Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90688/C
Page 1 of 10
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90688/C Applicant : Mrs Jean Fidrmuc Proposal : Extension of residential curtilage (retrospective) Site Address : Ballacrebbin Cottage Jurby Road Andreas Isle Of Man IM7 2EJ
Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 01.09.2025 Site Visit : 01.09.2025 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 28.10.2025 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 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.
C 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2025 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification):
Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the development and to ensure that the finished appearance of the development will enhance the character and visual amenities of the area.
C 3. Prior to the land being included within the residential curtilage, the entire boundary between the extended curtilage and the adjoining field, including the rear and side boundaries, shall be formed by one of the following: (a) a planted hedge of native species, (b) a Manx hedge constructed in accordance with Planning Circular 1/92, or (c) post-and-wire fencing supplemented by established vegetation. Photographic evidence confirming the boundary's establishment shall be submitted to the Department within 1 month of this work being carried out. Any plants that die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased within 5 years of planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90688/C
Page 2 of 10
The residential curtilage shall be laid out in accordance with the submitted plan and retained as such thereafter.
Reason: To reflect the historic curtilage associated with the dwelling and ensure the entire boundary is clearly defined in the interest of protecting the countryside, in accordance with EP1, SP4, and GP2.
C 4. The residential curtilage shall be laid out and retained in accordance with the red-edged boundary shown on the submitted Site Location Plan - Ballacrebbin Cottage (dated 24/09/2025).
Reason: To ensure the curtilage is clearly defined and accords with approved details in accordance with EP1, SP4, GP2.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposal represents a modest extension of residential curtilage into land classified as Class 3/4 agricultural soil, outside any defined settlement boundary. While the Strategic Plan establishes a presumption against development in the countryside (GP3, EP1), the change is limited in scale, visually contained, and does not involve the loss of high-quality agricultural land protected under EP14. The site is screened by existing vegetation, and no adverse impacts on landscape character, biodiversity, or agricultural function have been identified. The proposal therefore accords with the objectives of Environment Policy 1, Environment Policy 14, General Policy 2, and Strategic Policies 4 and 5, and is considered acceptable in principle.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to the following drawings and documents: Drawings: o Site Location Plan (27 Oct 2025)
Documents and Correspondence: o Officer's Notice to Amended Additional Detail and Cover Email (27 Oct 2025) o Agent's Letter to Amendments (27 Oct 2025) o Planning Statement prepared by Sarah Corlett Town Planning Consultancy Ltd (27 Oct 2025) o Applicant Response to Comment 1 (20 Aug 2025)
__
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: o Greenhills Sanctuary, The Stables, Greenhills, Jurby Road, Kirk Andreas - Objection identifies land that is owned or occupied by the objector that would be impacted on, but such land is not within 20 metres of the site (and no Environmental Impact Assessment is required) (A10(2)(b)) __
Officer’s Report
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90688/C
Page 3 of 10
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT PROPOSES TO INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL CURTILAGE INTO LAND NOT DESIGNATED FOR DEVELOPMENT, WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site comprises part of Field 122703 together with the residential curtilage of Ballacrebbin Cottage, Jurby Road, Andreas. It is located on the southern side of Jurby Road, southeast of St Judes, within a predominantly rural setting characterised by open fields and scattered trees. The broader site boundary is defined by mature trees and shrubs along the eastern, most of the western, and southern edges, while the northern boundary consists of timber fencing interspersed with scattered mature trees.
1.2 Within the curtilage is a two-storey detached dwelling with a pitched roof and chimneys, together with two outbuildings: a detached garage positioned adjacent to the northeast side of the dwelling and an equipment store located to the northwest of the turning and parking area. The property is accessed via a paved driveway from Jurby Road, leading to a turning and parking area, and is set within a maintained garden and lawn.
1.3 Beyond the site boundary, the land transitions to open agricultural fields, with a rural backdrop of scattered trees and low hills. The wider setting is predominantly rural, with the road boundaries defined by trees, hedging and sodbanks.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Extension of residential curtilage (retrospective). The applicant seeks to add part of Field 122703 which measures about 625sqm to the residential curtilage of the dwelling which currently measures about 1670sqm.
