Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90660/B
Page 1 of 9
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90660/B Applicant : Blair & Katie Acheson & Johnstone Proposal : Erection of side extension to detached cottage Site Address : Ballnalargy Cottage Dalby Road Dalby Isle Of Man IM5 3BP
Senior Planning Officer: Mrs Louise Phillips Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 08.09.2025 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. By virtue of its scale and modern design, particularly in respect of the dormer, the size and shape of the windows and the cladding finish on the front elevation, the proposed extension would be incongruous with the appearance of the existing cottage, eroding its symmetry and dominating and detracting from its traditional, distinctive form. Thus it would cause harm to the character and appearance of the site and surrounding Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, contrary to General Policy 2(b) and (c), Environment Policy 2 and Housing Policy 15 of the Strategic Plan 2016. It would also conflict with the advice on extensions provided in the Residential Design Guide 2021.
R 2. The proposed extension would significantly reduce the space available on the site for manoeuvring vehicles, particularly if three cars are parked along the frontage as shown on the proposed plans. This would increase the risk of vehicles reversing down the steep and narrow driveway and onto the highway, to the detriment of highway safety. This would be contrary to General Policy 2(h) and (i) of the Strategic Plan 2016. __
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the owner/occupier of the following properties should be given the Right to Appeal as they have submitted an objection which meets the specified criteria:
o Gulls Way Barn, Dalby, IM5 3BR __
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90660/B
Page 2 of 9
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE
1.1 Ballnalargy Cottage is a detached, Manx stone cottage. It has a pitched slate roof with gable ends and chimney stacks, and the front elevation is almost symmetrical with three windows at first floor level and a central porch between two larger windows on the ground floor.
1.2 The cottage lies to the south east of the A27 Dalby Road between two other dwellings - Ballnalargy Bungalow, a more modern building which fronts the highway, and converted Gulls Way Barn to its rear. It is accessed via a fairly narrow driveway shared with Gulls Way Barn and there is parking for three vehicles in tandem along the front of the cottage.
1.3 The land slopes upwards from the highway to Gulls Way Barn, providing scenic views of the sea looking west from the site itself and from Gulls Way Barn. The lie of the land also means that the driveway access to the site is quite steep. The cottage cannot be seen from the road.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The proposed development is a two-storey extension to the north-east side of the cottage, with a projecting rear element set in from the new side elevation of the building.
2.2 The roof of the side extension, which would be finished in matching natural slate, would continue the pitch, ridge and eaves height of the existing building and have a gable end, and the front roof slope would include a dormer-type feature incorporating a large first floor window. The front elevation would also have a large, horizontally proportioned window at ground floor level, and the wall would be finished in vertical timber or composite cladding.
2.3 The rear projection would have a lower ridge height and a gable end and would be finished in painted render. The side elevation would also be rendered and would include a large first floor window shaped to follow the pitch of the roof. The ground floor windows would be smaller and vertically proportioned.
2.4 The existing cottage is approximately 10.5m long and the extension would add 6.1m. The total floor space of the existing cottage, measured externally, is approximately 116.3m2. The extension would add 77.4m2 and thereby increase the floorspace of the existing dwelling by approximately 66.5%.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY
Site Specific 3.1 The application site is not within a Conservation Area and there are no Registered Buildings, Registered Trees or Registered Tree Areas in the vicinity. The site is not at risk of flooding.
1982 Development Plan 3.2 The site is in the countryside in an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 3.3 General Policy 2 provides various criteria for managing the impact of development, including those below which are relevant to this proposal. The development should:
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90660/B
Page 3 of 9
(b) respect the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (g) not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provide satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; and (i) not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways.
3.4 Environment Policy 2 provides that landscape character is the most important consideration in Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
3.5 Housing Policy 15 states that the alteration or extension of traditionally styled properties in the countryside will normally only be approved where they respect the proportion, form and appearance of the property and measure less than 50% of the existing floor space (measured externally).
3.6 Transport Policy 7/Appendix 7 requires residential development to provide two off road parking spaces.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Circular 3/91: Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside 4.1 This includes information about the typical form and dimensions of country houses. Ballnalargy Cottage has a double cube volume beneath a steep pitched roof with gable ends, chimney stacks and symmetrical fenestration, reflecting the form described, but the agent states that the building is slightly smaller than the average, by 6%, and has lower ceiling heights than present day houses, 2.05m rather than 2.50m.
