Inspector's Report

Report by Mrs Jennifer Vyse DipTP, MRTPI, DipPBM on a Third Party Planning Appeal – Written Representations Case Site Inspection carried out on 22 September 2025

---

Appeal Ref: AP25/0023 Planning Application No: 25/90265/B Application Site: The Hollies, 1 Bradda View, Ballakillowey, Colby IM9 4BE The appeal is made by Mrs N Peterson against the decision of DEFA Planning to grant planning approval to Mr J and Mrs J Cubbon for the erection of a rear extension, with associated internal alterations and works to widen the existing driveway at The Hollies.

Introduction

• 1. This Report provides 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. The plans that have informed my recommendation are listed at Annex A below.

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

• 2. Although not shown on the submitted plans, a detached timber summerhouse lies to the rear of the existing garage at the appeal site, in the location of the proposed extension. It extends closer to the shared boundary with the adjacent property (No 3) than the side of the existing garage. The appellant is still awaiting the outcome of a formal ‘request to investigate suspected breach of planning’ which was submitted in December last year to the Department. Whilst I understand the frustration that this has caused, that is a matter for others. It has no bearing on the outcome of this appeal, which falls to be determined on its own merits. Having said that, I am mindful that the summerhouse would need to be removed if the appeal was to fail and the permission for the extension implemented.1

DESCRIPTION

• 3. The Hollies, a detached, single-storey bungalow, is located on a prominent corner plot at the entrance to a residential cul-de-sac at the junction of Bradda View with the Ballakillowey Road (A36).
• 4. Bradda View lies just outside of Rushen and Port Erin but within an established pocket of built development. To the west, on the opposite side of Ballakillowey Road is open countryside, comprising agricultural fields leading up to Bradda Head.
• 5. The Hollies faces on to the cul-de-sac, sitting side on to Ballakillowey Road. Its slightly elevated plot in relation to the main road, combined with rising

• 1 It is not clear whether the summerhouse would be relocated elsewhere within the plot (subject to permitted development rights or a separate planning permission), or would be removed from the site completely. Whatever the intention, that is not a matter for this appeal.

ground levels to the north, mean that the side and the rear of the property are visible from the main road on approach from the north.

• 6. The detached timber summerhouse to the rear of the existing side garage would be removed to facilitate the erection of a single-storey rear bedroom extension, with a new utility room linking the garage to the extension. The walls to the extension would be finished in textured render, painted to match the existing house, with a matching shallow pitched roof.
• 7. Connected with internal reorganisation of the accommodation, the existing back door to the property would be relocated to the side elevation, leading out from a relocated utility room at the rear of the garage.
• 8. It is also proposed to widen the access and driveway at the front of the property, including removal of short sections of the frontage hedging.

PLANNING HISTORY

• 9. Application No 20/01340/B, for a ground floor extension on the western (Ballakillowey Road) elevation, was approved in January 2021.
• 10. Application No 24/00415/B, for a ground floor extension on the western elevation and conversion of the existing roof into habitable accommodation by raising the roof and other alterations, was refused in July 2024. The subsequent appeal was dismissed on the grounds of adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area.2

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE Area Plan for the South (adopted December 2012)3

• 11. Map 7 - Port Erin/Port St Mary identifies the appeal site as lying within an area zoned as predominantly residential.

Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016)

• 12. General Policy 2 is generally permissive of new development provided, among other things, that it respects and does not adversely affect the character and appearance of its surroundings (parts b) and c)) and would not affect adversely the amenity of local residents (part g). That is reflected in paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan, which confirms that, as general policy, there is a presumption in favour of extensions to existing dwellings in built up areas, provided they would not have an adverse impact on the occupiers of adjacent properties or the surrounding area.

Residential Design Guide 2021

• 13. In relation to proposed extensions, the Design Guide requires, among other things, that regard be had to the potential for loss of light/overshadowing and loss of privacy. It also confirms that extensions to dwellings on corner plots need careful consideration to ensure that they do not dominate the street scene.

• 2 Appeal Ref AP24/0033
• 3 Approved by Tynwald February 2013, coming into operation March 2013

THE CASE FOR MRS N PETERSON (APPELLANT)4 The material points are:

• 14. The planning officer does not appear to have visited No 3 during the site visit and has not given adequate consideration to the concerns raised. The pitched roof to the proposed extension to the rear of the existing double garage would result in the loss of natural light to a bedroom at No 3 Bradda View, a matter of particular concern given my visual impairment.
• 15. The Residential Design Guide refers to the 45° Approach as a useful guide in determining the likely impact of a rear extension upon neighbouring properties. Contrary to the guidance, the proposed rear extension would be less than 12 metres from the centre point of our side facing bedroom window.
• 16. The Design Guide also uses a 25° Check to assess the potential for loss of daylight or overshadowing. From a point 2 metres above ground level from the wall with the bedroom window, a 25° angle line towards No 1 would be breached by the proposed extension, resulting in a loss of light to the bedroom, contrary to the Guidance.
• 17. The submitted plans also show a new external door leading out of a utility room. The doorway would provide a heavily used access point to the back garden and bin store, right opposite my bedroom window.
• 18. Section 4.9 of the Residential Design Guide highlights the importance of careful consideration in respect of corner plots, as these are generally apparent from the adjacent public highway. In this case, the extension proposed (which would replace an existing smaller summerhouse) would materially intrude into and dominate views looking down the Ballakillowey/Sloc Road.
• 19. The proposed widening of the vehicular access and at least doubling of the amount of outdoor parking available, would harm the character and appearance of the area at this prominent location at the entrance to the estate.
• 20. When considered together with the previously approved extension,5 the additional floorspace would be out of proportion with the original dwelling and its plot. With the summerhouse as well, this amounts to overdevelopment of the site.

THE CASE FOR DEFA PLANNING6 The material points are:

• 21. The planning officer visited the site on 19 June 2025. Due to the location of the property, the rear extension is seen from a public vantage point. However, the proposal is in keeping with the existing dwelling and its residential context, and would be subordinate in appearance. Due to its overall proportions in relation to the existing dwelling, it would not be seen

• 4 Taken from the written objection to the planning application and the appeal statement of case.
• 5 To date, work has only progressed by the installation of a steel support and the digging out of the footings.
• 6 Taken from the officer’s report and written appeal statement of case.

as overdevelopment of the site. Moreover, several properties here have similar built environment to garden ratios. There would be no conflict with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan in this regard.

• 22. Substantial hedging along the boundary between the two properties is mostly within the curtilage and thus control of, the adjacent property No 3. That hedging, combined with the single-storey nature of the proposed extension, would be sufficient to ensure that it would not be seen as overbearing and there would be no material loss of light. These aspects are considered to be compliant with General Policy 2(g).
• 23. There is currently a rear porch and a store within the area of the proposed utility room. The proposed new door would be used the same as the existing rear porch. The mature boundary hedging means that there would be no views out of the proposed door into the neighbouring property.
• 24. With regards to the existing summerhouse, there is nothing within the application to state that it would be re-sited within the plot. That said, permitted development rights would be available for the erection of a summerhouse elsewhere within the curtilage.
• 25. The proposed increase in width of the existing site access has no material implications for visibility and highway safety. There would be no conflict in this regard, with General Policy 2 (h and j) or Transport Policy 7, which seek to protect such interests. Moreover, the widening works would not result in the loss of more than 50% of the front garden, as set out in the Residential Design Guidance. As such, the proposal would maintain an acceptable visual impact in terms of the street scene.

THE CASE FOR MR AND MRS CUBBON (THE APPLICANTS)7 The material points are:

• 26. We are looking to alter this almost 40 year old, three-bedroom bungalow to better house our growing family. We want to modernise the property in a way that sympathetically retains key elements that reflect the character of the property where possible, but also has no adverse impact on the street scene and with minimal negative impact on private amenity.
• 27. As currently configured, the garage to No 1 sits next to and looks directly into the side window to the lounge at No 3. The bedroom of No 3 referred to by the appellant sits further away from the side boundary than the lounge. The distance between the side of the proposed extension and the bedroom is more than 2 metres greater than the gap between the garage and the side facing lounge window.
• 28. The grounds of appeal refer to the 45° Approach set out in the Residential Design Guide. However, the Guide itself confirms that it is guidance only and passing the test does not mean automatic approval, or the reverse. It also recognises that in certain cases there will be other factors that will carry as much, and potentially more weight, such as orientation.

• 7 Taken from the appeal statement of case.

