Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90310/B
Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90310/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs John Banks Proposal : Alterations and Extensions to Existing Property including Conversion of Conservatory into Sunroom, Installation of Dormers to front and rear elevations, creation of new window openings, new porch, conversion of garage and installation of bi-folding doors and erection of detached garage Site Address : Renscault Cottage East Baldwin Isle Of Man IM4 5EP
Planning Officer: Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 14.08.2025 __
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.
N 1. The applicant is reminded of their separate obligations under Highway Act 1986 to not allow surface water onto a public highway.
N 2. The applicant is reminded of their separate obligations under Wildlife Act 1990 in respect of protected species.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposal comprises revised, reduced-scale extensions and alterations to a traditional Manx cottage. Although previous works have diminished some of the cottage's original character, the current scheme does not exacerbate this and is considered acceptable overall. The proposed new garage is also deemed appropriate, with two on-site parking spaces retained and no anticipated highway issues. The works are not expected to cause any harm to the wider countryside setting or neighbouring amenity. There are no issues in respect of ecology or flood risk, and land ownership issues raised by the neighbour being outside the planning remit. For these reasons, the application is considered to align with Housing Policies 15 and 16, Environment Policy 4 and to meet with General Policy 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90310/B
Page 2 of 6
This approval relates to the following: o DWG JTM2444-P-01 A EXISTING PLANS AND ELEVATIONS o DWG JTM2444-P-02 B PROPOSED PLANS AND ELEVATIONS o Covering Email o SITE PHOTOS
o SITE PHOTOS
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: o Braddan Parish Commissioners No objection o Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - No objection o Department of Infrastructure Highway Drainage - No objection
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should NOT be given the Right to Appeal because: o Paper Mill, East Baldwin, Braddan - Objection does not relate to material planning considerations __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application relates to Renscault Cottage, East Baldwin, and existing traditional cottage that has been altered and extended previously.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed are a number of alterations and extensions to the main house and the erection of a new detached timber garage building. Following discussions, the application was revised to address officer comments. Works now proposes are: o Replacement of conservatory with new masonry flat roof sunroom with roof lantern o Installation of two dormers to rear roof slope o Installation of new first floor window to front elevation of cottage and installation of new windows on the side gable including installation of new windows. o Installation of front elevation dormer on existing extension o Replacement of existing garage door with new bi-folding doors and its conversion to living space o Erection of a timber garage building with two parking bays and a workshop area. o Red and Blue line updated to respond to neighbouring comments.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The dwelling was subject to a number of previous application between 1995-1998 for alterations and extensions. There have been no applications made since nor considered specifically relevant in this case.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 Site Specific 4.1.1 The site is not designated for development on the Area Plan for the East 2020. The site is not within a conservation area, and there are no registered trees on the site. Some parts of grounds are recognised as being at some low surface water flood risk.
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90310/B
Page 3 of 6
4.2 Relevant policies of Area Plan for the East 2020 4.2.1 None
4.3 Relevant policies of Strategic Plan. o Strategic Policies 3 and 5 - promote good design and use of local materials and character o General Policy 2 (b) (c) (g) (h) and (i)- general standards towards acceptable development visual and neighbouring amenity, highway safety. o Paragraph 8.12.2 - supports principle of extensions to properties in the countryside. o Environment Policy 4 - ecology matters and protected species and habitats o Environment Policy 15 - extensions to traditional properties o Environment Policy 16 - extension to non-traditional properties o Environment Policy 42 - promotes development taking account of locality in design. o Community Policy 7, 11 - prevent criminal activity and reduce spread of fire o Infrastructure Policy 5 - conserve the Island's water o Paragraph 4.3.11 of the Strategic Plan states, "Merely arguing that a new building cannot be seen in public views is not a justification for the relaxation of other policies relating to the location of new development".
4.4 Reference any relevant PPS or NPD 4.4.1 None
5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Legislation o None
5.2 Policy/Strategy/Guidance o Residential Design Guide - Sections 4 Extensions, Section 5 Architectural Details and Section 7 Impact on Neighbouring Properties o Planning Circular 3/91 - dwellings in the countryside design guidance
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 DOI Highway Services - no highways interest (14/04/2025)
6.2 DOI Highway Drainage - comments (24/07/2025) - there are no site levels provided, and the applicant reminded that Allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads.
6.3 Braddan Parish Commissioners - no objection (14/04/2025).
6.4 DEFA Ecology - comments (01/08/2025) The Ecosystem Policy Team will not require further bat assessments as the property has little bat potential despite good surrounding bat habitat, though caution is advised around slipped slates and frieze boards. If bats or evidence of them is found, work must stop and the Ecosystem Policy Team or Manx Bat Group contacted, with optional enhancements including installing bat boxes away from artificial light.
6.5 The owners of Peper Mill - comments (27/05/2025) - they raise comments about the accuracy of land ownership and the details submitted. No other issues are raised.
6.6 The following were consulted but no comments received at the time of writing the report 14.08.2025: o DEFA Forestry
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90310/B
Page 4 of 6
o Manx Utilities - Electricity
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 There is a general presumption against any kind of development in the countryside, although the IOM Strategic Plan recognises that a number of rural dwellings already exist across the Island and makes provision for certain levels of development to them subject to HP15 and HP16.
7.2 The existing dwelling in this case is an existing Manx cottage which has been subject to extension and alteration in the past which has eroded some of its special interest and quality, but still retains a traditional appearance in the most part. As part of this application, the key issues to consider are the impact of the works to the property in its own right and whether works respect the remaining traditional character or make worse its visual appearance from public view or within the wider countryside. The proposals detailed within the revised drawings follow from discussions with the agent about the unacceptable size, scale and impact of the original proposals on the host cottage, the revision now seeking to reduce that overbearing and unacceptable impact.
Replacement Conservatory Extension 7.3 Revisions seeks to reduce the overall bulk and massing of the replacement conservatory extension to a more acceptable level. The proposal now is still of same footprint, but its design change reduces its visual bulk and is now not expected to result in any increased harm compared to the existing non-traditional conservatory as to warrant a concern or issue in this case.
Side Extension Front Dormer 7.4 The retention of the dropped ridge of the existing side extension helps to retain the extensions subordinate appearance compared to the main cottage. While a front dormer is proposed on the front roof slope, it remains small scale and is read as part of the extension, it is not considered to dominate the original character of the host cottage and is acceptable.
New windows to host cottage 7.5 New windows across the first floor and side gable will introduce new features into the existing host cottage, but such windows are not wholly uncommon across other traditional cottage buildings and their installation here would not be unobjectionable given their size and scale being in keeping with existing openings across the historic elevations.
Rear Dormers 7.6 The rear elevation has already been subject to modification and dormer extension and does not contribute to the character of the existing building or wider side. The proposals would see another two dormers added and which would create a symmetry across the rear. While this only adds further dormers to the rear, the overall impact of this elevation is not made any worse in this specific case. There is to be no increased harm to the host dwelling or public amenity.
Garage Conversion 7.7 The conversion works to the garage are unobjectionable. The installation of new bi- folding doors will have negligible impact on the overall appearance of this rear side elevation of the house and would not result in any increased or adverse impact on public views.
New Garage 7.8 Detached garages are commonly associated with residential dwellings and so the principle is acceptable here. The siting, scale, size and design is also considered to be acceptable in this case and not resulting in any adverse impacts on the hots dwelling or resulting in any unacceptable spread of development outside of the curtilage.
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90310/B
Page 5 of 6
Overall Amenity Impacts 7.9 The overall siting of dwelling and the nature of its works, coupled with the distance from the nearest neighbours means that there are no impacts on neighbouring amenity expected.
7.10 Neighbours raised comment about the land ownership and red/blue lines for the application. Land ownership is not a planning matter and so not material to the assessment of this application. But it is noted that the red/blue lines were altered as part of revised drawings to reflect those comments submitted.
Any other matters (ecology, drainage, neighbour comments) 7.11 Following submission of additional bat information DEFA Ecology are now happy with the proposal and do not seek any further information nor any conditions. A note can be added to remind the applicant of their obligations under the Wildlife Act 1990.
7.12 The works proposed result in modifications to the existing dwelling and no works are proposed on any parts of the site recognised as low surface flood risk, and therefore it is not expected that these will result in any adverse increase in flood risk on or off the site. A note will be added to the application to remind the applicant of their separate obligations under the Highway Act 1986.
7.13 Paper Mill submitted comments relating only to the detail submitted on the site and location plans in respect of landownership. While the agent has sought to revise this in response to their comments, land ownership is not a material planning consideration. Any landownership issues would be a civil legal matter to be dealt with outside of the planning process.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposal involves revised and reduced-scale extensions and alterations to a traditional Manx cottage. While the cottage has lost some of its orginal character of the years due to preious alterations and extension the works not do not seek to make the situation any worse and the works are overall considered to be acceptable. The proposed new garage is considered acceptable and two vehicles spaces remain within the site and there are no new highway issues expected. The proposals are not considered to result in any wider harm to the overall countryside setting nor to neighbour amenity. There are no issues in respect of ecology or flood risk, and land ownership issues raised by the neighbour being outside the planning remit. For these reasons the application is considered to align with Housing Policies 15 and 16, Environment Policy 4 and to meet with General Policy 2.
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):
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90310/B
Page 6 of 6
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.
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 : Permitted
Date: 15.08.2025
Determining Officer
Signed : J SINGLETON
Jason Singleton
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