23 February 2005 · Minister for Local Government and the Environment (via Chief Executive R. A. Hamilton, concurring with Planning Appeals Inspector's recommendation)
Ballacreggan Farm, Sound Road, Glen Maye, Isle Of Man, IM5 3bj
The proposal involved extending an existing farmhouse built in 1993 under agricultural occupancy restrictions, by adding a T-shaped extension to the south-eastern side with a double garage, farm office and shower at ground floor, and a self-contained first-floor unit (lounge, kitchen, two bedrooms, bathroom/shower) des…
Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.
See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.
The inspector concluded the self-contained upper-floor unit was not justified in agricultural terms, as DAFF supported only one full-time farmer plus 'additional help living in the vicinity' (not on-s…
Planning Circular 1/88 Residential Housing in the Country
Emphasises fragile Manx countryside; discourages residential development outside allocated areas; prefers farm dwellings in villages; no proven overriding agricultural need for self-contained on-site unit.
Planning Circular 3/88 - New Agricultural Dwellings
Requires strict proof of functional need for farm dwellings; existing 1993 approval justified one full-time farmer only; aunt's role (childminding/chores) insufficient for second unit.
Planning Circular 3/91 'Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside'
Existing simple farmhouse accords with basic design principles; extension's size, dormers and garage doors do not, altering traditional form.
No objection subject to no surface water discharge to foul sewer
No adverse traffic implications
340 acre stock farm requires one full-time farmer plus additional help living in the vicinity; office/study and downstairs shower improve business and meet health/safety needs
Advice on domestic smoke detection; no objection to development
Aunt integral to business enabling focus on farming; extensions modest compared to recent area developments; affordability assumption unfair
Drainage Division of the Department of Transport provided no objection in principle subject to surface water drainage conditions; one MHK provided support; multiple objections from local residents Mr & Mrs Thorp on grounds of agricultural land speculation and traffic impacts.
Drainage Division, Department of Transport
Conditional No ObjectionNO OBJECTION In principle subject to:; There must be NO discharge of surface water (including that from roofs and paved areas) from this proposed development to any foul drainage system(s)
Conditions requested: There must be NO discharge of surface water (including that from roofs and paved areas) from this proposed development to any foul drainage system(s) so as to comply with the requirements of the Department of Transport Drainage Division and the Sewerage Act 1999; The applicant is requested to supply the Division a copy of any Building Control Application in relation to the surface water discharge from this development; In the event that this application is approved these comments could be incorporated in the approval notice
Drainage Division, Department of Transport
Conditional No ObjectionNO OBJECTION in principle, but subject to:; The Drainage Division will not be represented at the Appeal proceedings in this case
Conditions requested: There must be NO discharge of surface water (including that from roofs and paved areas) from this proposed development to any foul drainage system(s) so as to comply with the requirements of the Department of Transport Drainage Division and the Sewerage Act 1999; In the event that this application is granted approval, we should be grateful if the above comments could be included in the schedule of Conditions
David Anderson, MHK
SupportI write in support of the above planning application; Without such units the future of agriculture on the Island would be bleak; I believe it would be inconsistent not to grant planning approval for this application
The original application (04/2401/B) for alterations and extension to the farmhouse was refused by the Planning Committee due to the excessive size and massing harming the countryside character and High Landscape Value area, and creating additional accommodation without agricultural justification. The appellants argued the extension provided necessary space for their aunt to assist with childcare and farm chores, supported by DAFF for farm office and shower facilities, and claimed it matched local precedents. The inspector accepted the need for garage, office and shower but rejected the self-contained residential unit as unjustified under agricultural policies, finding it excessive and contrary to countryside protection. The extension's scale would harm the farmhouse's traditional appearance and the rural character. The Minister concurred with the inspector's recommendation to dismiss the appeal, without prejudice to a more modest extension.
Precedent Value
Appeals for rural farm extensions must strictly prove functional agricultural need per Circular 3/88; personal/family benefits insufficient. Limit scale to maintain affordability and traditional character to avoid countryside harm; modest functional additions (garage/office) more likely to succeed.
Inspector: David G Hollis