• 29. No 1 lies to the west of No 3. As such, overshadowing and potential loss of light can only be considered as a potential issue in the evening and even then, only during the summer months. As demonstrated in our submitted photographs, the orientation of the appellant’s own property means that their existing lounge casts a shadow across their bedroom window. Our photos show that even at 18:52 hours, no adverse overshadowing would be created by the proposed extension. In addition, a photo taken at 20:55 hours on 14 July 2025, when the sun would have been at its most westerly point with maximum potential to impact No 3, clearly demonstrates that during late evening in mid-summer a shadow is already cast by No 1 Bradda View on the adjacent bedroom window of No 3. The pitched roof to the proposed extension would be lower than the existing building. As such, it would not have any greater impact in terms of potential overshadowing. It should also be noted that there is substantial hedging between the two properties, which is mostly within the garden to No 3.
• 30. The extension would have the same roof pitch as the existing dwelling and would be both lower in height and smaller than the existing part of the house that runs adjacent to the Ballkillowey Road. As a result, it would not dominate the existing property.
• 31. With regard to the side door, No 1 already has a utility door to the rear of the house. Moving the door (whist still retaining it at the rear of the house) would have no impact on the use of the door as an access point. The bedroom window of No 3 is not visible from No 1 due to their own substantial hedgerows. The addition of a utility door is less impactful than the three windows that look from our garage directly in to the lounge of No 3.
• 32. The existing fence and mature hedgerows between the properties restrict any ability to view the bedroom window of No 3 from No 1. When designing the extension, we were particularly concerned with any worries our neighbours in No 3 might have and so pro-actively chose not to include any windows to the east of the extension, which would actually be in keeping with the current build. We simply included a utility door, as one already exists to the rear of the house. In addition, we would expect to use frosted glass on the door.
• 33. In terms of any impact on the wider area, in particular views down the Ballakilllowey/Sloc Road, the materials would be the same as those used on the existing building and its design is in keeping with the existing character of the house and the rest of Bradda View. The extension is smaller (in both height and volume) than the existing part of the house which runs perpendicular to the extension. Due to the elevation of Ballakillowey Road, and as the roofline of the extension will be lower than the existing roofline of the rest of the house, it would not be overly dominant visually. There would be no conflict with the advice in the Design Guide in this regard. Moreover, there would be no impact on the sense of openness between the properties and the street scene from the proposed rear extension.

OTHER PARTIES

• 34. DoI Highway Services (Development Control): No objection.
• 35. Arbory and Rushen Commissioners: No objection.

Assessment By The Inspector

• 36. The main issues in this case relate to:

• • the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 3 Bradda View, having particular regard to daylight/sunlight and privacy; and
• • its effect on the character and appearance of the area.

Living Conditions

• 37. The window to a bedroom at No 3 faces its shared boundary with The Hollies (No 1). During my visit, I saw that whilst the existing summerhouse could be seen from that window, views are heavily filtered by existing planting within the appellant’s garden. The proposed extension would be set further back from the side boundary than the summerhouse, aligning with the side of the existing garage. Furthermore, the pitched roof over would spring from the same low eaves height as the garage (around 2.5 metres), sloping away from the joint boundary and the bedroom window at No 3. The roof would be lower than the existing main ridge to the house.
• 38. Whilst the appellant draws attention to the 45° approach in the Residential Design Guide, it is clear from the related diagrams in that document that the approach relates to extensions to the side of, not opposite, existing windows. Although attention is also drawn to the 25° check set out in the Guide, no detailed information is before me to demonstrate how the appellant comes to the view that it would be breached. The distance separation between the bedroom window and the side wall of the proposed extension, together with the fact that the eaves to the extension would only be around 2.5m above ground level (noting that the 25° check line is taken at a height of 2 metres above ground level), and the shallow pitched roof proposed, suggest to me that there would be no breach.
• 39. In any event, it is clear from the photographs submitted by the applicants, that the appellant’s bedroom window is already shaded by their own property and then, as the sun tracks round in the summer, by the existing roof to No 1. As the proposed extension would be lower than the main roof it would not, in my view, have any greater shadowing impact. All told, I find no conflict with the advice in the Residential Design Guide and consider that the proposed extension would not have a material impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 3 by reason of overshadowing or any material loss of daylight or sunlight.
• 40. As for the proposed utility room door, it would lead onto an existing walkway along the side of No 1, between the two properties. It would relocate the existing utility door at the rear of the property, to the side. From what I saw during my site visit, the set back of the window from the boundary, combined with existing vegetation (largely within the appellant’s own garden and thus under their control) would generally preclude opportunities for direct overlooking from the doorway/side walkway into the bedroom.
• 41. To conclude in this issue, I find no harm to the living conditions of adjoining occupiers, having particular regard to daylight/sunlight and privacy. There would be no conflict in this regard with General Policy 2g) of the Strategic

Plan or the Residential Design Guide, which together and among other things seek to protect such interests.

Character and Appearance

• 42. The slightly elevated position of The Hollies in relation to Ballakillowey Road means that the rear of the property, including the timber summerhouse (the location of the proposed extension) is seen in views on the approach downhill from the north.
• 43. The external materials and roof pitch would match the existing property and it would be lower than the main ridge. Its siting and proportions are such that it would be subordinate to the host dwelling and it would not appear as overbearing or overly-dominant. Whilst it would be seen, it would not intrude into views on the approach along the main road. Rather it would be seen against the backdrop of the existing built development, at Nos 1 and 3 Bradda View. Moreover, the extension would not intrude into the open space around the existing dwelling, being much further from the road than the existing building. The property would still be surrounded by ample garden space, proportionate to the dwelling, and would not be seen as cramped.
• 44. The proposed widening of the driveway would necessitate the removal of some of the frontage hedgerow. However, a significant length would remain. Increasing the hardstanding within the curtilage, to allow for the parking of up to two additional vehicles would reflect the extent of the hardstanding area at the opposite properties, Nos 2 and 8 Bradda View. The arrangement proposed would not be uncharacteristic of this part of the estate and I find no harm in this regard in terms of character or appearance. As confirmed by Highway Services, there would be no harm either in terms of highway safety.
• 45. I therefore find no material harm in terms of any adverse impact on the established character and appearance of the area. There would be no conflict, in this regard, with General Policy 2 parts b) and c), or the Residential Design Guide, which together seek to protect such interests.

Other Matters

• 46. The grounds of appeal also refer to the loss of a property more suited to a smaller household, reducing the availability of housing for those wishing to downsize. Whether or not that is the case, General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan, and its paragraph 8.12.1, are explicitly supportive of extensions to existing dwellings, provided there would be no harm in terms of the character and appearance of the area or the amenity of local residents. I find no harm in this regard.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

• 47. Having considered all the matters raised, I conclude that the proposed development would be acceptable having regard to the living conditions of adjoining occupiers and the character and appearance of the area. I find no conflict with the relevant development plan policies or the Residential Design Guide in these regards.
• 48. For the reasons set out above, I therefore recommend that the appeal be dismissed. If accepted, this recommendation would have the

effect of upholding the decision of DEFA Planning to grant planning permission for the erection of a rear extension with associated internal alterations, and works to widen the existing driveway, at The Hollies, 1 Bradda View, Ballakillowey, Colby IM9 4BE.

Reason: The proposed access alterations would be acceptable in visual amenity and highway safety terms. The location, size and proportions of the proposed rear extension are such that there would be no material adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 3 Bradda View by reason of overshadowing, or any material loss of daylight or sunlight. Neither would there be any material harm in terms of their privacy as a consequence of the relocated utility room door. There would be no conflict in these regards with General Policy 2 g) of the Strategic Plan, or with the related advice in the Department’s Residential Design Guide.

Moreover, the siting, design, materials and proportions of the proposed extension mean that it would not be seen as an overly dominant, intrusive or jarring feature in views on the approach from the north along Ballakillowey Road, despite the slightly elevated position of the property in relation to the highway. As such, there would be no harm to the established character and appearance of the area, and no conflict with General Policy 2 b and c) or the Residential Design Guide.

• 49. Should the Minister agree, the plans to which the permission would relate are listed at Annex A to this report. A single recommended condition is set out at Annex B.

Jennifer A Vyse

Independent Inspector

23 October 2025

ANNEX AList of plans on which my recommendation is based

Existing Site and Location Plans 25_1901_00 Site and Location Survey Drawing 25_1901_01 Survey Drawing 25_1901_02 Floor Plan Elevations 25_1901_04 Visibility Splay 25_1901_05 Site Plan and Perspectives 25_1901_06 Site Photographs Nos 1-6

• ANNEX B Recommended condition
• C1. The development hereby approved shall begin 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.

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