Residential Design Guide 2021 4.2 The following points are particularly relevant to the current proposal:
o Para. 4.1.6 - 4.1.7: Well-judged modern designs using contemporary and sustainable materials will be welcomed...however; where inappropriately designed, located, and finished, such approaches can be harmful to the character of a building and its surrounds... o Para. 4.2.2: Extensions should generally appear subordinate to the existing house i.e. appear as smaller additions rather than being overbearing features dominating the existing house. o Para. 4.2.9: The extension should normally incorporate any design/interesting features of the existing dwelling (with windows and doors replicating the design, proportions and materials of the original building, and being in line with the existing openings) unless a deliberate design decision has been made to adopt a different approach, and in this case, a supporting statement should accompany the planningapplication to explain the evolution of the scheme, and why it should be considered acceptable. o Para. 4.8.3: It is key that any side extension respects the proportion, design and form of the existing dwelling and that it appears as a subordinate to the main dwelling. o Para. 5.2.2: ... For extensions, windows should be sympathetic to, and reflect the style of openings in, the original part of the building. Para. 5.2.4: The introduction of large windows can maximise natural light, but need to be designed and positioned to sit comfortably with neighbouring buildings/the existing part of the building. o Paras. 5.3.13: ...Consideration should be given to try replicating the existing finish... In some instances contemporary design solutions may be appropriate, providing they are of a high standard of design quality, and are of appropriate form, scale, and materials. Examples of more modern finishes include...the use of timber/metal cladding...Where it is not possible to source suitable materials to replicate the original approach, or where the materials that are available would be likely to result in the replication
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90660/B
Page 4 of 9
appearing as a poor intimation of the original, there is potentially scope for a more contemporary design approach (design and finish) which would result in a clear distinction between old and new.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY
5.1 16/00061/B - Conversion of adjacent barn to ancillary living accommodation. Permitted 24/2/16. This permitted the conversion of "Gulls Way Barn" to the south-east to a separate dwelling.
5.2 98/02067/B - Renovation of disused dwelling. Permitted 13/5/99. This permitted the renovation of the cottage which is the subject of the current application.
5.3 The other planning history of the site is not relevant to the current application.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 The occupier of neighbouring "Gulls Way Barn" objected on 11 July 2025 and the agent for the applicant responded on 11 August. A further objection from the occupier of Gulls Way Barn was received on 12 August and the agent responded again on 25 August. A final objection from the occupier of Gulls Way Barn was received on 29 August. The points raised by the objector are set out below and the agent's responses have been taken into account in Section 7 of this Report.
Letter 0f 11 July 2025
o View from Gulls Way Barn: Ballnalargy Cottage is directly to the front of Gulls Way Barn. Whilst there is no right to a view, I chose my property because of the openness and sea view. The site lies within an area zoned as not designated for any particular purpose and within a High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. This will be limited by the proposed extension to the Cottage.
o Size and appearance of the proposed extension: This is over 60% of the footprint of this traditional Manx Cottage. This exceeds the recommended maximum in Housing Policy 15 - "The extension or alteration of existing traditionally styled properties in the countryside will normally only be approved where these respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. Only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions which measure more than 50% of the existing building in terms of floor space (measured externally)". The external materials and fenestration are also unsympathetic to the existing vernacular and have not been designed with the proportion and form of the existing traditional dwelling.
o Shared concrete driveway: The position of this is not indicated on 7307-002, Existing Layouts. I'm attaching a land survey undertaken by Mullens before I purchased Gull's Way Barn. The gable of the proposed extension is less than 700mm from a line taken from the edge of the gate to my property and a notional boundary to the shared driveway. The photographs shown on the design statement are taken from old estate agents brochures and are not representative of the current situation. I would strongly advise the planning officer visits site to get an accurate picture of the actual layout.
o Parking/visibility: The designer has stated that there is ample space for 3 parking spaces in tandem to the front of the property. If vehicles backed out they would be severely restricted in vision beyond the end of the proposed gable - and drivers exiting the steep driveway from Gulls Way Barn would have little opportunity to see an emerging car. If the parking spaces are occupied, a vehicle making deliveries to the cottage would no longer have the space to turn and will have to either reverse down the drive out onto a main road or to open the gate to Gulls Way Barn and turn on my property. I keep the gate closed as I have a
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90660/B
Page 5 of 9
large dog. The drive within the curtilage of Gull's Way Barn is gravel finished and unsuited to use other than to serve that property.
o Construction: Whilst I appreciate building work is disruptive, I would wish to see a construction method statement explaining how contractors would undertake construction work and maintain 24/7 access to Gulls Way Barn when constructing 2 storey gables less than 700mm from the drive and without damaging the shared foul water drain which runs closely to and parallel with the gable of the proposed extension.
Letter of 12 August 2025
o View from Gulls Way Barn: The agent speaks only of the view from within my property and omits the impact of skyline intrusion on the external view from the garden which will be significant (photo provided). The lower level of the cottage will not sufficiently reduce the loss of amenity. The exercise the agent has undertaken to illustrate relevant windows on the approved extension to my property do not show similar angles from the patio doors facing Ballnalargy Cottage.
o Size and appearance of the proposed extension: The agent is aware that the maximum additional footprint permitted is 50% of the original. The applicant purchased the property fully aware of the restrictions of the building - it is a traditional country cottage and typical of the type. I do not see any cogent argument or precedent for exceeding this restriction to 66.5%.
The proposed choice of external finishes continuing in the existing plane of the elevations are not sympathetic to the existing building. When introduced where there is articulation of the facade they can form an effective means of distinguishing between old and new. In this case the new finishes simply butt up against the existing stonework.
The outrigger to the rear of the proposed extension is less than 720mm from the fence. It is proposed to build steps and presumably a retaining wall at this point which will undermine the fence and encroach on my property.
o Shared concrete driveway: this is marked in accordance with the title deed plan prepared by Mullens - shown blue below (photo provided). The maximum distance from the gable wall to the boundary is 740mm. The description of "generous" is subjective.
o Parking/visibility/construction: I disagree with the agent regarding sight lines for vehicles exiting from the parking at the front of Ballnalargy Cottage - safety should not be dependant on whether drivers leaving Gulls Way Barn stop and check to see if there are vehicle movements - this should be based on sight lines. The drive is steeply downhill at this point and therefore stopping distances are greater.
There is insufficient space without using some of the 3 short tandem car parking spaces to the front of the Cottage for any delivery vehicle such as the post van to turn at the head of the shared driveway - the postman has just confirmed this. Vehicles will either have to reverse up the drive or reverse out onto a fast road.
In my experience as an architect, CDM principal designer and construction safety specialist. I am therefore more than aware of the potential issues regarding the construction of the proposed extension which involve removal of a gable wall, extensive ground works to break out a concrete slab to accommodate a reduced level etc all within limited space. The steep and narrow drive further imposes constraints on delivery and construction vehicles. It is highly unlikely that this could be undertaken without affecting 24/7 access to Gulls Way Barn.
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90660/B
Page 6 of 9
o Conclusion: There are alternatives that would not have had this detrimental impact to Gulls Way Barn and would be simpler to build and this would have my support. The current proposal contravenes Housing Policy 15 and the document submitted on 11th August by the agent to support the application is misleading and inaccurate. It makes no attempt to amend the design or address the fundamental points rained in my earlier comments.
Letter of 29 August 2025
o Each proposed development should be considered individually in terms of form, size and appearance and in the context of the specific site. The agent's previous application at a property in Laxey should not be taken as a precedent for breaking the Guidelines in this case, otherwise what would be the point of having Guidelines?
o The proposal at Ballnalargy Cottage is excessively large with finishes and fenestration unsympathetic to a country stone built cottage.
o The applicant did not engage in any consultation and subsequently the agent has done nothing to address concerns covered in my correspondence of 11th July.
o The proposed extension comes within 740mm of the boundary of the joint driveway and will make it impossible for delivery vehicles to turn at the head of this drive without reversing down and onto Dalby Road. This is a constraint that should be considered by the Highways Department.
o The agent's comment that the footprint of the extension replaces "substantial" ie 6.1m wide concrete hardstanding which has been used by the applicants for parking is not a relevant planning issue.
o I would also note that the property to the front of Ballnalargy Cottage, Ballnalargy Bungalow is currently going through conveyancing and there will have been no opportunity for the new owners to examine the proposals.
6.2 The following organisations were consulted on 9 July 2025 but, at the time of writing this report, no comments had been received:
o Highways Services, DEFA o Patrick Commissioners
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.1 Taking account of the matters above, the main issues are the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area; its effect upon highway safety, particularly in respect of manoeuvring space and use of the driveway; and upon the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers.
Character and Appearance
7.2 Ballnalargy Cottage is a traditional Manx cottage, which exhibits the typical features of dwellings in the countryside noted in Circular 3/91, situated in an area of particularly high landscape quality. Its compact, symmetrical appearance with small windows and stone construction contribute significantly to its character.
7.3 The proposed extension would be more than half the length of the existing building and it would add significantly more additional floorspace than the maximum recommended for traditionally styled properties in the countryside (Housing Policy 15). Thus the extension would be large relative to the small scale of the existing building and, when viewed from the front, it
==== PAGE 7 ====
25/90660/B
Page 7 of 9
would have the same roof height. It would not, therefore, appear subordinate to the existing building as recommended by the Residential Design Guide.
7.4 The general roof shape of the proposed extension and the use of slate would match the existing building and, while the rendered side and rear elevations would be different to the original stonework, this would not look out of place. The retention of the existing chimneys is also a positive aspect of the design. However, on the important front elevation, the semi- dormer, large windows and timber finish of the extension would contrast markedly with the appearance of the original building. Given its large size, these bold features would dominate the cottage and disrupt its symmetry, making the extension appear incongruous.
7.5 Modern designs which create a clear break between "old and new" are supported by the Residential Design Guide in some circumstances, as is the use of contemporary, sustainable materials. Similarly, extensions which exceed the maximum dimensions recommended by Housing Policy 15 have exceptionally been permitted where they would be successful additions. However, the design proposed in this case would not respect the interesting features of the existing building, particularly in respect of its scale, windows and timber finish. The applicant has explained the reason for the height of the roof, and the space proposed to be added to the small cottage would clearly be a personal benefit of the scheme. Nevertheless, these factors would not outweigh the harm which would be caused to the distinctive, traditional appearance of the cottage.
7.6 Therefore, the proposed development would be detrimental to the charater and appearance of the site, contrary to General Policy 2(b) of the Strategic Plan. The cottage is located in an area where landscape character is the most important consideration and, while the extension would not be seen from the road, it would be visible from Gulls Way Barn (see further below) and from the fields to the north east. Consequently, it would also be detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and thereby conflict with General Policy 2(c) and Environment Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.
Manoeuvring Space/Highway Safety
7.7 The driveway from the highway to the cottage is both steep and narrow with hedges on both sides, and the area at the front of the cottage for car parking is also quite narrow. At present, there is plenty of space at the side of the building to turn a vehicle so that it could descend the driveway and access the road in forward gear. However, with the proposed extension in place as marked on site by the applicant's Engineer, manoeuvring would become much more difficult. This would particularly be so if three cars were parked on the frontage as shown on the submitted drawings. Whiilst the Strategic Plan only requires residential properties to have parking for two vehicles (Transport Policy 7), the plans indicate that the third space is likely to be in use.
7.8 The applicant considers that there is adequate parking for three cars and that there would be no need to reverse onto Dalby Road. This might be true for the drivers of the three parked cars but, if a fourth vehicle (maybe a visitor, service or delivery vehicle) were to reach the top of the driveway and find the space to the front of the building filled and the gate to Gulls Way Barn closed, it is very likely that they would reverse down the drive and onto the road rather than try to turn in the tight space remaining around the extension. Such manoeuvres would demonstrate conflict with General Policy 2(h) of the Strategic Plan and would present a risk to highway safety, contrary to General Policy 2(i).
Living Conditions
7.9 As discussed above, the proposed extension would be visible from Gulls Way Barn, particularly in the the garden, and it would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. However, this is largely due to the design of the front elevation, which could not be seen
==== PAGE 8 ====
25/90660/B
Page 8 of 9
from Gulls Way Barn. Similarly, while the extension would be large relative to the cottage, it would be some distance away from Gulls Way Barn, be at a lower level and in no way large enough to block the view of the sea.
7.10 Viewed in this context, the rendered rear elevation of the building would be neither unattractive nor overbearing and there would be no overlooking or loss of light. Thus the proposed extension would cause no significant harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at Gulls Way Barn; and no other residential occupiers would be affected. Thus there would be no conflict with General Policy 2(g) of the Strategic Plan.
Other Issues
7.11 The neighbouring occupier is concerned that the construction of the proposed extension would encroach upon the shared driveway and potentially undermine a shared drainpipe and a fence. However, these are not strictly planning matters and the applicant is willing to provide a construction method statement to show how they would be addressed. Consequently they do not weigh against the proposal.
8.0 CONCLUSION
8.1 By virtue of its size, design and finishing, the proposed extension would both dominate and clash with the distinctive, traditional appearance of the existing cottage, and thereby cause harm to the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. By reducing the available manoeuvring space to the side of the cottage, it would also increase the risk of vehicles reversing onto the highway to the detriment of highway safety. The development would therefore conflict with General Policy 2; Environment Policy 2; and Housing Policy 15 of the Strategic Plan; and with the advice in the Residential Design Guide. It would not be detrimental to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers, but this would not outweigh the harm in respect of charatcer and appearance.
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 ====
25/90660/B
Page 9 of 9
9.5 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given the Right to Appeal.
__
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: 09.09.2025
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