Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90695/B
Page 1 of 9
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90695/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Russell Vaughan Proposal : Increase in height of existing gate pillars and installation of new vehicle gate; erection of timber fence with installation of new personnel gate Site Address : Mill House Dogmills Isle Of Man IM7 4AD
Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 01.09.2025 Site Visit : 01.09.2025 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 24.09.2025 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposal involves the expansion of residential curtilage into agricultural land located outside the defined settlement boundary, which is strictly controlled under General Policy 3. The development does not meet any of the policy exceptions, such as essential agricultural or forestry need, location dependency for minerals or services, or overriding national interest. It also fails to demonstrate compliance with Strategic Policy 2, which prioritises development within existing towns and villages, and Spatial Policy 5, which confirms that development in the countryside is only acceptable where it aligns with General Policy 3. The scheme introduces domestic use into land that remains in agricultural use, without any locational justification, and is therefore contrary to the strategic spatial framework and countryside protection objectives of the Strategic Plan.
R 2. The site lies within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, where the protection of landscape character is paramount. The proposed fencing and curtilage expansion introduce domestic features that result in visual harm and the domestication of the rural setting, contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 2, and Strategic Policies 4 and 5.
R 3. The development would result in the functional and visual loss of Class 2 agricultural soils, which are among the most versatile and protected on the Island. The proposal does not demonstrate overriding need or explore reasonable alternatives, and therefore conflicts with Environment Policy 14 and the strategic objectives of Paragraph 7.13 of the Strategic Plan.
R 4. The proposal involves the removal of established hedgerow linked to sodbanks, which contributes to habitat connectivity and supports local biodiversity. This feature lies within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, where ecological integrity is a
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90695/B
Page 2 of 9
key component of landscape character. The curtilage expansion and fencing introduce domestic elements that fragment habitat and erode ecological value. No mitigation or enhancement measures have been proposed. The development is therefore contrary to Environment Policy 1, Strategic Policy 4(b), and General Policy 2(d), which require the protection of ecological features and nature conservation value in rural areas.
__
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: o DOI Highway Services - No objection o Bride Parish Commissioners - No objection __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site relates to 'Mill House', a modern detached dwelling located at the southeastern end of The Dog Mills in Bride. The property is accessed via a gravelled driveway framed by metal gates and concrete pillars. It includes a landscaped garden that remains tightly confined within the approved curtilage, running closely along the western side of the dwelling, with a more substantial garden area situated to the southeast. A public footpath and access lane bisect the site, separating the main dwelling from a detached garage located on a small triangular plot to the northeast.
1.2 The approved residential curtilage of Mill House was established through planning permissions PA 13/91221/B and PA 14/00505/B and comprises a triangular parcel of land immediately surrounding the dwelling, defined by the landscaped garden and driveway. The measured survey submitted under PA 13/91221/B clearly excludes the adjacent agricultural field (Field 111381) and scrub areas to the east and south from the residential curtilage.
1.3 The proposed plan introduces a red line boundary and fencing layout that encompass areas beyond the historically approved curtilage, including land previously identified as agricultural and scrubland. These areas have not been subject to any formal change of use and remain designated as agricultural land.
1.4 The site lies within open countryside and is visually prominent from Bride Road and the adjacent public footpath to the north. The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of traditional dwellings and open rural landscape, with boundary treatments typically comprising hedgerows, stone walls, and low fencing set behind mature planting.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Increase in height of existing gate pillars and installation of new vehicle gate; erection of timber fence with installation of new personnel gate.
2.2 The proposed works comprise the following: i. Gate Pillars: The existing gate posts are to be increased in height from approximately 1.45 metres to 2.05 metres. ii. Vehicular Gate: The existing double-leaf gate, which currently opens inward into the site, is to be replaced with a new sliding gate. The new gate would be 2 metres in height and constructed with a steel frame and solid timber panels. iii. Pedestrian Gate: The existing pedestrian gate is to be relocated approximately 3.3 metres westward and replaced with a new 1.8-metre-high gate, also comprising a steel frame with timber panels to match the vehicular gate.
