Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90847/B
Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90847/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Pemberton Proposal : Replacement of existing single story extension to northwest elevation with associated alterations to pedestrian access and installation of flue Site Address : Ballachrink Mill Old Castletown Road Santon Isle Of Man IM4 1HE
Planning Officer: Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken : 10.11.2025 Site Visit : 10.11.2025 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 27.01.2026 __
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. Prior to occupation of the extension hereby approved the external walls of the approved extension must be finished in traditionally laid stone and retained as such thereafter.
Reason: the application has been assessed on this basis as detailed in the submission, and in the interests of the character and appearance of the site, surrounding area and cohesion with the existing mill building.
C 3. With exception to any solar panel or rooflights, the pitched roof of the extension hereby approved shall be finished in dark coloured slate or dark coloured slate effect roof covering and retained as such thereafter.
Reason: the application has been assessed on this basis as detailed in the submission, and in the interests of the character and appearance of the site, surrounding area and cohesion with the existing mill building.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90847/B
Page 2 of 5
The proposed works as amended are now considered to result in an acceptable impact on the existing mill building. By reason of the size, scale and design the proposed works are considered to respect the traditional qualities of the mill and to have an acceptable impact on the overall character and appearance of the building and site meeting with the tests of Housing Policy 15, General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. The submission of additional tree information clarifies the extent of the works proposed and is considered acceptable in this case and not to result in any unacceptable loss of trees nor to harm to the overall rural wooded character of the site and surroundings.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the following: DWG 28 EXISTING SECTIONS A AND D DWG 27B EXISTING NORTH SOUTH ELEVATIONS DWG 26B EXISTING EAST WEST ELEVATIONS DWG 25A EXISTING ROOF PLAN DWG 24A EXISTING 1ST FLOOR PLAN DWG 23A EXISTING GROUND FLOOR PLAN DWG 22A EXISTING LOWER GROUND FLOOR PLAN DWG 21B EXISTING SITE PLAN DWG 17A PROPOSED SECTIONS A AND D DWG 16A PROPOSED NORTH SOUTH ELEVATIONS DWG 15A PROPOSED EAST WEST ELEVATIONS DWG 14A PROPOSED ROOF PLAN DWG 13A PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN DWG 12A LOWER GROUND FLOOR PLAN DWG 11B PROPOSED SITE PLAN DWG 10B LOCATION PLAN DRAWING REGISTER TREE SPECIES LIST DWG TR-171225 TREE REMOVAL IMPACT PLAN ARBORICULTURAL STATEMENT ( TO DWG TR-171225)
__
Right to Appeal
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application relates to Ballachrink Mill, an existing converted and extended Mill building set back off the Old Castletown Road, Santon. The site is planted with a number of trees and forms part of a wooded valley leading down towards Port Grenaugh.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed are a number of works including; o Removal of existing linked extension and replacement with new larger attached extension o Removal of rear deck and balcony and replacement with fire escape steps o Removal of sod bank, two hawthorn trees and one holly tree o Relocation of oil tank
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90847/B
Page 3 of 5
2.2 The current proposed extension follows from a previous scheme which had a larger footprint resulting in an out of keeping roof massing and design considered to have an adverse impact on the host mill building.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site has been subject to a number of previous applications relating to garage works, polytunnel and agricultural shed, most relevant in this case is the original extension and alterations works to the mill approved under 86/00209/B.
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, is not a registered building, and there are no registered trees on the site. Some parts of grounds are recognised as being at some surface water flood risk however the site of the proposed works appears outside this risk area. 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 existing properties in the countryside. o Environment Policy 15 - extensions to 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 DEFA Forestry - objection (29/09/2025) - There are no registered trees impacted but there are numerous trees of note. As such we have an objection on arboricultural grounds. They request an AIA to be provided so a robust assessment of the impact on retained trees can be made and this should include a TPP if require. 6.2 DEFA Environmental Health Team - no comments (18.09.2025) 6.3 The following were consulted but no comments received at the time of writing the report 27.01.2026: o DOI Highway Services o Manx Utilities - Electricity o DEFA Inland Fisheries o Santon Commissioners
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90847/B
Page 4 of 5
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 There is a general presumption against any kind of development in the countryside, although the IOM Strategic Plan recognises existing rural dwellings and makes provision for certain levels of development to them subject to the tests of Housing Policy 15 or Housing Policy 16. In this case the existing dwelling is a traditional converted mill that retains many of its original historic and traditional features, Housing Policy 15 is therefore most applicable requiring any new development to respect the traditional qualities including form, proportion and appearance of the original building. In the case of this application the key test is whether the proposed works have an acceptable impact on character and appearance of the existing mill, whether there are any amenity impacts on any neighbours and noting the comments received from DEFA, whether there are any impact on trees. Impact on Character and Appearance 7.2 The existing dwelling has a small, linked extension sitting towards the rear of the mill, this existing extension has a hipped roof arrangement and with contemporary cladding materials which set it apart from the stone mill. Its small scale and size compared to the mill and its set back location maintain a subordinate appearance. 7.3 Proposed is the removal of the existing extension and its associated raised deck area and its replacement with a slightly larger extension finished in stone and with a pitched slate roof to match the mill. This proposed replaces the originally submitted scheme which was considered to have an adverse impact on the original mill building due to its large footprint and the consequential roof design which cumulatively was considered to have an overbearing and adverse impact on the traditional qualities of the Mill. 7.4 The proposal now seeks to reduce the size and scale of the proposed extension, the reduce footprint and roof arrangement now results in an overall form and proportion that is in keeping with the main mill building. Its location towards the rear of the main mill, its set back location from the frontage and its eaves and its single storey design help to best maintain its appearance as an additional and without adverse harm to the original host mill building. The use of stone and slate help to create a cohesion throughout the dwelling, the openings across the front are in-keeping with the overall primary frontage. Those windows at the rear appear more urban in design and style and perhaps less reflective of the traditional quality of the building, however their location at the rear is not considered to be so harmful or objectionable in this specific case. 7.5 Overall, the proposed amended extension by reason of its size, scale, massing and design is considered to have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the existing mill dwelling complying with Housing Policy 15. 7.6 Those works relating to the rear balcony removal and installation of a new external staircase are not considered to result in any new or adverse impacts on the overall character and appearance of the mill building, in fact the removal of the balcony and replacement with the smaller external stair could be argued to bring about an improvement to the rear by taking away the balcony which covers overall the rear elevation. Nevertheless, these works are unobjectionable.
Impact on Neighbouring Amenity 7.7 The distance between the site and nearest neighbour is sufficient so as to not result in any issue or concern on living conditions. Impact on Trees 7.8 Initial concern was raised by DEFA Foresty due to the potential impact on trees. After visiting the site there was not recognised to be any significant mature trees on site to be removed. The agent also sought to provide updated tree information clarifying what works were to be undertaken on site, Manx Roots tree plan TR-171225 indicates that those three trees to be removed being category U hawthorn, and category C holly. 7.9 While no updated comments have since been received from DEFA Forestry, based on the updated tree information regarding trees (including agent plans and Manx roots information), the revised extension design, and factoring in the findings from the site visit, the proposed works are not considered to result in any unacceptable harm to those trees marked
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90847/B
Page 5 of 5
as being retained, and the removal of the hawthorn and holly are considered acceptable in this case as well as the area of hedging and banking marked for removal.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposed works as amended are now considered to result in an acceptable impact on the existing mill building. By reason of the size, scale and design the proposed works are considered to respect the traditional qualities of the mill and to have an acceptable impact on the overall character and appearance of the building and site meeting with the tests of Housing Policy 15, General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42. The submission of additional tree information clarifies the extent of the works proposed and is considered acceptable in this case and not to result in any unacceptable loss of trees nor to harm to the overall rural wooded character of the site and surroundings.
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 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: 28.01.2026
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