2.2 The proposal is described as being retrospective. However, the degree of the retrospective nature ius not very clear as the field is largely left to grass such that there is no clear distinction between the part of the field proposed for change of use and the entire field.
2.3 The applicant has submitted a Planning Statement prepared by Sarah Corlett Town Planning Consultancy Ltd which details the following: 1. The replacement dwelling, together with new buildings at the northern end of the site and the hard-surfaced area for vehicular manoeuvring and parking, has resulted in limited soft landscaped space within the existing curtilage. 2. There is only a small, grassed area to the front of the house, which is adjacent to the turning and parking area and therefore of limited amenity value. 3. The rear of the house is also constrained, with a small, paved patio and hard-surfaced area, leaving almost no meaningful garden space between the dwelling and the adjacent field. 4. The proposed extension would incorporate a section of land slightly raised above the level of the field, making it difficult to mow or cultivate as part of the agricultural land but easier to manage as part of the residential curtilage. 5. The extension would provide a proportionate and useful area of green space for the occupants, improving amenity provision relative to the size and nature of the dwelling. 6. The proposed area is bounded by established trees and fencing, and its position affords limited visibility from Jurby Road, reducing any potential impact on the rural character. 7. The Planning Statement argues that the proposal would have no harmful impact on the character or appearance of the countryside, in accordance with Environment Policy 1. 8. No trees would be affected, and the area would remain as lawn, aligning with Environment Policies 3 and 4. 9. The applicant references consistency in planning decisions, citing recent appeal and committee decisions where similar extensions of curtilage were permitted on grounds of proportionality and absence of harm.
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90688/C
Page 4 of 10
10. Overall, the proposal is presented as a reasonable and proportionate adjustment to provide adequate amenity space for the dwelling while retaining the majority of adjacent land in agricultural use.
3.0 PLANNING POLICIES 3.1 Site Specific: 3.1.1 The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of "white land" not zoned for development, under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area; nor within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. The site is not prone to flood risks. The soil at the site falls within Class 3⁄4 Soil Classification on the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map of the Isle of Man.
3.2 National: STRATEGIC PLAN (2016) 3.2.1 Relevant Strategic Plan Policies: 1. General Policy 3 - presumption against development outside allocated sites, other than specific exceptions which include, "location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals" and "buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage". 2. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations. 3. Environment Policy 1 - Protection of the countryside and inherent ecology. 4. Environment Policy 14 - Seeks to prevent the permanent loss of important and versatile agricultural land (Classes 1-2). 5. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources 6. Strategic Policy 2: New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions (2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3. 7. Strategic Policy 4 - development proposals must protect or enhance the nature conservation and landscape quality of urban as well as rural areas. 8. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact 9. Spatial Policy 5 - Development in countryside only in accordance with General Policy 3. 10. Transport Policy 4 - Highway capacity and safety considerations. 11. Community Policies 7 - provide guidance in respect of minimising criminal activity and antisocial behaviour.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 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 following planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application: 1. PA 11/00325/B for Erection of an equipment store - APPROVED. This approval for an equipment store within the residential curtilage significantly reduced the amount of usable garden space available to the occupants. The store, combined with the existing dwelling, garage, and hardstanding for parking and turning, left the site with very limited soft landscaped area for amenity use.
PA 03/01923/B for Erection of sun lounge and porch to rear elevation - APPROVED.
PA 99/00384/B for Extension to approved garage (PA 97/01141/B) at dwelling under construction - APPROVED.
PA 97/01141/B for Erection of replacement dwelling with garage - APPROVED.
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90688/C
Page 5 of 10
5. PA 96/01429/B for Demolition of existing cottage and erection of replacement dwelling with garage - REFUSED.
PA 95/01368/A for Approval in principle for demolition of existing and erection of new cottage with garage - APPROVED.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 DOI Highways have not made any comments on the application although they were consulted on 17 August 2025. 6.2 Andreas Parish Commissioners have not made any comments on the application although they were consulted on 17 August 2025.
6.3 MUA Electricity have not made any comments on the application although they were consulted on 17 August 2025.
6.4 The Owners/occupiers of Greenhills Sanctuary, The Stables, Greenhills, Jurby Road, Kirk Andreas, have made the following comments on the application (15 August 2025): 1. They object to the application and state that, as the owners of land adjoining Ballacrebbin Cottage, they wish to be awarded Interested Party Status. 2. They note that the extension of residential curtilage requested has the potential to impact on the welfare of animals at Greenhills Sanctuary, which was granted change of use of land and buildings to an animal sanctuary in 2024. 3. They state that the proposal, if approved, could prejudice the use of the adjoining land as an animal sanctuary. 4. They consider that residential intensification would conflict with sanctuary operations. 5. They note that the 1870 Book of Reference to the Plan of the Parish Andreas identifies plot 2704 as "House Garden & C" (0.180 acres), plot 2702 as arable (0.669 acres) and plot 2703 as arable (1.575 acres). 6. They state that Ballacrebbin Cottage was on plot 2704 and that these distinctions are legally affirmed in the 1996 registered deed and reiterated in the 2013 conveyance, whose annexed plan visually encompasses all three parcels but does not reclassify their lawful use. 7. They assert that ownership alone does not confer curtilage designation. 8. They note that the residential footprint (2704) was historically distinct from the surrounding agricultural land (2702-2703). 9. They state that planning approval ref: 03/01923/B (2004) authorised an extension on plot 2704. 10. They note that no approved application or lawful change of use exists for 2702 or 2703. 11. They state that no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate historic domestic use, continuous residential occupation or lawful conversion. 12. They consider that the proposed curtilage inflation violates the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2021), notably Policies GP1 (land use compatibility), LC14 (curtilage extension restrictions) and LP7 (agricultural land protection). 13. They state that the argument put forward by the applicant that he had not "been advised that the use of the property was divided between residential and agricultural" undermines evidentiary planning standards. 14. They respectfully request that curtilage be confined to parcel 2704, or as outlined in pink in the plan attached to the authorised application reference 03/01923/B (2004), with the rest of the land remaining for agricultural use.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of the current application are: 1. The Principle (GP3, EP1, SP2, & SP5) 2. Impact on Landscape and Setting (EP1, SP4, SP5, & GP2)
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90688/C
Page 6 of 10
3. Impact on agricultural Soils (EP 14, Section 7.13 of the Strategic Plan); 4. Impacts on Biodiversity (EP1, SP4, & GP2); and 5. Impact on Neighbouring Properties (GP2)
7.2 THE PRINCIPLE 7.2.1 Historic mapping (1860s) identifies the broader landholding associated with Ballacrebbin Cottage as comprising plots 2702 (approx. 0.669 acres), 2703 (approx. 1.675 acres), and 2704 (approx. 0.180 acres). Plot 2704 is the smallest parcel and has long been associated with the dwelling, although its extent has been modestly increased through previous planning approvals. In contrast, plots 2702 and 2703 were historically designated as arable land. This delineation confirms that the residential footprint was historically confined to a limited area, with the majority of the landholding in agricultural use. The current proposal seeks to incorporate approximately 625sqm (0.154 acres) of Field 122703 (former 2702, 2703, and 2704), part of the former arable land, into the residential curtilage, which presently measures around 1670sqm (0.413 acres). This would result in a 37% increase in curtilage area.
7.2.2 The application site lies outside any defined settlement boundary and within the open countryside, where the Strategic Plan establishes a general presumption against development unless either it meets certain exemptions or overriding national need is demonstrated (GP3). Similarly, EP1 indicates that development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need.
7.2.3 The proposal does not meet the exemptions set out under GP3. The Planning Statement argues that the extension would improve amenity provision for the dwelling, which is currently constrained by hard surfacing and limited garden space. While this does not constitute an overriding national need, the improvement to the amenity of existing and future occupiers is a limited benefit.
7.2.4 The principle of development therefore turns on whether the proposed change of use can be justified, having regard to its countryside location, the absence of overriding need, and the implications for the character and function of the land. It is noted that the land proposed for inclusion is modest in scale, physically contiguous with the existing curtilage and that the shape and location of the curtilage extension is such that it is unlikely to give rise to pressure for further extensions. It is also relevant to consider whether the change would result in harm to the countryside or its ecological function, and whether the curtilage extension is proportionate and visually contained, noting the policy established by EP1 that the countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake.
7.2.5 In summary, the policy framework creates a presumption against the development, and there are no public benefits although limited private benefits have been set out. However, before a decision can be reached consideration should be given to the extent to which there are adverse impacts in terms of landscape, ecological, agricultural etc. These matters are addressed in the following sections of this report.
7.3 IMPACT ON LANDSCAPE AND SETTING 7.3.1 The proposed curtilage extension falls within the open countryside, where landscape protection is a key consideration under Environment Policy 1 (EP1). While the principle of development is addressed in Section 7.2, this section focuses specifically on the proposal's spatial and visual relationship with its surroundings.
7.3.2 The site lies outside any designated landscape or ecological area. The land in question is modest in scale, directly abuts the existing curtilage, and is visually enclosed by mature vegetation and fencing. These features limit its visibility from public viewpoints and help maintain the site's undeveloped character. No physical structures are proposed, and the land would remain as lawn, avoiding any disruption to the natural form or function of the landscape.
==== PAGE 7 ====
25/90688/C
Page 7 of 10
7.3.3 Strategic Policy 4 (SP4) requires that development must protect or enhance landscape character, while Strategic Policy 5 (SP5) and General Policy 2 (GP2) reinforce the need for contextual sensitivity and avoidance of adverse visual impact. In this case, the absence of built form, combined with the retention of natural screening, ensures that the proposal remains visually recessive and does not disrupt the established rural rhythm. The extension is sufficiently contained within the existing landscape structure and does not introduce incongruous elements that would compromise openness or character. Subject to conditions that prevent future encroachment, the proposal is considered to accord with the strategic aim of safeguarding landscape quality.
7.4 IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL SOILS 7.4.1 The land proposed for curtilage extension is classified as Class 3/4 under the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map. This classification places it outside the scope of Environment Policy 14 (EP14), which applies only to land identified as Class 1/2, or mixed Class 2/3 and Class 3/2 where Class 2 soils are present. EP14 establishes a presumption against development that would result in the permanent loss of important and versatile agricultural land, unless an overriding need is demonstrated and no lower-quality land is available.
7.4.2 Section 7.13 of the Strategic Plan reinforces this position, recognising agriculture as a vital part of the rural economy and landscape stewardship. It acknowledges that while Class 3 land comprises the majority of agricultural soils on the Island (80.26%), it is characterised by moderate limitations and requires careful management. However, the policy emphasis is on safeguarding Class 1 and 2 soils, which represent only 4.87% of the Island's agricultural land and are concentrated in the south-east.
7.4.3 In this case, the land affected by the proposal comprises 625sqm of a larger arable field. No technical evidence has been provided to demonstrate any physical constraint or reduced agricultural viability. The assessment therefore relies on mapped soil classification and the scale of the proposed change. The area is limited in extent, does not fall within a protected soil category, and does not result in the loss of high-grade agricultural land. It would not fragment the field or impede its continued agricultural function.
7.4.4 Accordingly, the proposal does not conflict with EP14, nor does it undermine the Strategic Plan's broader objectives for land efficiency, agricultural viability, or soil protection under Section 7.13.
7.5 IMPACTS ON BIODIVERSITY 7.5.1 The proposal does not involve the removal of trees, hedgerows, or sodbanks, nor does it introduce lighting, paving, or structures that would disturb existing habitats. The area is currently grassed and maintained, with limited ecological value in its present form. The retention of boundary vegetation and the absence of development reduce the potential for ecological disruption.
7.5.2 Under EP1 and SP4, development must avoid adverse impacts on biodiversity and nature conservation value. GP2 requires that proposals do not affect protected wildlife or locally important habitats. In this case, the proposal is unlikely to result in measurable biodiversity loss. Should enhancement be sought, the area could support native planting or habitat enrichment, but this is not essential to mitigate the current proposal. The scheme is therefore considered compliant with biodiversity-related policy provisions.
7.6 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES 7.6.1 General Policy 2 requires that development does not adversely affect the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality. In this case, the proposed curtilage extension would sit approximately 44m from the western boundary and about 102m from the objector's property to the west. These separation distances are substantial and, combined with the
==== PAGE 8 ====
25/90688/C
Page 8 of 10
retention of existing boundary features, mature trees, shrubs, and fencing, ensure that the proposal would not introduce overlooking, overshadowing, or any material loss of privacy.
7.6.2 It is also relevant that the scheme has been significantly reduced from the earlier proposal, which sought to incorporate the entire Field 122703 into the residential curtilage. Following discussions with the Planning Officer, the amended scheme now involves a much smaller area, reducing potential visual and functional impacts on neighbouring land.
7.6.3 Given the scale of the extension, the retained screening, and the absence of new structures, the proposal is not considered to result in any unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity. Accordingly, the scheme is compliant with General Policy 2 (GP2).
7.7 OTHER MATTERS 7.7.1 The concerns raised in relation to animal welfare are noted and since these comments were made the application was revised to reduce the proposed extent of the extension and create a gap between the curtilage and the sanctuary. It is therefore considered that these concerns do not constitute a reason for refusal (see 7.6.2).
7.7.2 The objectors have also raised concerns relating to historic land use distinctions and private covenants associated with the property. While these matters are acknowledged, they are not material to the determination of this planning application. Covenants and contents of deeds are civil legal issues that fall outside the scope of planning control. The planning system does not adjudicate on private legal arrangements, and any determination under the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 cannot create, alter, or extinguish such rights or obligations. Accordingly, these matters carry no weight in the planning assessment.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposal seeks a modest extension of residential curtilage into land classified as Class 3/4 agricultural soil, outside any defined settlement boundary. While the Strategic Plan establishes a presumption against development in the countryside (GP3, EP1), the change is limited in scale, visually contained, and does not involve the loss of high-quality agricultural land protected under EP14. No adverse impacts on landscape character, biodiversity, or agricultural function have been identified, and the site remains screened from public views, consistent with SP4, SP5, and GP2. Subject to conditions restricting future structures and maintaining boundary treatments, the proposal is considered to accord with the relevant policies and is acceptable in principle.
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);
==== PAGE 9 ====
25/90688/C
Page 9 of 10
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.
__
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made: Permitted Date: 10.11.2025
Signed : Mr Paul Visigah Presenting Officer
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.
==== PAGE 10 ====
25/90688/C
Page 10 of 10
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 10.11.2025
Application No. : 25/90688/C Applicant : Mrs Jean Fidrmuc Proposal : Extension of residential curtilage (retrospective) Site Address : Ballacrebbin Cottage Jurby Road Andreas Isle Of Man IM7 2EJ
Presenting Officer : Paul Visigah
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The Planning Committee considered the application at its meeting on 10th November 2025 and agreed with the recommendation to approve the application subject to the officer's amendment to Condition 3.
The revised Condition 3 shall read:
Prior to the land being included within the residential curtilage, the entire boundary between the extended curtilage and the adjoining field, including the rear and side boundaries, shall be formed by one of the following: (a) a planted hedge of native species, (b) a Manx hedge constructed in accordance with Planning Circular 1/92, or (c) post-and-wire fencing supplemented by established vegetation. Appropriate gated pedestrian access shall be incorporated into the boundary treatment to enable the access the adjoining field.
Photographic evidence confirming the boundary's establishment shall be submitted to the Department within 1 month of this work being carried out.
Any plants that die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased within 5 years of planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. The residential curtilage shall be laid out in accordance with the submitted plan and retained as such thereafter.
Reason: To reflect the historic curtilage associated with the dwelling and ensure the entire boundary is clearly defined in the interest of protecting the countryside, in accordance with EP1, SP4, and GP2.
__
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal