Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90011/C Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90011/C Applicant : Mr Stanley Corlett Proposal : Extension of residential curtilage (retrospective) Site Address : Croit A Curleod Ballacaley Road Sulby Isle Of Man IM7 2HS
Principal Planner: Chris Balmer Photo Taken : Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 27.02.2025 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. Visually the curtilage increase would not be significantly apparent, or appear out of place, essentially extending the existing boundary by a few metres to the side and rear boundaries, retaining a shaped boundary to the existing boundary and therefore not appearing as a significant intrusion into the open countryside or adversely affecting the landscape which it sits within. It is considered in the longer term the impacts would be largely unnoticeable, blend in with the existing landscape and countryside setting and not become an unobtrusive feature in the countryside therefore complying with EP 1 and GP2 of the IOMSP.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawing all received on 06.01.2025.
__
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
DOI Highway Services - No Objection Local Authority - No Objection __
Officer’s Report
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90011/C Page 2 of 6
THE APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site represents the curtilage of an existing property Croit A Curleod, Ballacaley Road, Sulby which is a detached dormer bungalow dwelling, with gardens to the side and rear of the property. Off road parking front the property and access directly onto the Ballacaley Road which is to the south of the site.
2.0 PLANNING HISTORY 2.1 The following planning applications associated with this property are considered relevant:
2.2 Creation of new vehicular access (retrospective) - 25/90010/B - PENDING CONSIDERATION
2.3 Alterations and erection an extension to side elevation of dwelling - 24/00525/B - APPROVED
2.4 Reserved matters application for the erection of a dwelling - 09/00144/REM- APPROVED
2.5 Approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling - 07/01073/A - APPROVED
3.0 THE PROPOSAL 3.1 Full planning approval is now sought for the extension of residential curtilage (retrospective). The total area equates to approximately 260sqm in area. The existing site curtilage equates to approximately 450sqm in area. Accordingly, the new site area would equate to a total area of approximately 710 sqm which is a 57% increase. The proposed curtilage extension which is "L shaped" and essentially wraps around the rear (north) and side (west) boundary of the site. This curtilage extension would be approximately be between 4m and 5.8m from the existing rear boundary, whereas the side curtilage extension would be approximately between 3.8m and 5.4m from the existing side boundary.
3.2 The proposal being retrospective has resulted in the rear boundaries being made up of a low level timber fence (approx. 1.2m in height). Furthermore, there is a green house, a shed, planting beds and a fruit cage within the proposed curtilage extension. This are not under consideration for this planning application and an assessment on whether they could fall under Permitted Development. Of course if Permitted Development Rights are removed should the application be approved or if it is refused; then the shed, green house and fruit cage will likely require planning approval. It is noted that a large part of the curtilage extension is being used for growing of plants, food (planters and greenhouse) and fruit trees (fruit cage).
3.3 It should be noted that the proposed new access and parking areas is located within this proposed new curtilage extension which is also under consideration (PA 25/90010/B).
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the existing dwelling and associated gardens are within an area recognised as being within a "Predominately Residential Use" under the Sulby Local Plan 1999. The proposals (new access and residential curtilage extension) are within land designated as "Open Space - Including Agricultural" again under the Sulby Local Plan 1999. The site is not within a Conservation Area. Part of the site (namely dwelling) is within a High Flood Risk. The land concerning this application is mainly outside this High Flood Risk, albeit parts of the land to the rear of the dwelling is within a High Flood Risk.
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90011/C Page 3 of 6
4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policy that is considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:
4.3 Environment Policy 1 states (if it is considered the site is within land not designated for development): "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative."
4.4 General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
4.5 Environment Policy 14 states: "Development which would result in the permanent loss of important and versatile agricultural land (Classes 1-2) will not be permitted except where there is an overriding need for the development, and land of a lower quality is not available and other policies in this plan are complied with. This policy will be applied to (a) land annotated as Classes 1/2 on the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map; and (b) Class 2 soils falling within areas annotated as Class 2/3 and Class 3/2 on the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Lezayre Commissioners comment (11.02.2025); "No objection unanimous"
5.2 Highway Services comment (27.01.2025); "After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as the additional area is acceptable to HDC providing application 25/90010/B is approved with requested conditions."
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90011/C Page 4 of 6
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issue in this case is whether the proposed extension of the residential curtilage would have any adverse impact on the character and appearance of the property, given the rural nature of the context of the site.
Residential curtilage 6.2 Extensions to existing residential curtilages can bring with them adverse impacts where open countryside can become eroded by expansions of gardens with accompanying permitted development rights and domestic paraphernalia. However in other cases, the change is less noticeable or not adverse at all and many applications for this sort of development have been approved throughout the Island, including approvals granted on appeal. Curlew Cottage, Scarlett, Castletown (PA 12/00999) was the subject of a proposal to extend that residential curtilage by around 750 sq m. The reporting officer recommended that the application be permitted and the Committee refused the application on the basis that the proposal would be contrary to EP 1 and would undermine the openness and rural character of the area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. The Appeal Inspector concluded however that whilst; "in principle...the proposal is contrary to policy EP1...however, the policy also seeks to ensure that the development would not have any adverse visual effect and the proposal should be assessed on this basis as well as on the basis of the principle of the development" (his paragraph 11). He states that the boundary treatment would limit views of the extended curtilage which was considered by him to be appropriate for a garden use (paragraph 12) and concluded that the proposal would not be harmful to the character and quality of the landscape and the application was recommended by him for approval and the Minister accepted this recommendation.
6.3 By comparison, the same Inspector concluded in respect of another application which involved an increase of an existing residential curtilage, PA 12/00832/B for Cronk ny Killey in Maughold, that that proposal resulted in "a prominent and noticeable encroachment of built form into the open countryside" (paragraph 15). Also, PA 12/01683 proposed a replacement dwelling at Mount Gawne Road which also involved an increase in the residential curtilage to accommodate the larger dwelling. The Inspector in that case found that, "...the widening of the curtilage would spread domestication further along the road and that the albeit now modest rearward extension would intrude into what is fully open countryside...the proposal would represent unwarranted encroachment into the countryside to the detriment of the character of the landscape, and would cause significant harm to the visual amenity of the area" (paragraphs 31 and 32 of the appeal report).
6.4 Further applications for extensions of residential curtilages include Slegaby Cottages - PAs 13/00151 and 13/00019 which were refused by the Planning Committee and which were approved at appeal, Thie ny Garree in Ballaragh (PA 12/00913) which was approved and Bay View in Ballaveare, Braddan which was refused twice and finally approved by the Planning Committee. Permission has been also granted on appeal for an extension to the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling off Vicarage Road, Kirby View where the Planning Committee had felt that this was not acceptable. The Inspector in this case judged that whilst the proposal would be "nominally contrary to General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan, it would not conflict with the objective of Environment Policy 1 that the countryside and its ecology should be protected for its own sake" and recommended that the application should be approved on the basis that the proposal "would not cause any significant or material harm to the countryside" (paragraph 18).
6.5 All of these examples and more illustrate that in certain circumstances extensions to the residential curtilage into the countryside can be considered acceptable but in others it is not and that each case has to be considered on its own merits and in terms of its own particular impact on the character and appearance of the countryside.
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90011/C Page 5 of 6
6.6 It is clear visiting the site previous to the works and now the works have been undertaken, that originally the garden of the property to the rear especially was not sizeable, having a depth of 3m measure from the rear boundary of the dwelling to the original rear boundary. However, the main garden is to the western gable elevation of the main dwellinghouse; which was larger in size, being between 11m to 17m in width (measured from side gable of dwelling to original side boundary).
6.7 From a visual standpoint, the main publically visible element is the side curtilage extension and namely the new access (this will be considered further under PA 25/90010/B), and this is partially seen from the Ballacaley Road which is immediately to the south of the site. While this increase is apparent, it is not considered the increase in width (as outlined in paragraph 3.1) would have such a significant impact upon the visual amenities of the site/countryside to warrant a refusal. The rear extension is not especially publically apparent and so again it is not considered the impact is sufficient to warrant a refusal.
6.8 The loss of this land for residential purposes from agricultural purposes, equates to an approximately loss of 2% of agricultural land (Field 131729). The parcel of land lost is also around the boundaries of the site and adjoins the adjacent neighbouring properties/gardens (to the east and northeast) and essentially forms the corner of the field. Therefore as can be seen in the aerial photograph before the works and after, this has not impacted on the working of the field from agricultural purposes (tractor tracks visible.)
6.9 The Agricultural Land Use Capability Map identifies the site as Class 3 which is on the lower end of soil classification and therefore the proposal would comply with Environment Policy 14.
6.10 It is noted that historically the site in 1896 Counter Series Map had a greater rear projection into the agricultural field, even more so than the currently proposal; albeit little weight is attached to this fact given this has altered a number of decades ago to how the site is today.
6.11 In terms of whether Permitted Development Rights should be removed from the site, in this case it is considered they should not be. This would essential give any fence/structure which falls under the Permitted Development an approval. The Department has not calculated whether the structures (i.e. shed/greens houses, fences etc.) would fall under the PDO as this would be a matter for the applicants to consider if the structures within their garden comply or not. If not, further planning approval may be required.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Visually the curtilage increase would not be significantly apparent, or appear out of place, essentially extending the existing boundary by a few metres to the side and rear boundaries, retaining a shaped boundary to the existing boundary and therefore not appearing as a significant intrusion into the open countryside or adversely affecting the landscape which it sits within. It is considered in the longer term the impacts would be largely unnoticeable, blend in with the existing landscape and countryside setting and not become an unobtrusive feature in the countryside therefore complying with EP 1 and GP2 of the IOMSP.
7.2 In view of the above, it is concluded that the application is acceptable and is recommended for approval.
8.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE
8.1 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).
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90011/C Page 6 of 6
8.2 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.
8.3 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.
8.4 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.
8.5 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 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: 17.03.2025
Signed : C BALMER 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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal