DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 20/00861/B Applicant: Miss Clarissa Beadman Proposal: Erection of extensions and remodelling of existing dwelling with associated landscaping and extension of residential curtilage Site Address: Braaid Farm Top Road Crosby Isle Of Man IM4 4HJ Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 07.12.2021 _________________________________________________________________

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 the occupation of the extensions hereby approved, the installation of the natural stone cladding as shown on drawing numbers 953, 954, 955, 956 and 957 shall be installed and retained as such thereafter. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity on the wider landscape.
• C 3. The residential curtilage hereby approved as shown outlined in red on drawing number 903 shall be defined by a post and wire fence, unless alternative boundary treatment details are first submitted to and approved in writing by the Department, and installed within 12 months of the first occupation of the extensions approved. The approved boundary treatment shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the curtilage is suitably defined.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.

It is clearly not the policy intentions to allow large extensions, but in this specific case the extensive refurbishment works including stone cladding throughout is expected to result in an overall impact of the site which is less visually intrusive than the existing situation and one which has a reduced visual impact on the wider rural landscape and falling within the spirit of those exceptional tests for larger dwellings in the countryside as set out in Housing Policies 14,

15, and 16, in safeguarding those key views of Character Area C3 and seeking to improve the wider environment without loss to any high quality agricultural land in accordance with Environment Policy 14.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the following information and drawing numbers all date received 16/09/2021:

• 901 - Location Plan
• 902 - Site Plan
• 903 - Proposed Site Plan
• 904 - Site History

• 950 - Ground Floor Plan
• 951 - First Floor Plan
• 952 - Second Floor Plan
• 953 - South East Elevation
• 954 - North West Elevation
• 955 - South West Elevation
• 956 - North East Elevation
• 957 - Courtyard Elevation Design Statement CGI Visual Image Visual Impact Assessment and two emails from the agent dated 28th August 2020 and 20th November 2020. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

• o 11 Stanley Terrace, Douglas - as they are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy and they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.

It is recommended that the following organisation should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

• o The Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society - as they do not own or occupy property that is within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy and they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2021). _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.

THE SITE

1.1 The site is the curtilage of an existing dwelling, Braaid Farm, which sits in an elevated and very isolated position to the north of Crosby and north of the Top Road and Eyreton Cottages adjacent to Bluebell Lane. Two public footpaths run near to the site, one immediately to the west running along the access from Eyreton Cottages and the other forming part of the Millennium Way running across the field to the south of the house. The land holding also includes land to the north, east and south of the site. - 1.2 The existing building group accommodates the main house and garage which were approved to be rebuilt in the mid-2000s (05/92180/B) along with landscaped gardens. Further alterations and extensions were approved in 2008 and 2009 which saw the linking of the garage to the main house providing further living space on the east wing. - 1.3 The house is a prominent one and can be seen from a wide area to the south and east, from along public footpaths and highways and also from the Mountain Road. - 1.4 Access into the site is currently via a private driveway running west of the house, this driveway terminates towards the rear of the dwelling where the existing garages and courtyard is. - 1.5 Standing 8m to eaves and 13m to central ridge the existing dwelling forms a much grander version of the rarer Manx 5 bay dwelling, it has a double room depth and two large integrated stacks on each gable end (4 in total). The main dwelling has a symmetrical form throughout the principle elevation and a typical pitched roof, it uses typical render and slate materials mimicking the traditional form with two small dormers on the front roof slope. As existing there is a smaller single storey linked extension on the east gable which runs to the rear and connects with the rear garaging. This is 3.5m to eaves and 6m to ridge and was approved under PA 08/01170/B. - 1.6 The area surrounding the site is generally very open and undeveloped. There is an ASSI to the north of the application site (Eary Vane) which is outside of land owned by the applicant. Agricultural buildings have recently been approved just west of the dwelling under PA's 13/91183/B and 20/00301/B. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The current proposal seeks approval for a number of alterations and extensions to the existing dwelling to provide additional living accommodation. All extensions are to be clad in stone and the main dwelling is also proposed to be clad in stone. The alterations and extensions are proposed to have a mirrored arrangement so as to create an enclosed courtyard at the rear of the house. The application also seeks to clarify the extent of the residential curtilage and define the route of the private driveway. The development works to the house have been summarised below; - 2.2 Front elevation:

• o Replacement of ground floor windows with patio doors
• o Modification of existing porch and portico detail to create a small first floor balcony
• o Installation of dressed stone coping throughout eaves level
• o Installation of full width lead finished flat roof dormer across frontage and fitted with slightly recessed large glazing opening onto a second floor balcony area;

2.3 Rear elevation:

• o Installation of full width lead finished flat roof dormer fitted with windows

• o Erection of central 'tower' style extension with domed glazed roof above to provide a circulation stairwell at the rear.

2.4 East Elevation:

• o Installation of two new gable windows on side elevation of main house
• o Modification and extension of existing side extension to provide a covered patio area finished with a slate roof and coping details to match main house;
• o Upwards extension of part of existing link to provide additional living space at first floor;
• o Installation of porch portico;

2.5 West Side elevation:

• o Erection of an extension to match the footprint of the east side extension. Measuring approx. 7.5m wide and 36m long;
• o Nearest the front the extension is to be single storey and fitted with a glazed atrium hipped roof and coping details to match main house.
• o Large patio doors are proposed across the outside elevations;
• o Towards the rear the extension is to be one and half storey with a mezzanine first floor and finished with a slate roof.

2.6 Rear Garage Elevation:

• o Extension of garage to provide two double garages and a central covered access to the internal courtyard.
• o Upwards extension of the garage block to provide additional first floor living accommodation
• o Installation of 4 small roofline dormers
• o Installation of 5 double garage doors

2.7 The current scheme follows from an original submission for similar alterations and extension but now removes landscaping works and omits the creation of a pond. PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 The site has a history of previous applications, the most relevant in this case being a 2005 approval for a replacement house and garaging built under 05/92180/B as detailed below and subsequently extended under PA's 08/01170/B, 09/01172/B and 09/01929/B. There was also an application for a larger replacement dwelling refused under PA 07/00176/B. In 2019 an application was approved for alterations to the existing building, but this did not include any increase to floor areas only modifications to existing elevations (19/00101/B). Two agricultural buildings were approved west of the house (13/91183/B and 20/00301/B). - 3.2 PA 05/92180/B - Approved Dwelling

• 3.2.1 The 2005 application PA 05/92180/B proposed the demolition of existing dwelling, garage and nissen barns, and the construction of a replacement dwelling and garage - the approved dwelling was two storey with additional living space in the attic. The officer assessing the application concluded the proposal being acceptable on a one for one basis and that an agricultural tie was not justified. While "undeniably large" the dwelling was designed in accordance with Policy 8 of Planning Circular 3/91 and its isolated position would limit views to it and it would be difficult to distinguish any difference between the existing buildings and the proposed buildings given they're all contained within the same site and the garage would be well screened by the dwelling. The assessing officer stated that detail for improved access could be dealt with by condition and a lack of passing places was not reason for refusal given low traffic and speeds in this area. The application was approved subject to a number of conditions, one of which also required a drawing to be provided to accurately define the full extent of the residential curtilage as this had not been clarified in the submission. No information for the curtilage detail has ever been received and so remains an outstanding matter.

3.3 PA 07/00176/B - Refused Dwelling

• 3.3.1 In 2007 PA 07/00176/B sought for the erection of a larger replacement dwelling of the same design as the 2005 application but with a much bigger width and length of the house which had already been approved. The inspector reviewing the application first outlined the floor area measurements:

• o Floor space of original dwelling: 330 sq m + 50% policy allowance = 495 sq m
• o Floor space of 2005 replacement dwelling: 575 sq m 74% greater than existing dwelling
• o Floor space of replacement dwelling at appeal: 906 sq m 175% greater than existing dwelling and 57% greater than permitted dwelling.

• 3.3.2 The Inspector concluded the main issues to be whether the proposed dwelling conflicts with planning policy for replacement dwellings in the countryside and whether there would be a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the countryside in this remote rural location.
• 3.3.3 The Inspector noted that Circular 3/91 recognises the traditional place of the occasional grander houses in the Manx countryside, but that this now needed to be judged in the context of Housing Policy 14. The 2005 permission had not been implemented and if the appeal were to be allowed the new proposal would become the de facto replacement dwelling and which represents a dwelling 175% greater than what is to be demolished and would encourage a process of circumventing the policy by incremental expansion. The development thus being in clear conflict with Housing Policy 14.
• 3.3.4 In terms of the impact it was agreed that from distant viewpoints the proposed increase would be insignificant in the wider landscape, but still far more prominent than the original dwelling sheltered by trees. However, there are much closer public viewpoints from the Millennium Way and from the public greenway and from these viewpoints the difference in size would be significant. Of course in time planting would mature and partially screen it but in the interim it would remain prominent and exposed. In this location the Inspector considered the proposed dwelling would be excessively large and more harmful to the appearance of the countryside than the 2005 approval. Although Housing Policy 14 does recognise that exceptionally permission may be given for larger buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact, but this is not such a design of building and nor is it a high quality reproduction of Manx rural vernacular architecture.
• 3.3.5 The application was refused on the grounds that it would be reason of its scale, massing and design, would appear dominant within the landscape and detract from the character and appearance of the area.

3.4 PA 08/01170/B, PA 09/01172/B and PA 09/01929/B - Alterations and Extensions to Approved 2005 Dwelling

• 3.4.1 The link extension was originally approved under 08/01170/B subsequent applications PA 09/01172/B and 09/01929/B amended it slightly for the installation of rooflights and the installation of patio doors. PA 08/01170/B was assessed against General Policy 3 and Housing

• Policy 15, the officer assessment outlined that the dwelling was considerably larger than that which it replaced and that adding further floor space would be contrary to HP15 however given the isolated position of the site, the extensions height and location infilling between existing house and garage and read against the existing dwelling would result in a limited visual impact and no undue impact on surrounding area and so was approved.

PLANNING POLICY

4.1 The site is not designated for a particular purpose on either the 1982 Development Plan or the Area Plan for the East. It is outside of the Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance on the 1982 plan but it does sit within character area C3 on TAPE. The only identified constraints in the area are overhead high tension electricity lines which run along the

north-east side of the property and Eary Vane ASSI further north, however neither are sufficiently close to warrant concern in respect of the current application.

4.2 The overarching Strategic Aim for the Island is "To plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community's needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving, protecting, and improving the quality of the environment, having particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage". - 4.3 Strategic Policies 1 and 5 state that development should make best use of resources by optimising use of previously developed or underused land, ensuring efficient use of sites taking into account landscaping and re-use of indigenous building materials, being located as to utilise existing infrastructure and designed as to take into account local distinctiveness and make a positive contribution to the Island. Environment Policy 1 aims to protect the countryside for its own sake and Environment Policy 14 seeks to protect important agricultural land classes. Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policy 5 state that new development shall only permitted in the countryside in line with those exceptions listed in General Policy 3'. - 4.4 Replacement dwellings are listed in General Policy 3 as an exception to development in the countryside with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14 being relevant in the assessment of such proposals. Extensions or alterations to existing houses in the countryside are not included as an exception, however the Strategic Plan recognises that such rural dwellings already exist and splits these into two categories 'traditional' and 'non-traditional' dwellings (Housing Policies 15 and 16) and as a general principle for any alterations or extensions should not detract from the visual amenities of the countryside and Housing Policy 15 further adds that any changes to traditionally styled properties should respect the proportion, form and appearance of the original building quality and only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions over 50%. - 4.5 Residential Design Guidance (RDG) 2021 has been formally accepted by the Department and although not a statutory document adopted by Tynwald the RDG is worthy of being a material consideration in the assessment of applications. The guidance covers a number of development matters intended to apply to any residential development within existing villages and towns, including individual houses, conversions and householder extensions, and while separate guidance is envisaged for houses in the countryside the broad principles are still relevant such as 'Local Distinctiveness', 'Finishing and Detailing', 'Extensions to Side Elevations', 'Dormers', 'Balconies and Terraces' and 'Good Neighbourliness' and which will be considered here. - 4.6 Policy wording listed in full in order of reference in paragraphs above:

• 4.6.1 Landscape Character Appraisal C3: "Union Mills, Glen Vine & Crosby (C3) Landscape Character Area Union Mills, Glen Vine & Crosby (C3) - Landscape Strategy Conserve and enhance: a) the character, quality and distinctiveness of the well-treed valley with some scattered and nucleated settlements. Key Views Open views up to the Northern Uplands and the upper slopes of Foxdale in places. Glimpsed views in the East towards the urban edge of Douglas"
• 4.6.2 Strategic Aim: "To plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community's needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving, protecting, and improving the quality of the environment, having particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage."
• 4.6.3 Strategic Policy 1: "Development should make the best use of resources by:

• a) Optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials;
• b) Ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space¹ and amenity standards; and
• c) Being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."

• 4.6.4 Strategic Policy 2: New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3.
• 4.6.5 Strategic Policy 5: "New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies."
• 4.6.6 Spatial Policy 5: New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3.
• 4.6.7 General Policy 3: Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:

• (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10);
• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11);
• (c) previously developed land(1) which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment;
• (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14);
• (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services;
• (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry;
• (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and
• (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage.

• 4.6.8 Environment Policy 1: 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.
• 4.6.9 Environment Policy 14: 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.
• 4.6.10 Housing Policy 14: "Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore

• generally be sited on the "footprint" of the existing, and should have a floor area(1), which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally, the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2- 7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91, (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in general, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building. Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact."
• 4.6.11 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).
• 4.6.12 Housing Policy 16: The extension of non-traditional dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public.
• 4.6.13 Floor Space and Floor Area (see Housing Policy 13-15) Where there are references to "floor space" and "floor area", the space or area in question should be measured externally, and should not include attics or outbuildings.
• 4.6.14 Local Distinctiveness - Residential Design Guide (section 2.2) "2.2.1 The Strategic Plan (2016) states at paragraph 4.3.8, "The design of new development can make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Island. Recent development has often been criticised for its similarity to developments across the Island and elsewhere - "anywhere" architecture. At the same time some criticise current practice to retain traditional or vernacular designs. As is often the case the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. All too often proposals for new developments have not taken into account a proper analysis of their context in terms of siting, layout, scale, materials and other factors At the same time as lavish following of past design idioms evolved for earlier lifestyles can produce buildings which do not reflect twenty first century lifestyles including accessibility and energy conservation. While there is often a consensus about what constitutes good and poor design, it is notoriously difficult to define or prescribe".

• 2.2.2 This document is intended to facilitate good quality design, and an important aspect of that is local distinctiveness. New residential development should be informed by the best qualities of our existing residential areas. However, this does not mean that all new residential developments should seek to replicate the appearance of older ones, and good quality contemporary design is encouraged. Nevertheless, it is important that the design of new residential developments, including their scale (including height), form, layout/orientation, and detailed design (including the materials used) is informed by and respects both the nature of the development site and the character of the neighbouring buildings and surrounding area.
• 2.2.3 The character and context of any residential development is created by the locally distinctive patterns and form of development, landscape, culture and biodiversity. These elements have often built up over a considerable time and tell a story of the site's history and evolution - the creation of a 'sense of place'. The character and context of a site should influence design positively so that development does not simply replace what was there but reflects and responds to it, for example by allowing the long-term retention of existing mature landscaping features or water features. The initial site context should also identify established building heights, lines and orientation of buildings that are adjacent to the site and should have

• a positive relationship with established housing and other development, including ease of pedestrian and vehicular movement.
• 2.2.4 If the context to a development has been compromised by earlier development, this should not be seen as a reason to perpetuate what has been done before. Opportunities should be sought to deliver high quality sustainable development that reflects up-to-date technologies and aesthetics and creates a strong "sense of place"."

• 4.6.15 Side Extensions - Residential Design Guide (section 4.4) "4.4.2 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. A side extension should generally not project in front of the existing building or have flat roofs, a pitched roof will normally be essential to any side extension. The roof of the proposed extension should match the original in terms of pitch and shape. The ridge line should either follow or, often preferably, be lower than the original dwelling.

• 4.4.3 Whether the side extension is single or two storeys, the height and width of these side extensions should be proportionate to the size of the main dwelling. The width should be significantly less than the width of the main dwelling. The ridge height of single storey side extensions should normally be below the eaves level of a two-storey house to give clear definition between singlestorey and two-storey elements."

4.6.16 Dormer Extensions - Residential Design Guide (section 4.6) "4.6.1 Dormer extensions are often problematic as they can adversely affect the character and appearance of both the individual property and the wider streetscene….They are unlikely to be supported where they are publically visible, unless they already form a positive characteristic of the property or streetscene.

• 4.6.2 There are various types, and applicants should consider which is most appropriate for their house. Traditional properties should avoid having flat roof dormers, as pitched roofed dormers may be more appropriate. Flat roofed dormers can appear as clumsy additions to a roof pitch if they are overly long or tall, or if they are as tall as the ridge….
• 4.6.3 The position within the roof plane, size and proportion are also important aspects to consider. The size of any dormer should be secondary to the size of the roof in which it will be positioned. Therefore, dormers that would be as wide as the house and run flush or close to the elevations/roof ridge of the house will not normally be supported."

REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only and these have been arranged with the most recent comments on the current revised scheme first and those comments on the original scheme second.

Updated Comments - on current revised scheme:

5.2 Marown Commissioners - No objection to recirculated scheme (22/10/2021)

5.3 DOI Highway Services - Do not oppose (23/09/2021)

5.4 A representative of the Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society - Objection (29/10/2021) - comments further on the original objections from Nov 2020

• 5.4.1 The applicant has sought to justify the development on the basis that cladding in stone will make it less obtrusive in the landscape from a distance and assists in the creation of a parkland landscape but this does not justify overruling the principle of Strategic Plan policy for extensions of houses in the countryside and Braaid Farmhouse is not within an area of "Low Density Housing In Parkland" and the creation of parkland settings is not a policy that exists in

• Strategic Plan policy. The visual assessment has been undertaken from "main public highways" at a considerable distance but there are closer public footpaths from which there are close up and clear views including from the rear (their comments include a photograph from a nearby highway and cross reference to other photos included within another objection from 2020. Category C3 states a key view being 'open views to the northern uplands and this does not appear to support utilising a lot of tree planting to try to disguise the impact of a development in accordance with this assessment.
• 5.4.2 Reference is made to 8.12.2 and Housing Policies 15 and 16 along with planning history of the site outlining that the existing dwelling was built under PA 05/92180/B which was approved prior to the Strategic Plan policies becoming statutory and then extended under PA 08/01170/B as modified by PA 09/01929/B, and therefore it is not believe that the existing dwelling may be considered of traditional form and the proposal is therefore contrary to Housing Policy 16 as it clearly increases the impact of the building as viewed by the public from the obvious nearest viewpoints. If the existing house is considered of traditional form, then Housing Policy 15 is applicable and thus the creation of the dormer and the large three storey rear extension do not respect the proportion, form, and appearance of the existing property and are wholly non-traditional in appearance. Moreover, policy is not designed to enable incremental extensions totalling more than 50 percent of the original dwelling and if approved will set a very unfortunate precedent for the creation of other large obtrusive non-traditional dwellings in the countryside. Original Comments - on original scheme

5.1 Marown Parish Commissioners - OBJECTION (20/08/2020) - the dwelling was erected within the last 12-15 years and at the time the Commissioners considered that it would be prominent on the landscape, which it is. The proposals now would create a building significantly higher and of greater bulk than the existing and would therefore be more prominent. - 5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - Do not oppose (19/08/2020). - 5.3 DEFA Inland Fisheries - initially requested a 9m watercourse form (04/09/2020) but later confirmed no objection (18/09/2020) stating that the water course was to be a selfcontained pond that uses a pump. - 5.4 The Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society - OBJECTION (05/11/2020) Braaid Farm constitutes a replacement dwelling permitted under PA 05/92180/B. At the time it represented a significant increase in size and impact on the landscape in comparison to the then existing structure. PA08/01170/B (followed by 09/01129/B) permitted a further extension and PA19/00101/B further amendments. The current application proposes not only to increase the size of the structure again but also extend the residential curtilage into agricultural land. The justification for the increase in the size of both residential property and land appears to be that it can thereby be better fitted into the landscape as compared to the existing structure which is a totally upstanding and alien element in the landscape. The exposed nature of the landscape means that proposed landscaping elements would be very difficult to achieve and that in practice the proposal would represent a further intrusion into this historic open landscape. PA20/00301/B was approved in May 2020 for a new agricultural shed. The size of this shed related to 62 acres in control of the applicant, 53 acres of which were deemed usable for sheep rearing. By extending the residential curtilage of Braaid Farm (house) would reduce this acreage significantly and consent for PA20/00301/B should be retracted. - 5.5 Owner of 11 Stanley Terrace, Douglas - OBJECTION (04/11/2020) the comments received also contained some images, the written comments can be summarised as:

• o The character of the Manx countryside is to be protected in its own right, and that exception policies are not available for incremental use.

• o The proposed floor space is to increase from 1,583m2 to 2,046 m2 the justification purporting to offer aesthetic improvements as a result of the new design.
• o The existing complex is already implausibly large to represent an authentic period farmhouse and outbuildings in this location.
• o The modification of the main roof to incorporate virtual continuous dormers increases the apparent height and mass of the structure. It destroys the concept of a traditional pitched and slated roof.
• o The enhanced classicism and elaborate symmetry are not required by Manx precedent.
• o The provision of two new stone-faced wings perhaps to reduce the apparent monumentality of the structure, and perhaps hint at historical development is an interesting suggestion, but by inflating the size of the already massive house, would undoubtedly contribute to the overscaling of the house.
• o The other single storey flanking wings offer long expanses of glazing which will be illuminated by the rising and setting sun.
• o The original historic farmstead had been abandoned, on the way to becoming a tholtan, when PA 05/92180/B was approved allowing for the construction of a much larger "replacement" dwelling on a more exposed site away from the trees.
• o A further (unsuccessful) planning application 07/00176/B was made for an increase in the floor area to the proposed dwelling before it was constructed in 2007; the inspector's refusal report remains relevant in a number of respects such as the circumventing policy by incremental expansion.
• o Property history records are provided relating to Braaid Farm dating back to 1511 with a number of rent rolls provided for the quarterland farm up to 1727, noting the historic rectangular field arrangements which can still be seen today.
• o The Eastern Area Plan provides very limited means by which any analysis of the historical landscape may be attempted, however the Isle of Man Landscape Characterisation Assessment makes some reference to features such as field-systems and quarterlands, and each playing an intrinsic part and contribution to the "Historic Landscape". So far the dwelling has not destroyed the integrity of the field system in which it sits.
• o The Braaid Farm access way is still followed by the present access road which is a Public Right of Way (PROW) along with another PROW running south of the site forming part
• of the Millennium Way meaning that the site is prominent from public view.
• o The current application treats of the scale of the house, but not of the actual landscape context. It also makes no acknowledgement of the specific directional exposure of the house, nor of its altitude particularly in respect of trees and landscaping.
• o If considered for approval planning agreements or conditions should be considered revoking the permission for the large sheep shed, landscaping should acknowledge wind exposure, removal of rights to submit future applications and a protection to the surrounding fieldscape.

5.6 The applicant provided responses to comments received on the application dated 28/09/2020 and 20/11/2020 which have been summarised as follows:

• 5.6.1 The proposed dwelling would not be 'significantly higher' than the existing; as the ridge of the house is being retained and, therefore, does not sit any higher in the landscape. The principal elevation has been balanced by adding the Orangery on the opposite side to where the existing two-storey wing sits, the substantial use of stone will make the building appear less prominent in the landscape than the existing painted render, particularly as that is on the elevations that are more likely to be seen from a (albeit considerable) distance. A comprehensive landscape design has been undertaken to create a much more harmonious relationship between the house and the landscape which will again reduce the visual impact of the house to less than it is currently.

• 5.6.2 Comments refer to the existing house as 'an already notorious property' and this application is intended to be a substantial dwelling in parkland surroundings but seeks to redress this perception by revising the proportions and appearance of the current house so as

to present a more balanced form around a courtyard, creating a more cohesive relationship between it, its outbuildings, gardens, and surrounding landscape, and changing its materials such as introducing stone to further reduce the visual impact of its elevations.

ASSESSMENT

6.1 In the case of this application we have an existing dwelling sitting in the countryside to which are proposed a large number of alterations and extensions, and including some extensive cladding works. The proposal is not a knock down and rebuild so to speak but the nature of the works could be considered a kin to such. So while Housing Policy 14 would not be strictly applicable here the policy wording would give considerable insight as to what could be accepted in the countryside and so should be considered in addition to and alongside Housing Policies 15 and 16 in this case.

6.2 The key matters for consideration would therefore be the principle of the proposed works and the subsequent visual and amenity impacts. The other matters for consideration would be the driveway access and residential curtilage. Principle, Visual and Amenity Impacts

6.3 The existing 2005 dwelling was originally approved before the introduction of the Strategic Plan and designed in line with Policy 8 of Planning Circular 3/91 (PC 3/91) which allowed for much grander houses in the countryside that stepped outside of the typical traditional Manx dwelling or vernacular design. Since its original approval the dwelling has also been altered and extended as referenced in section 3.0 of this report. We also cannot avoid the fact that a larger house expanding on the 2005 approved design was refused in 2007 on grounds of its scale, massing and design appearing dominant within the landscape and detracting from the character and appearance of the area. Visual impact is a product of a number of factors including size, shape, positioning, materials and wider context. - 6.4 There is concern with the potential for incremental development to undermine those policies which ultimately seek to protect the countryside for its own sake. Housing Policy 15 and Housing Policy 14 both indicate that in exceptional circumstance that permission may be granted for extensions to or the creation of larger dwellings in the countryside and Housing

Policy 16 also allows for increases to non-traditional dwellings which would not increase the impact from public view. Although HP15 does not specify any specific criteria for its exceptional circumstances HP14 clearly gives consideration to proposals that replace a dwelling of poor form with something more traditional, or, whereby the design or siting of the replacement dwelling would have less visual impact.

6.5 The existing dwelling sits in a fairly isolated position around 700m from its nearest neighbour Ballalough Farm and 900m from the main A23 Eyreton Road. It is accepted that there are two public footpaths which pass close to the site and from which you can clearly see parts of the existing dwelling up close. Looking to the wider landscape the dwelling's elevated position means that there are more frequent public views achievable from key primary and arterial routes across the Island including from the Mountain Road, Johnny Wattersons Lane and Cooil Road. At distance the existing dwelling and its painted render finish is unarguably recognisable by eye and noticeable in the landscape. - 6.6 Some of the external alterations such as the new patio doors and the new gable windows will have an overall negligible visual impact. However, the proposed extensions by their very nature will make the dwelling bigger. These changes would be most obvious from those public footpaths that run close to the site, but from afar, these increases would be less significant. Furthermore, when coupled with the installation of stone cladding the overall impact may be less visually intrusive on the wider Island landscape and less visible from those more frequent public views. This reduction on the wider landscape would considerably weigh in favour of such extensive refurbishment works in this specific case, and which would fall within those exceptional benchmark criteria referred to in Housing Policies 14, 15 and 16.

• Driveway Access
• 6.7 The junction with the access lane remains as approved under the 2005 application and so there are no new or adverse highway issues in this respect, the changes have occurred over time with the remaining stretch of driveway which now takes a straight run up to the house rather than its approved meandering route. Nevertheless the overall impact of the changes to the driveway when viewed in the wider context are minor and would have an unobjectionable visual impact in this case. Residential Curtilage
• 6.8 Aforementioned in 3.0 of this report, the extent of the curtilage for the 2005 application was not clear on the submitted drawings and so was approved subject to a condition which required the boundary details to be defined. This information was never forthcoming and so the matter remains outstanding and it is perhaps for this reason why there have been several applications since 2005 which have had varying red line boundaries. The property and the land holding is now however under new ownership and it is wished to address the outstanding curtilage matters.
• 6.9 In looking to the current arrangement there has been some extensive (albeit not quite successful) tree planting south of the house which is now shown to be removed from the red line boundary. The red line is to channel the access and driveway up to the house and to encapsulate the dwelling and providing access space into the rear garaging area. The boundary will scooping south below the house taking in an already lawned garden area and then follow the field boundary along the eastern edge to provide a natural defined edge.
• 6.10 It is not uncommon for larger houses in the countryside to have a similarly proportioned curtilages. In this specific case what is presented is considered to be an acceptable and sensible approach to defining the boundary edge. The site and surrounding area is not considered to be of high quality agricultural land class and so the proposal would not result in any impacts in respect of Environment Policy 14, and the formalised fields (as referred to in objecting comments) are situated further south and further north of the dwelling and so would remain unaffected in this case.

CONCLUSION

7.1 It is clearly not the policy intentions to allow large extensions, but in this specific case the extensive refurbishment works including stone cladding throughout are expected to result in an overall visual impact of the site which is less intrusive that the existing situation and having a reduced visual impact on the wider landscape falling within the spirit of those exceptional tests set out in Housing Policies 14, 15, and 16, in safeguarding those key views of Character Area C3 and seeking to improve the wider environment without loss to any high quality agricultural land. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

8.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status

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.

Decision Made : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 13.12.2021

Signed : L KINRADE Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.