05/02073/BRefused

2 March 2006 · Planning Committee

Alterations, erection of two storey extensions to west, east and north elevations to provide additional living accommodation. Erection of new...

Grenaby Farm, Grenaby, Ballasalla, Isle Of Man, IM9 3bd

Received28 Oct 2005

Validated31 Oct 2005

Committee24 Feb 2006

Decided2 Mar 2006

4 months

Received28 Oct 2005

Validated31 Oct 2005

Committee24 Feb 2006

Decided2 Mar 2006

4 months

Why was this refused?

Rear extension dominance and lack of subordination to main house
Outbuilding's modern appearance and countryside dwelling risk
Insufficient justification given existing space
Character and appearance of farmhouse
Precedent from refused detached garage PA 05/1508
Planning Circular 3/91 requirements

Grenaby Farm is a substantial Georgian-style farmhouse on 'white land' adjacent to an Area of High Landscape Value, with existing outbuildings approved for residential conversion. The proposal included symmetrical side extensions (west and east) deemed in keeping, but a large rear (north) two-storey extension almost as…

Refusal Reasons

✗Whilst the two side extensions are considered to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing dwelling, the proposed rear extension is considered to be overly large and dominant and its size, particularly its width which it almost the width of the main house, and its height which is equivalent to that of the main dwelling, and the inclusion of dormers in the new rear roof pitch all result in an extension which would dominate and be detrimental to the appearance and character of the main house. Any extension(s) to the dwelling should be subordinate thereto in accordance with the provisions of Planning Circular 3/91.
✗The proposed garage/gym building would appear as a large and modern building very close to the highway and which would detract from the appearance and setting of the farmhouse and associated buildings. The building would also be large and could appear, or have the potential to become, a new dwelling in the countryside, contrary to the Department's policies against such development.

Documents (8)

Location Plan

📐

Existing Floor Plans and Elevations

28 Oct 051pp

🗺️

Location Plan and Extend of Ownership Plan

Site Plan

Proposed Floor Plans Elevations and Section

28 Oct 051pp

📐

Proposed Pool House Floor Plans Elevations and Section

28 Oct 051pp

Find Similar Applications

Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.

⚖️

Compare this application

See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.

Search for an application to compare with

Decision & Reasoning

Refused2 March 2006

The Planning Committee resolved that while side extensions were acceptable and barn use for tourist accommodation was fine, the rear extension was overly large, tall, and dominant, with its width almo…

Policies Assessed (4)

GP3

General Policy 3

Cited in supplementary report referencing PA 05/1508 refusal for new substantial building in countryside. Officer noted similar concerns applied here to outbuilding, making it tantamount to new countryside development.

EP1

Environment Policy 1

Cited alongside GP3 etc. in PA 05/1508 precedent for refusing detached garage as new countryside building; applied to garage/gym outbuilding here.

EP3

Environment Policy 3

Part of emerging Strategic Plan policies against new substantial countryside buildings, used to refuse similar PA 05/1508 and relevant to garage here.

EP18

Policy EP18 (Isle of Man Strategic Plan Modified Draft)

Cited in PA 05/1508 refusal; officer applied to this proposal's outbuilding as creating new substantial countryside building.

Public Comments (4)

SupportHighways Division(statutory consultee)

Initially objected due to insufficient access details and sightlines but withdrew objection after applicant provided details; no adverse traffic impact, recommended access improvements.

SupportMalew Parish Commissioners(parish)

Initially deferred pending site visit, then no objection.

SupportChief Fire Officer(statutory consultee)

Recommended smoke detectors.

SupportS.P.M.C. & E.(statutory consultee)

No objection, noted size and grandeur of existing house.

View on map →

People

Sarah Corlett

Case Officer

M P Associates Ltd

Agent

Key Information

Reference: 05/02073/B
Decision: Refused
Date: 2 March 2006
Parish: Malew
Property: 🏡 Detached
Year: 2005
Type: Full Planning Application
Category: Residential / Extension
Scale: moderate

Property Details

Property Type: dwelling
Proposal Type: extension
Context: rural

Sales at this address (3)

£5,000

Aug 2020

£1,900,000

Oct 2014

£0nominal

Aug 2004

Property Planning History (10)

AP14/0028Approved2014

Appeal against refusal for removal of an agricultural occupancy condition

13/91442/CRefused2013

Removal of an agricultural occupancy condition

07/01258/BApproved2007

Change of material of staircases from manx stone to black metal on approved conversion of barn to residential units (04/00987B)

06/00682/BApproved2006

Erection of extensions to existing farmhouse

05/02073/BRefused2005Viewing

Alterations, erection of two storey extensions to west, east and north elevations to provide additional living accommodation. Erection of new outbuilding to provide garage, new indoor pool to replace existing out door pool with gym and games room above

05/02083/CApproved2005

Additional use as self catering tourist accommodation

05/00217/BApproved2005

Conversion of existing barn into a dwelling

93/00286/BRefused1993

Erection of new farmhouse and alterations & provision of new agricultural buildings, Grenaby Farm, Malew.

92/00891/BApproved1992

Conversion of barn into dwelling and garage, Grenaby Farm, Malew.

90/00588/BApproved1990

Erection of agricultural building, Grenaby Farm, Malew.

Why was this refused?

Rear extension dominance and lack of subordination to main house

Outbuilding's modern appearance and countryside dwelling risk

Insufficient justification given existing space

Character and appearance of farmhouse

Precedent from refused detached garage PA 05/1508

Planning Circular 3/91 requirements

Refusal Reasons

✗Whilst the two side extensions are considered to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing dwelling, the proposed rear extension is considered to be overly large and dominant and its size, particularly its width which it almost the width of the main house, and its height which is equivalent to that of the main dwelling, and the inclusion of dormers in the new rear roof pitch all result in an extension which would dominate and be detrimental to the appearance and character of the main house. Any extension(s) to the dwelling should be subordinate thereto in accordance with the provisions of Planning Circular 3/91.
✗The proposed garage/gym building would appear as a large and modern building very close to the highway and which would detract from the appearance and setting of the farmhouse and associated buildings. The building would also be large and could appear, or have the potential to become, a new dwelling in the countryside, contrary to the Department's policies against such development.

Policies Assessed (4)

GP3

General Policy 3

EP1

Environment Policy 1

Cited alongside GP3 etc. in PA 05/1508 precedent for refusing detached garage as new countryside building; applied to garage/gym outbuilding here.

EP3

Environment Policy 3

Part of emerging Strategic Plan policies against new substantial countryside buildings, used to refuse similar PA 05/1508 and relevant to garage here.

EP18

Policy EP18 (Isle of Man Strategic Plan Modified Draft)

Cited in PA 05/1508 refusal; officer applied to this proposal's outbuilding as creating new substantial countryside building.

Public Comments (4)

SupportHighways Division(statutory consultee)

Initially objected due to insufficient access details and sightlines but withdrew objection after applicant provided details; no adverse traffic impact, recommended access improvements.

SupportMalew Parish Commissioners(parish)

Initially deferred pending site visit, then no objection.

SupportChief Fire Officer(statutory consultee)

Recommended smoke detectors.

SupportS.P.M.C. & E.(statutory consultee)

No objection, noted size and grandeur of existing house.