18 June 2008 · Delegated - Senior Planning Officer Mrs F Mullen (initial refusal upheld by Minister Hon. John Shimmin MHK on appeal)
Ard Na Mara House, Quines Hill, Port Soderick, Isle Of Man, IM4 1ba
The proposal involved a two-storey extension (10.6m x 16.9m, ridge height around 9m) to an existing rural farmhouse, containing a swimming pool at ground floor with ancillary rooms and a void above, to be built partly in a former courtyard by demolishing redundant barn wings.
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 officer assessed the proposal against Housing Policy 15, finding the extension's two-storey height, large void and form created an incongruous addition that upset the balanced proportions of the r…
Housing Policy 15
Requires extensions to traditionally styled countryside properties to respect proportion, form and appearance of existing property; only exceptionally permits >50% floorspace increase (measured externally) over existing building. Officer tested design (upsetting symmetry, two-storey void visually dominant) and floorspace (287% over original per calculations, even 82% appellants' figure excessive without exception for recreational/tourist use); policy interpreted as cumulative from original dwelling to prevent serial expansions.
no objection
do not oppose subject to the swimming pool being for private use
note received (interest in connection)
note received (interest in supply)
The original application (08/00560/B) for erection of a swimming pool with ancillary accommodation as an extension to the existing dwelling was refused by the Planning Authority. The appellants argued the design respects the property, uses high-quality materials, occupies a courtyard of no amenity value, and that floorspace increase is 82% (under the exceptional threshold of Housing Policy 15), serving both the dwelling and approved holiday accommodation. The Planning Authority contended the extension upsets the balanced proportion, has a different form and appearance, and results in over 227% increase beyond the 50% limit. The inspector found the proposal fails to respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property when viewed from the road, and even accepting the appellants' lower floorspace figure, it exceeds policy limits without justifying exceptional circumstances; it is also contrary to countryside character policies. The Minister concurred with the inspector's recommendation to dismiss the appeal on 10th November 2008.
Precedent Value
Reinforces strict application of HP15 in countryside: extensions must demonstrably respect proportion/form/appearance from key viewpoints like roads, and exceed 50% floorspace only in true exceptions; precise measurements secondary to policy objectives and visual impact.
Inspector: Neil A C Holt
