinson Cruikshank Ramsey

FOR DEFA PLANNING: Russell Williams Planning Officer

FOR THE APPLICANT: Sarah Corlett Director, Sarah Corlett Town Planning Consultancy Keiron Murray Director, Innova Law Mr and Mrs Wood Applicants

• ANNEX B Application Plans

Title Drawing No

Location Plan 24/0575_01 Existing Site Plan 24/0575_02 Proposed Site Plan and Sight Lines 24/0575_03B Proposed Plans, Elevations and Section 24/0575_04B Existing and Proposed Floor Plans 24/0575_05A Building Setting Out As Setout Plan B363-SP-01 RevA As Built Gable Detail and Pedestrian Access (photos) Dwg No 07 Duo Lift Installation Dwg No 08

• ANNEX C Recommended Conditions

C1: The visibility splays constructed in accordance with Drawing No 24/0575_03B shall be retained and kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1.05 metres in height above the adjoining carriageway level.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety. C2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development ) Order 2025 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling shall be carried out, and no garages or other free standing buildings shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby approved. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

-----------------------------------End of Schedule-------------------------------------