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90695/B
Page 3 of 9
iv. Fencing: A new 2-metre-high timber fence is proposed along the boundary to the right (east) of the entrance gate, continuing the line of enclosure and matching the design and materials of the new gates. The fencing shall enclose the entire mature vegetation situated directly to the right of the existing pedestrian gate and measuring about 30.5m. This shall extend the approved curtilage boundary along the site frontage by 17.6m beyond the current extent.
2.3 Curtilage Extension 2.3.1 Whilst not explicitly stated the application form and plans proposal this curtilage extension, which seeks to extend the curtilage beyond that approved under PA's 13/91221/B and 14/00505/B to include agricultural land totalling approximately 4,326sqm (1.07 acres), encompassing the entire agricultural land (Field 111381) and scrub areas surrounding the residential curtilage. The existing and proposed site plans show a red line boundary that encloses both the approved residential curtilage and adjoining agricultural land. However, no planning approval has been granted for any extension of the curtilage, and no justification has been provided to support the extension as indicated.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Site Specific: 3.1.1 The application site is not designated for any site-specific purpose but is located within a wider area of land classified as high landscape or coastal value and scenic significance under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982. The site is largely not prone to flood risks, although the parking area within the site is considered to be prone to high surface water flood risks. The site is not within a designated nature conservation site but sits about 30m west of the Ramsey Bay Marine Nature Reserve. The soils within and around the site, including the extended curtilage area fall within Class 2 on the Agricultural Land use Capability Map of the Isle of Man.
3.2 The Strategic Plan stipulates a general presumption against development in areas which are not designated for a particular purpose and where the protection of the countryside is of paramount importance (EP 1 and GP3). However given there is an existing dwelling within the broader site area, it is relevant to consider the general development considerations under General Policy 2.
3.3 Relevant Strategic Plan Policies: 1. General Policy 3 - Sets out exceptions to development in the countryside. 2. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations. 3. Environment Policy 1 - Protection of the countryside and inherent ecology. 4. Environment Policy 2 - The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that: (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential. 5. Environment Policy 14 - Seeks to prevent the permanent loss of important and versatile agricultural land (Classes 1-2). 6. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources. 7. Strategic Policy 2 - Priority for new development to identified towns and villages. 8. Strategic Policy 4 - development proposals must protect or enhance the nature conservation and landscape quality of urban as well as rural areas. 9. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact 10. Spatial Policy 5 - Development in the countryside will only be permitted in accordance with General Policy 3.
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90695/B
Page 4 of 9
11. Paragraph 7.13.1 - emphasises the need to safeguard agricultural land, particularly higher-grade soils, by supporting appropriate rural development only where justified, while protecting the openness, character, and ecological value of the countryside from unnecessary loss or domestication.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Residential Design Guide (2021) 4.1.1 This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction. Section 3.1 deals with Local Distinctiveness, 4.0 on Householder Extensions, while Section 7.0 deals with Impact on Neighbouring Properties.
4.2 The Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy (2015 - 2025) 4.1.1 The Department's Biodiversity Strategy is capable of being a material consideration. It seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The site has been the subject of several previous planning applications, five of which are considered relevant to the assessment and determination of the current application: 1. PA 13/00005/B for Erection of a replacement dwelling - Approved. This application enabled the principle of a replacement dwelling on the site and proposed a redefinition of the residential curtilage associated with the new dwelling.
PA 13/91221/B for Erection of a replacement dwelling (comprising amendment to PA 13/00005/B) - Approved. This application refined the previously approved layout and formally delineated the residential curtilage as it exists today, as shown on Drawing No. 1208G/0. The approved scheme established a defined triangular parcel of land encompassing the dwelling and driveway, explicitly excluding the adjoining agricultural field and surrounding scrubland.
PA 14/00505/B for Landscaping works involving retaining walls, cut and fill levels in association with proposed new dwelling (PA 13/91221/B) - Approved.
PA 14/00458/B for Erection of a replacement dwelling (amendment to PA 13/91221/B) - Approved.
PA 16/00250/B for Erection of new gate pillars and associated wall and installation of domestic bulk gas storage tank and base - Approved.
5.2 These subsequent approvals; PA 14/00505/B, PA 14/00458/B, and PA 16/00250/B, each reinforced the residential curtilage established under PA 13/91221/B. The approved works, including landscaping, structural amendments to the dwelling, and installation of domestic infrastructure, were all confined within the triangular parcel defined in Drawing No. 1208G/0, thereby consolidating its recognition as the lawful residential extent of the site.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 DOI Highways Division find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking (21 Jul 2025).
6.2 Bride Parish Commissioners have no objections to this application (15 Aug 2025).
6.3 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties.
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90695/B
Page 5 of 9
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this application are: 1. Principle Of the Proposed Development; 2. Potential Impacts on the Character and Appearance of the Site and Immediate Vicinity; 3. Impact on Agricultural Soils; and 4. Potential Impacts on Biodiversity;
7.2 THE PRINCIPLE (GP3, EP1, SP 4 & 5); 7.2.1 The starting point for any application is the land designation, and in this case, the application site is situated within a rural and protected part of the countryside where development is strictly controlled, with the site not being allocated specifically for any development and being within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV). The site also sits outside of the settlement boundary of Bride, which is the closest settlement.
7.2.2 With the above in mind, General Policy 3 is the most relevant policy when assessing this application, given that the site lies within the countryside and outside any defined settlement boundary. While the proposal may initially appear to involve modest domestic boundary alterations, it exceeds this scope by proposing a substantial extension to the residential curtilage. If approved, the scheme would result in the incorporation of agricultural land into the residential curtilage, contrary to the established planning history and land use designation. The above would mean that the development would also fail to comply with Strategic Policy 5 which requires that new development is to be located within the defined settlements, unless it can be demonstrated that the development complies with General Policy 3.
7.2.3 In assessing compliance with General Policy 3, it is first noted that the scheme as currently proposed is not location dependent in relation to the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services. Likewise, the proposal is not essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry nor is there an overriding national need, and the site is not required for the interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage. Therefore, it is judged that the proposal fails parts (a), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of General Policy 3.
7.2.4 While part (c) of GP3 relates to previously developed land, its applicability in this case is limited. Elements of the proposal, such as the gate replacement and increased gate pillar height, fall within the established residential curtilage and could reasonably be considered to relate to previously developed land. However, the scheme also includes fencing and enclosure works that extend significantly beyond the approved curtilage into agricultural land, enclosing land that is for agricultural use. This land (Field 111381) is excluded from the definition of previously developed land under the Strategic Plan, which specifically omits land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings. Whilst there is no evidence that the adjoining field has been occupied by such buildings, it remains in agricultural use and has not been occupied by any permanent non-agricultural structures. Therefore, it does not meet the criteria for previously developed land. As such, the proposal cannot be considered to fall wholly within the scope of GP3(c), and the curtilage extension negates any partial compliance with this exception.
7.2.5 Further to the preceding assessment, no formal approval has been granted over time to extend the residential curtilage into this parcel measuring approximately 4,326 sqm. The planning history clearly delineates the extent of the approved curtilage, and the current proposal introduces a significant departure from that boundary.
7.2.6 The proposed works, particularly the fencing layout and red line boundary, would materially alter the spatial extent of the residential curtilage, incorporating land that remains designated for agricultural use. This represents a functional and visual shift in land use, which cannot reasonably be considered incidental or ancillary to the dwelling's residential function.
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90695/B
Page 6 of 9
While the applicant may argue that there is no clear physical separation between the existing curtilage and the land proposed for enclosure, historic mapping and planning records show that a clear distinction has always existed.
7.2.7 Accordingly, the curtilage extension and associated domestic fencing of part of the field boundary to integrate the entire field into the residential curtilage is considered to be at variance with Environment Policy 1, which seeks to protect the countryside and its ecology for its own sake. It also fails to align with General Policy 3, as it involves development on agricultural land not zoned for residential use and does not meet any of the exceptions allowable under that policy. The proposal does not represent development of overriding national need, nor is there any reasonable and acceptable alternative that would justify the change.
7.3 CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE (GP 2, EP1 & 2, STP 4 & 5) 7.3.1 The application site lies within open countryside formally designated as an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982. This designation reflects the elevated sensitivity of the landscape, where the protection of visual character and ecological integrity is paramount. The surrounding area is defined by a gravel access lane, mature hedgerows, and expansive open fields, forming a coherent and tranquil rural setting. The absence of built form and the continuity of natural vegetation contribute to the scenic quality and reinforce the traditional agricultural character of the locality.
7.3.2 Although the proposed fencing and gate alterations may appear modest in isolation, they must be considered in the context of the wider curtilage expansion and its cumulative impact. The enclosure of Field 111381 introduces domestic-style boundary treatments that are visually and functionally inconsistent with the surrounding countryside. These works result in a perceptible shift in land use, replacing open agricultural land with enclosed residential curtilage. The hedgerow, which currently defines the rural edge, would be visually interrupted by the new fencing alignment, undermining the openness and continuity of the landscape.
7.3.3 The submitted elevation drawings confirm that the proposed gate introduces a more formal and visually assertive frontage. Vertical timber slats framed within a structured enclosure replace the existing permeable entrance. While the materials may reflect elements of the local vernacular, their application in this context results in a distinctly domestic appearance that contrasts with the surrounding rural character. The increased pillar height and sliding mechanism reinforce this sense of enclosure and permanence, which is not typical of agricultural settings. From the public footpath and access lane, the visual impact is heightened by the removal of natural screening and the introduction of hard landscaping, replacing a soft vegetated edge with a solid and visually dominant feature.
7.3.4 Environment Policy 1 requires that the countryside be protected for its own sake, and Environment Policy 2 places the protection of landscape character at the forefront of decision- making within AHLV. Development is only permissible where it can be demonstrated that the landscape would not be harmed or that the location is essential. Neither condition is met. The proposed works introduce visual clutter and domestic features that detract from the traditional landscape setting, particularly when viewed from public vantage points.
7.3.5 Strategic Policy 4 reinforces the need to protect landscape quality and nature conservation value, especially in rural areas. The proposal introduces built features that are not sympathetic to the site's context or the wider landscape character. While the materials proposed may be locally recognisable, their use in enclosing a previously open field results in visual harm and a loss of rural openness. The works are not incidental to the dwelling and cannot be considered subordinate in either function or appearance.
==== PAGE 7 ====
25/90695/B
Page 7 of 9
7.3.6 In conclusion, the development fails to respect the character and appearance of the countryside and the designated AHLV. It introduces features that are not sympathetic to their setting and results in the domestication of the landscape, contrary to the objectives of General Policy 2, Environment Policies 1 and 2, and Strategic Policies 4 and 5. The proposal is therefore considered unacceptable in terms of character and appearance.
7.4 IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL SOILS (HP 14 and Paragraph 7.13.1) 7.4.1 The extended curtilage area falls within Class 2 agricultural soils, which are among the most versatile and productive on the Island. According to the Agricultural Soils of the Isle of Man study, only 4.87% of the Island's farmland qualifies as Class 1 or 2, with the vast majority falling into Class 3. Paragraph 7.13.1 of the Strategic Plan makes clear that these higher-grade soils are a finite and protected resource, essential not only for food production and employment, but also for the stewardship and appearance of the countryside.
7.4.2 Environment Policy 14 establishes a strong presumption against the permanent loss of Class 1 and 2 land unless there is an overriding need and no reasonable alternative. No such justification has been provided in this case. The proposed curtilage expansion into Field 111381 would result in the functional and visual loss of productive agricultural land, undermining the Strategic Plan's commitment to safeguarding prime agricultural resources and supporting the rural economy.
7.4.3 Paragraphs 7.13.2 to 7.13.4 further reinforce that new uses in the countryside must be justified by agricultural need and must not compromise the landscape or the viability of agricultural land. The proposal does not support farm diversification, nor is it linked to agricultural activity. Instead, it introduces domestic use into a field that remains in agricultural use, contributing to the incremental erosion of high-quality soils and the domestication of the rural landscape.
7.4.4 In summary, the development would result in the unjustified loss of Class 2 agricultural land within a sensitive landscape setting. It conflicts with Environment Policy 14 and the strategic objectives of Paragraph 7.13 and fails to demonstrate any overriding need that would warrant the release of protected agricultural land for residential curtilage extension.
7.5 Biodiversity (GP 2, EP 1 and STP 4) 7.5.1 The proposed development involves the enclosure of land beyond the historically approved residential curtilage, extending into Field 111381, which remains in agricultural use. This expansion necessitates the removal and disturbance of a section of established hedgerow along the site's boundary, a feature that contributes to both the visual character and ecological value of the area. Hedgerows are recognised as important ecological corridors, supporting habitat connectivity and biodiversity, particularly for nesting and foraging species, and where they are linked to existing sodbanks as is the case here, their retention is vital for preserving local biota.
7.5.2 Although the extent of vegetation loss is limited, the removal of hedging introduces short-term ecological disruption and contributes to the broader domestication of the site. The works do not include lighting, drainage, or landform changes that would directly affect adjacent ecological corridors, and the site lies approximately 30 metres west of the Ramsey Bay Marine Nature Reserve. However, the cumulative impact of curtilage expansion, fencing, and vegetation removal within a designated Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance raises concerns about incremental habitat fragmentation and loss of ecological integrity.
7.5.3 Environment Policy 1 requires that the countryside and its ecology be protected for its own sake, and Strategic Policy 4(b) emphasises the need to safeguard nature conservation value, particularly in rural areas. General Policy 2(d) similarly requires that development avoid adverse impacts on ecological features. In this case, while the biodiversity impact may be
==== PAGE 8 ====
25/90695/B
Page 8 of 9
minor in isolation, it forms part of a wider pattern of encroachment and landscape alteration that is not supported by policy. The absence of mitigation or ecological enhancement measures further weakens the proposal's alignment with the Strategic Plan.
7.5.4 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the development would result in the loss of established hedgerow and contribute to the erosion of ecological value within a sensitive landscape setting. It does not demonstrate compliance with the biodiversity protection objectives of Environment Policy 1, Strategic Policy 4(b), or General Policy 2(d).
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposed development involves the unjustified expansion of residential curtilage into agricultural land within a designated Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. The scheme introduces domestic boundary treatments that erode the openness and rural character of the site, resulting in visual harm and landscape domestication. The land affected (Field 111381) remains in agricultural use and is classified as Class 2 soil, among the most versatile and protected under the Strategic Plan. The proposal also involves the removal of established hedgerow linked to sodbanks, contributing to habitat fragmentation and the erosion of ecological value within a sensitive landscape setting. The development fails to meet the criteria of General Policy 3 and conflicts with Environment Policies 1, 2, and 14, Strategic Policy 4(b), and General Policy 2(d), which collectively seek to safeguard the countryside, its ecology, biodiversity, and productive land. In the absence of overriding need or mitigation, the development is considered contrary to the Development Plan and is recommended for refusal.
9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).
9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to: o applicant (in all cases); o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.
9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10.
9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required): o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant); o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area; o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and o in the case of a petition, a single representative.
==== PAGE 9 ====
25/90695/B
Page 9 of 9
__
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 26.09.2025
Determining Officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal