Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90339/C
Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90339/C Applicant : Mr Anthony Ritchie _ Ms Gillian Garriock, Mr David Sylvester Proposal : Change of use of part of Field 425312 to extend residential curtilage (retrospective) Site Address : Brook, Ballavere And Miranda Cottages Main Road Colby Isle Of Man IM9 4AD
Planning Officer: Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken : 13.05.2025 Site Visit : 13.05.2025 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 30.05.2025 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The post and wire fence defining the rear boundary of the residential curtilages of 'Brook Cottage', 'Ballavere Cottage' and 'Miranda Cottage' from the field shall be retained in perpetuity.
Reason: to ensure the curtilage is suitably defined, and in an appropriate finish in the interest of visual appearance and in best maintaining the open views south over the rural fields.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. In this case, none of the exceptions of General Policy 3 apply, and there is no over-riding national need to outweigh the requirement to protect the countryside as required by Environment Policy 1, and so at face value there would appear to be conflict with the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. However, the size and scale of the extended curtilage is proportionately small compared with the remaining field and results in an overall plot size and curtilage akin to neighbouring properties. The proposal does not result in any harm to the character and appearance of the dwellings, streetscene or the wider countryside and key open and long distant views to the south remain unaffected. In this particular instance, there would be some conflict with GP3 and EP14 resulting in limited harm, but given the absence of any visual and practical harm it would be acceptable in this case and not undermining Environment Policy 1 and according with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90339/C
Page 2 of 7
This approval relates to the following all date stamped 27/03/2025:
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: o Local Authority - No objection o Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - No objection __
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AS THE RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE MAY BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 2(1)(c) PLANNING COMMITTEE STANDING ORDERS.
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site relates to the following neighbouring properties all sitting along the southern side of the main road running through Colby. These properties are known as 'Miranda Cottage', 'Ballavere Cottage' and 'Brook Cottage'.
1.2 Miranda Cottage sits furthest to the west, Ballavere in the middle and Brook Cottage nearest to the community woodland on the east, between which flows a small stream which connects with the Colby River further south and beyond the Steam Railway Line.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Change of use of part of Field 425312 to extend residential curtilages of each dwelling (retrospective).
2.2 The depth of each proposed garden extension is approx. 10m.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The existing dwelling have been subject to various alterations and extensions over the years, although none considered specifically relevant in the case of this application. There are however a number of similar residential extension proposals considered relevant:
o 23/00884/C - extensions to curtilage of 4 dwellings in Andreas APPROVED AT APPEAL. The inspector concluded that "Limited harm has been identified to the character of the countryside as well as harm by reason of an at face value conflict with IMSP Policies EP1, GP2 and GP3. However, I have ascribed considerable weight to the benefit of the scheme in the provision of garden space of an adequate standard to appropriately serve 4bedroom family homes. This would be in the interests of the health and wellbeing of residents. Also weighing in the positive side of the balance in favour of the proposal, is the permission granted at a neighbouring site, Thie Cheerey where circumstances are very similar to that of this appeal." o 22/00169/B - erection of extension and change of use from agricultural to residential, Gordon, Peel - APPROVED. The case officers reason for approval was "In this case there is an absence of practical harm to the countryside by the extension of the residential curtilage due to its small size and where it is situated within the streetscene, it is considered that the proposal would not offend the objectives of GP3 and EP1 which seek to avoid harm to the countryside and therefore the application is considered acceptable."
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90339/C
Page 3 of 7
o 13/91006/C - change of use of land from agricultural to residential - Knock Rushen, Castletown - REFUSED AT APPEAL. The Inspector for this application stated that the settlement boundary of this part of Castletown was clearly visible from near and far, and the edge of the field made it unambiguous and obvious interface between built up area and the countryside, and such interfaces can be vulnerable and merit special attention. They accepted that part of the site was partially screened by another house and the further landscaping could be provided, this did not justify the incursion into the field and would be a gradual detriment of the countryside openness. An approval could encourage existing and future owners of nearby houses to apply for similar extensions and further erosion of the visual important interface here having harmful effect on the character and appearance that surrounds Castletown's settlement boundary.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 Site Specific 4.1.1 The dwellings and their original gardens are designated as residential on the Area Plan for the South 2013. The extended areas of garden into Field 425312 are not designated for development. Because of the stream part of Brook cottage garden is at some surface water flood risk. The site is recognised within landscape character area F8 and Arbory area. The site is not within the Colby or Ballabeg Conservation Areas. Soil class is difficult to fully determine as it sits on the cusp of the urban area of Colby and an area recognised as Class 3/2.
4.2 Relevant policies of Area Plan/Local Plan o Section 3.19 and 3.20 refers to Arbory and the general strategy and implications of landscape character assessment including; o the need to protect tranquil, rural character and open views; o consider sensitive location of new buildings and use of screen planting, o avoiding the physical or visual amalgamation of roadside housing; o the protection and enhancement of the identity of Ballabeg and Colby by conserving the rural character of adjacent landscapes.
4.3 Relevant policies of IOM Strategic Plan 2016: o Strategic Policy 2 - new development to be located within existing towns and villages and only in countryside in line with GP3 o Strategic Policy 3 -individual character of towns and villages protected or enhanced by avoiding coalescence, maintaining separation between settlements, and design of new development having regard to materials and character o Strategic Policy 4(b) - protect and enhance landscape and nature conservation value o Strategic Policy 5 - new development to make a positive contribution to the environment o Spatial Policy 5 - new development directed to existing settlements and only in countryside in line with GP3. o General Policy 2- general development standards including visual, amenity, landscape features. o General Policy 3 - Exceptions to development in the countryside o Environment Policy 1 - Protection of the countryside o Environment Policy 2 - Protection of the character of AHLV o Environment Policy 10 and 13 - flood risk on and off site. o Environment Policy 14 - High quality agricultural land protected from loss 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 o None
5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90339/C
Page 4 of 7
5.1 Legislation o Section 68 of the Flood Risk Management Act (2013) indicates that any published Flood Risk Management Plan and the extent to which the proposed development creates an additional flood risk are material considerations.
5.2 Policy/Strategy/Guidance o Residential Design Guide - Sections local distinctiveness and boundaries o Agricultural Soils Map - Evidence Base Land Capability
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 Arbory Commissioners - in support (18/04/2025)
6.2 DOI Highway Services - no highway interest (14/04/2025)
6.3 The following were consulted but no comments received at the time of writing the report 27/05/2025: o DEFA Inland Fisheries o DEFA Forestry
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of the current application are i. Site and surroundings; ii. Relevant Policies; iii. Principle (GP3, EP1, & SP5); iv. Visual Impact on Landscape (EP1, SP4, & GP2); v. Impact on Agricultural Soils (EP14).
7.1 Site and Surroundings 7.1.1 The site is located just outside of the small settlement of Colby, and forms part of the linear development running along the main road between Colby and Ballakillowey.
7.1.2 Colby and Ballabeg are fairly quiet residential villages made up of mostly older traditional properties at their heart and a variety of newer additions skirting the outside. Between Ballabeg and Colby are open fields with views north to the upper undulating land and south towards lower flatter land. These fields provide clear separation between the two villages.
7.1.3 Between Colby and Ballakillowey is a run of linear development mostly along the upper northern side of the road. The southern side comprises vast open fields providing extensive and uninterrupted views down towards the steam railway line and beyond to Scarlett and Gansey bay.
7.1.4 Brook, Bellavere and Miranda Cottages form part of the last cluster of approx. 10 houses on the southern side of the road as you travel out of Colby. These properties follow the bend in the road with some sitting directly along the road edge and others further back offering a variety of depth to the linear cluster. Small gaps between dwellings afford views to those properties behind or to the fields beyond, although these are fleeting.
7.1.5 Those properties lining the northern side of the road are generally set back from the road with parking and front gardens, and then additional garden space to the rear. The depth of plots are approx. 26m.
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90339/C
Page 5 of 7
7.1.6 The application dwellings have recently taken part of Field 425312 as part of their curtilage, Brook and Ballavere are using the additional area as part of their gardens and is laid to lawn, Miranda Cottage is utilising their additional area for growing their own food as a small allotment. The boundary of each is finished in a post and wire fence clearing demarcating the extent of the private ownership from the remaining field.
7.2 Relevant Policies 7.2.1 The part of the field which has been included within the extended garden areas is not designated for any specific land use designation and is outside of the settlement boundary. Therefore, in policy terms is considered part of the countryside. However, the dwellings and their original gardens are designated as residential just as other linear development is along the main road.
7.2.2 General Policy 3 (GP3) of the IOMSP sets out that development will not be permitted in the countryside unless it meets with one of the exceptions listed in GP3.
7.2.3 Environment Policy 1 (EP1) makes clear that the countryside is to be protected for its own sake unless there is overriding national need in land use planning terms so as to outweigh the need to protect the countryside area.
7.2.4 Strategic Policy 4 (SP4) indicates that rural landscape quality is to be protected or enhanced.
7.2.5 Strategic Policy 5 (SP5) requires all new development to make a positive contribution to the environment.
7.2.6 General Policy 2 (GP2) states that proposals should not affect the character of the locality.
7.3 Principle (GP3 and EP1) 7.3.1 None of the exceptions of GP3 apply in this case. EP1 states that any 'development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is over-riding national need in land use planning terms'. There is no over-riding national need in this case, and so at face value there is conflict with these two policies.
7.3.2 Therefore, other material considerations need to be considered and weighed into the planning balance, particularly in terms of 'adversely affect the countryside'. In this case considering whether the extension to the curtilages would have any unacceptable visual impact on the rural character and appearance of the countryside or impact on the interface between the built up area and the openness of the countryside (SP4, SP5, GP2 and EP1), and whether it would result in any unacceptable loss of agricultural land (EP14) as to be considered adverse and undermining the thrust of EP1.
7.4 Visual Impact on Landscape (SP4, SP5, EP1 & GP2) 7.4.1 Due to the roadside position of the main cottages, it means that the section of extended gardens is limited from public view, with perhaps exception to Miranda cottage and the gap between it and Claugh Vane Bungalow where access to the field sits.
7.4.2 The 0.17acres of field taken to form the extended curtilages represents only a small proportion of the overall field size and does not significantly erode the remaining 4.8acre area of field available for cultivation.
7.4.3 Extended curtilages sit at the northern most end of the field, between the community woodland and alongside other properties which sit further back and with deeper curtilages. There are comparative sized plots on the adjacent side of the road with views to the rears between gaps between houses. So while the extended gardens will be noticeable through
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90339/C
Page 6 of 7
some gaps, their overall appearance is not at odds with the general arrangement and plot size character of surrounding properties, and key views of the large field and rural landscape still remain in sight and contributing to the rural location outside of the settlement. On this basis it is considered that there is limited visual harm as a result of the works in this specific case, and not to offend the objectives of SP4, SP5, EP1 and GP2.
7.4.4 Being contained to the rear of the existing cluster also helps to ensure no harmful residential spread westwards, where this could be seen to encroach on those open and uninterrupted views south as you pass the last dwelling of the cluster 'Westwind'.
7.4.5 In terms of visual impact, the proposed extended residential garden is considered to be unobtrusive, to passing public as well as to any adjacent properties. Consideration could be given to the inclusion of conditions to revoke permitted development and retain a more open rural feeling. However the gardens are not felt to be unreasonable in size, especially when compared to others in the vicinity, and so having such typical domestic greenhouse, summerhouse structures would not be uncommon, and given the established residential cluster here would not be out of context. Revoking PD is not considered necessary in this case, and conditions of those classes will ensure suitable control of development in the future.
7.5 Impact on Agricultural Soils (EP14) 7.5.1 EP14 indicates that loss of high quality agricultural land (Classes 1 and 2) will not be permitted unless there is overriding national need, and lower quality land is not available and other policies are complied with. The policy applies to land annotated as Class 1/2 and Class 2 soils includes 2/3 and 3/2 on the agricultural land use capability map.
7.5.2 The land use capability map is prepared at such a scale that it is difficult to determine its exact land use between 'urban' and 'Class 3/2'. EP 14 seeks to ensure that new development does not unacceptably erode or take away suitable land for agricultural purposes which could in term have implications on the Islands rural economy.
7.5.3 In this case, while there may be some conflict with EP14, mindful of paragraph 7.4.2 above and the proposal resulting in only a small 0.17acre proportion of the field being lost and the acceptable visual impacts because of its small scale in this specific case, that the loss of this small part of the field, which is on the cusp of class 3/2 and the urban area of Colby village, is considered acceptable in this specific case.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 There is always risk that in accepting these types of extensions to curtilages in the countryside that they will start a proliferation of similar proposals, however each would need to be assessed on their own merits.
8.2 In this case, none of the exceptions of General Policy 3 apply in this case, and there is no over-riding national need to outweigh the requirement to protect the countryside as required by Environment Policy 1, and so at face value there would appear to be conflict with the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. However, the size and scale of the extended curtilage is proportionately small compared with the remaining field and results in an overall plot size and curtilage akin to neighbouring properties. The proposal does not result in any harm to the character and appearance of the dwellings, streetscene or the wider countryside and key open and long distant views to the south remain unaffected. In this particular instance, there would be some conflict with GP3 and EP14 resulting in limited harm, but given the absence of any visual and practical harm would this be acceptable in this case and not undermining Environment Policy 1 and according with General Policy 2. A condition to ensure the post and wire fence between the edge of the curtilage and field is retained in perpetuity is applicable in the interest of visual amenity.
==== PAGE 7 ====
25/90339/C
Page 7 of 7
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.
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 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: 09.06.2025
Signed : Lucy Kinrade 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