Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
Please reply to the signatory Our Ref: 24/01345/B
Ms L. Milestone Planning Appeals Secretary Cabinet Office Government Offices Buck’s Road Douglas IM1 3PN
Tel: (01624) 685950 Fax: (01624) 686443 Email: [email protected] Jennifer Chance MRTPI Director of Planning & Building Control
18th Jul 2025 Dear Ms Milestone,
PA No: 24/91345/B
Proposal: Erection of two storey extension with integral garages Address: Balladhoo Croft Clanna Road Braaid Isle Of Man IM4 2HW
Please find a statement that sets out the position of the Department in respect of the above planning application.
The statement relies upon the Planning Officer’s original report, which was determined under delegated power on 7th May 2025, which is online and forms part of the planning file.
The enclosed statement comprises the following parts:
In the event that the appointed Planning Inspector is minded to recommend that the application be approved, then the four-year expiration condition should be attached.
Yours sincerely,
Peiran Shen
==== PAGE 2 ====
This page has been left blank by intention.
==== PAGE 3 ====
Appendix 1 – Statement of Case
STATEMENT OF THE
Department of Environment Food and Agriculture Planning & Building Control Directorate
Planning statement on behalf of the Department relative to:
Erection of two storey extension with integral garages Balladhoo Croft Clanna Road Braaid Isle Of Man IM4 2HW PA Reference 24/91345/B
Prepared on behalf of the Planning Department by Planning Officer Peiran Shen
==== PAGE 4 ====
This page has been left blank by intention.
==== PAGE 5 ====
1.0 REASON FOR REFUSAL The reason for the application refusal was: “The proposed extensions harm the character of the existing house and the character of the countryside with its excessive mass and poor form. Therefore, the proposal is considered to fail to comply with General Policy 2, General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1, Housing Policy 15, Housing Policy 16 of the Strategic Plan and Policy 3 of Planning Circular 3/91 - Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside.” 2.0 LEGAL AND POLICY POSITION In accordance with S10 of the Town Country Planning Act, the application has been considered; S(4) In dealing with an application for planning approval or an application under subsection (3), the Department shall have regard to — (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application; (ab) any relevant national policy directive under section 2A; (b) any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3; (c) such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and (d) all other material considerations. There is a statutory duty to take into account the above, and while it is recognised that weight to be given is a matter for the decision maker. That being said It is noted that while the Development Plan and other Adopted Policies do not have primacy as they do in the UK, the most weight has been given to the Strategic Plan and Area Plan for the East, as they have been through a statutory process, which includes evidence base and public consultation process and are adopted by Tynwald. The Residential Design Guide (RDG) follows targeted consultation and adoption by the Minister and has therefore been afforded greater weight. It is not considered that the other material considerations outweigh those set out above. In the meantime, also different from the UK, there is no presumption in favour of development as set out in the NPPF.
==== PAGE 6 ====
3.0 ISSUES RAISED BY THE APPELLANT A summary of the appellant’s and its agent’s statement is as follows:
==== PAGE 7 ====
4.0 RESPONSE TO REASONS FOR APPEAL For a full assessment of the initial application, please refer to the Officer’s report, which would have been supplied with the initial documentation. Appendix 2 directly addresses these issues raised in section 3.
==== PAGE 8 ====
This page has been left blank by intention.
==== PAGE 9 ====
Appendix 2 – Response to Reasons for Appeal Contents 1 Countryside Designation ................................................................................. 1 Policy Interpretation ................................................................................... 1 Rebuttal on Residential Zoning .................................................................... 2 Elaboration on the Zoning Rebuttal ............................................................. 3 Rebuttal on the Extent of the Curtilage ........................................................ 3 Rebuttal on the Entitlement for Extension .................................................... 3 Rebuttal on the Scope of Development ........................................................ 4 2 Worthy of Preservation ................................................................................... 5 3 Incongruous Design – The House .................................................................... 7 Design Principles ........................................................................................ 7 Architectural Critic ...................................................................................... 7 Visual Impression ....................................................................................... 8 Policy Interpretation ................................................................................... 8 4 Incongruous Design – The Site and the Wider Area ........................................ 11 The Application site .................................................................................. 11 The Cluster of Houses .............................................................................. 12 Character of the Countryside .................................................................... 12 5 No Exceptional Circumstances ....................................................................... 15 Policy Interpretation ................................................................................. 15 Exceptional Circumstance ......................................................................... 16 6 Amplified Visual Impact ................................................................................ 19 7 Planning Balance .......................................................................................... 21
==== PAGE 10 ====
This page has been left blank by intention.
==== PAGE 11 ====
Page | 1
1 Countryside Designation 1.1 The agent argues that the site is zoned for residential in the current Area Plan and located within an existing settlement boundary. 1.2 The agent also argues that because the existing house received planning approval, the land use designation (or zoning) of the site has also changed to residential. 1.3 The agent believes that because the site is zoned for residential, the application should not have been assessed under General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Housing Policy 15 or 16. 1.4 The agent further argues that General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 are only applicable to new “greenfield” development in the countryside. Therefore, as an extension to an existing house, these two policies should not have been relevant. 1.5 These arguments contain four assumptions. 1.6 The first two assumptions are that the completion of the initially approved house automatically: • changes the land use designations of the site into residential and • includes all areas within the red line boundary as the residential curtilage of that house. 1.7 The third assumption is that residential curtilages are entitled to house extensions. Or, in other words, “accepted in principle”, as mentioned in the appellant’s statement. 1.8 The fourth assumption is that extension is not a new development. POLICY INTERPRETATION 1.9 The Strategic Plan contains the following material consideration: • Strategic Policy 2 New Development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages … Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3. • Paragraph 4.3.2 Appendix 3 to the Plan identifies the towns and villages. • 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. • General Policy 3 (Section 6.3)
==== PAGE 12 ====
Page | 2
Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan. • Environment Policy 1 For the purpose 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. 1.10 Summarising from the policies mentioned above, General Policy 3 applies to developments if they are: • outside of existing towns and villages, • outside of any defined existing settlement, and • not designated for development in an Area Plan. 1.11 The application site is: • not within an existing town or village or settlements as defined in Spatial Policy 3, 4, or 5 or listed in A.3.6; and • shown in the colour white in Map 3 – Proposals of the Area Plan for the East. The legend of the Map has shown areas designated for development in other colours. 1.12 Therefore, the proposal is not designed for development and General Policy 3 is applicable in the assessment. 1.13 As the location of the site also complies with the definition contained within Environment Policy 1, the site is also considered to be in the countryside, and this policy applies accordingly. 1.14 In conclusion, the site and the house are located within the countryside, which makes General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 applicable in the assessment of this application. Furthermore, the application is to extend a house in the countryside. Therefore, Housing Policy 15 or Housing Policy 16 is applicable, depending on the classification of the house. REBUTTAL ON RESIDENTIAL ZONING 1.15 The assumption on residential zoning is incorrect. It confuses an approved (or existing) use with a land use designation. 1.16 The land use designation of a site can only be altered by an Area Plan. The granting of a planning approval does not change such designation. 1.17 An approval on an application site may introduce new considerations, such as precedents or site-specific circumstances, but it would not, in itself, reclassify lands. 1.18 Therefore, despite having an approved house on site, the application site remains classified as open countryside.
==== PAGE 13 ====
Page | 3
ELABORATION ON THE ZONING REBUTTAL 1.19 A land use designation is often different from an approved use to set direction for further developments on such sites. Regardless of the existing use or planning approvals on a site, the underlying designation continues to inform the broader planning framework and policy context. 1.20 In the context of the Island, it is the purpose of the Strategic Plan and the Area Plans, from the date they came into effect, to manage all development proposed after such dates. 1.21 Translate such purpose to the assessment of this application, since the approval for the house was issued in the 1990s, the Strategic Plan first came into effect in 2007, and the Area Plan for the East came into effect in 2020, the existence of an approved house within the open countryside is regarded as a material consideration in the assessment of the application, particularly since the house already influences the character of the area and the difference between the approval and the Area Plan also demonstrate a shift in planning policy. 1.22 In addition, the making of the Strategic Plan and the Area Plan for the East already acknowledges the presence of the existing house, meaning the land use designation of the site and the houses nearby are intentional in these plans. 1.23 Lastly, the Strategic Plan and the Area Plans are policy tools approved by Tynwarld. They are, therefore, considered to have significantly more weight than the existing land use, particularly when such proposals are about increasing the scale or intensity of the existing use. 1.24 In conclusion, it is the officer’s opinion that both the existing house and its open countryside designation were assessed adequately in the application, and policies have been correctly applied as concluded in the section above. REBUTTAL ON THE EXTENT OF THE CURTILAGE 1.25 The assumption on the curtilage is also incorrect. It is the officer’s opinion that the residential curtilage of the house is smaller than the red line boundary. This opinion will be detailed in Chapter 4. REBUTTAL ON THE ENTITLEMENT FOR EXTENSION 1.26 The third assumption is also incorrect, as residential curtilage only relates to permitted development. Although a residential curtilage does come with certain planning privileges, such privileges only come in the form of Permitted Developments (which include some extensions). Each class of permitted development imposes many conditions on a proposed development. As soon as a proposal cannot satisfy any one of the conditions required within a class, such privileges no longer exist. 1.27 The current proposal exceeds the requirements listed in Class 14 of the Permitted Development Order (2012 and 2025). Therefore, the Permitted
==== PAGE 14 ====
Page | 4
Development Order is no longer applicable to this proposal. As a result, the proposal is not “accepted in principle”. REBUTTAL ON THE SCOPE OF DEVELOPMENT 1.28 The fourth assumption has already been rebutted in paragraph 1.20. However, it is worth noting that General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 apply to all development in the countryside, regardless of the size of the development.
==== PAGE 15 ====
Page | 5
2 Worthy of Preservation 2.1 The agent and the appellant argue that the existing house does not warrant preservation under Environment Policy 1, Housing Policy 15 and Planning Circular 3/91 because it is not historical, and a Georgian-style farmhouse, which is neither traditional nor vernacular to the Manx countryside. 2.2 The Department disagrees with the house not being traditional and believes that its traditional appearance alone is sufficient to require preservation of its existing character. 2.3 The following planning policies are considered material to this application: • Planning Circular 3/91 (page 4) The proportion and form of country houses follow common patterns. The typical dwelling takes the form of a double cube volume topped by a steep pitch roof with gable ends”. • Housing Policy 15 of the Strategic Plan 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. 2.4 The Officer observes that the existing house is in the form described in the Planning Circular. As such, the Officer consider the house as traditionally styled and applies Housing Policy 15 and Planning Circular 3/91 when assessing the application. 2.5 Upon closer examination of the house, the Officer acknowledges that the scale and detailing of the existing house do not closely match that of a conventional Manx Cottage. The Department also accepts that the house is not historic and that there is a contention regarding the style of the existing house being vernacular to the Manx countryside. 2.6 It is the Officer’s opinion that the existing house has little character that matches that of a Georgian farmhouse on the Island. 2.7 Regardless, none of these arguments reduces the worthiness of preserving the character of the existing house because they are both traditional styles, and Housing Policy 15 would still apply to this application. 2.8 To further clarify, by preserving the character of the existing house, the Department means that a proposal should: • respect the design of the existing house, especially the good elements within; and • not amplify poorly designed elements within the existing house. 2.9 In other words, the intention of preserving the existing house is more from a design perspective and less from a conservation perspective.
==== PAGE 16 ====
Page | 6
This page has been left blank by intention.
==== PAGE 17 ====
Page | 7
3 Incongruous Design – The House 3.1 The agent and the appellant hold the opinion that the proposed extensions are “architecturally balanced” because they are not dominant or apparent against the existing house. 3.2 The appelleant argues that the “subordination is a matter of perceived scale, not simply mathematical comparison of mass.” They also argue that “mass alone is not a definitive measure of subordination”. 3.3 The agent argues that the extensions have: • broken-up volume, • stepped-down height from that of the existing ridge, • setback walls from the existing elevation of the house, • fenestration with proportions that reflect those of the existing ones, and • Manx stone cladding to complement the existing design of the house. Therefore, the proposal should be considered to comply with General Policy 2 (b) (c) (g) of the Strategic Plan. DESIGN PRINCIPLES 3.4 The Department disagrees with these arguments as neither architectural principles nor design policies support them, nor do they comply with design policies 3.5 The Department gives great weight to the following design principles: Extension to a house should almost always: • appearing subordinate to the existing house; • be easily distinguishable from the existing house; and • maintaining good legibility after the proposal, which means the whole house has a clear hierarchy. 3.6 The Officer believes that the proposal fails all three principles, and the application provided no evidence convincing the officer otherwise. ARCHITECTURAL CRITIC 3.7 The proposed house can be considered as three blocks with a similar shape but different scale, arranged near each other. 3.8 Starting with the existing house, the proposal adds two blocks onto the existing block: one long block attaches to the rear of the existing building, and a shorter block attaches to the side of the new rear block. 3.9 Comparing each of the proposed blocks with the existing house, all three blocks have similar height but are different in their width and depth scales, finishings and articulations.
==== PAGE 18 ====
Page | 8
3.10 Based on these observations, it is the Officer’s opinion that the agent’s argument for congruency is mainly based on observations in paragraph 3.7. At the same time, the officer’s assessment of incongruity gives more weight to observations in paragraph 3.9. 3.11 The officer’s assessment can be further supported by comparing impressions of the proposal and quantifying such comparison in the elevation drawings. VISUAL IMPRESSION 3.12 When viewing from the front and south elevation, the proposed extensions, with their bigger volume than that of the existing house, naturally have a bigger impression of the house, making them the most salient elements in their respective elevation. In the Officer’s opinion, such impressions naturally mean the proposed extensions are dominating the existing house. 3.13 The impression of dominancy is more obvious when comparing measurements of the existing and proposed elevation drawings. • For the front elevation, there is approximately a 110% increase in area compared to the existing one. Its length-to-height ratio changed from approximately 10:7 to 22:7. • For the south elevation, there is approximately a 220% increase in area compared to the existing one. Its length-to-height ratio changed from approximately 6:8 to 20:8. 3.14 In the meantime, the existing house, still being the closest to the highway and the front boundary of the site, is still in the most prominent location. 3.15 This contradiction over prominence resulted from two impressions suggesting that the proposed house is not easily legible or has a clear hierarchy. 3.16 Given 3.8 and 3.13-3.16, the Officer concludes that the proposal is contrary to the design principles mentioned in 3.5. Given that the size of the proposed extensions mainly causes the issues, they are considered overdominant and fail to balance the proposed extensions against the existing house in terms of mass, scale, and form. Failing General Policy 2 (b) (c) (g) and Housing Policy 15 of the Strategic Plan. POLICY INTERPRETATION 3.17 The Strategic Policy contains the following material consideration about design: • General Policy 2 development should “respects the site … in terms of the … scale, form, design … of buildings …” • Paragraph 8.12.2 As there is a general policy against development in the Island’s countryside, it is important that where development exists, either in a historic or recently
==== PAGE 19 ====
Page | 9
approved form, it should not, when altered or extended, detract from the amenities of the countryside. Care, therefore, must be taken to control the size and form of extensions to property in the countryside. • Paragraph 8.12.2 (continuing) In the case of traditional properties, the proportion and form of the building is sensitively balanced and extensions of inappropriate size or proportions will not be acceptable where these destroy the existing character of the property. • 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. 3.18 The Strategic Plan, in addition to General Policy 2, gives special attention to the proportion and form of houses in the countryside within paragraph 8.12.2, part of which manifested into Housing Policy 15. Therefore, in this application, the Officer translates this special attention as: • Approval is only given to a proposal which respects the proportion, form or appearance of the existing property. 3.19 The Department also considers that, based on the constrictive wording of Housing Policy 15, its specificity carries significantly more weight than other policies when applicable. 3.20 As explained in the section Architectural Critic, the Officer does not consider that the proposed extensions respect the proportion or form of the existing property. Based on the policy interpretation in paragraphs 3.18 and 3.17, this position alone is sufficient reason for refusing the application.
==== PAGE 20 ====
Page | 10
This page has been left blank by intention.
==== PAGE 21 ====
Page | 11
4 Incongruous Design – The Site and the Wider Area THE APPLICATION SITE 4.1 The agent and the appellant argue that the proposed extensions sit well within the application site because the existing house has a large curtilage, and the overall size of the proposed house still counts for only a small portion of the entire curtilage. 4.2 The Officer disagrees with this assumption that the curtilage of the existing house is the same as the red line boundary of this application. It is the officer’s opinion that the curtilage of the house is about half of the red line boundary. Residential Curtilage 4.3 The red line boundary of an application only means areas which are considered to be immediately affected by that proposed development. The curtilage of a building is determined by the actual use of the land around such building, rather than ownership boundaries or the red line boundary. For a residential curtilage, the red line boundary is typically the same as the red line boundary, but it’s not always the case when sites are larger, such as in this application. 4.4 The red line boundary of the site is demarcated with sod banks and hedges. While this is useful in determining ownership, the demarcations alone are not considered sufficient evidence that all areas within them are being used incidentally to the enjoyment of the house. 4.5 Satellite image from 2001 (see Appendix 4), which is a few years after the approval of the existing main house, shows the south part of the site appearing more toward agricultural use rather than a part of the house. Satellite images taken after 2001 show the area was mowed, but there is no other evidence that the area was used incidentally to the enjoyment of the house. Therefore, it is the Officer’s opinion that the southern part of the site should be excluded from the residential curtilage. This is shown in Appendix 4. 4.6 If the Officer were to recommend the application for approval, a clear residential curtilage of the site would be defined in agreement with the applicant before such a decision is made, leading to a revised site plan with a smaller red line boundary. 4.7 Therefore, should the appeal be allowed, the Officer would implore a revised site plan showing a reduced red line boundary to replace the existing one on the application or imposing a condition that the residential curitlage is to be agreed with the Department. Site’s Character 4.8 Comparing the external floor area of the proposed house to a smaller curtilage, the proposal takes up a majority of such a curtilage. Although, it is the Officer’s opinion that this alone would not be sufficient reason for refusing the application.
==== PAGE 22 ====
Page | 12
THE CLUSTER OF HOUSES 4.9 The agent and the appellant argue that the proposed house fits in with the immediate area around the site because the proposal would: • be similar to the ones done by nearby houses. • fit into the existing mixed architectural character within the junction. 4.10 The Department disagrees with these characterisations of both the proposed extensions and the other houses within the area. Different Extension Directions 4.11 As explained in Section Architecture Critic in Chapter 3, the Officer considers that the proposal consists of three closed-arranged blocks with similar shape and height but varying scale of width and depth. 4.12 The houses near the application site, some of which are listed as examples in the appellant’s statement, have varying heights and roofscape to emphasise the main house, meaning they are legible and have a clear hierarchy. At the same time, the proposal lacks legibility, as discussed in Chapter 3. 4.13 In addition, there were only eight applications of house extensions after the Strategic Plan came into effect in 2007. All of them comply with Housing Policy 15 or 16. Please refer to Appendix 5 for these cases. 4.14 Given 4.12 and 4.13, the Department also considers that the other houses nearby do not constitute precedent for the current approval. 4.15 The Department would like to reiterate that each application is assessed with its own merit. The Department has an obligation to be consistent in decision-making. Still, this consistency is in how policies are applied, not in superficial comparisons between the descriptions of applications or the appearance of a building and the decisions themselves. Character of the Junction 4.16 It is evident that larger houses are either setback further from the roads or are better screened by sod banks and vegetation. The application house, however, is more elevated and appears much more isolated compared to the other houses nearby. In addition to 4.12, the size of the proposed house would exceed that of any nearby houses. A combination of its size and prominent position only amplifies the contrast between the proposed house and the others. It is the Department’s opinion that such contrast detracts from the existing character of the area, as described in 4.12. CHARACTER OF THE COUNTRYSIDE 4.17 The agent and the appellant argue that the proposed house fits in with the character of the Manx countryside because: • The proposal fit in with the adjacent topography.
==== PAGE 23 ====
Page | 13
• The use of Manx stone as cladding echoes the character of the Manx countryside. • The existing landscape integrates well with the surroundings. 4.18 The site sits on a slope that rises from the west to the east. The existing house is elevated above the road, and its existing hard standing has cut into this slope. The proposed extension would require further cuts into this slope. There is little variation in the height or roofscape of the proposal. Therefore, the proposal is considered to have no design elements that demonstrate a response to the topography. 4.19 Manx stone has a strong tie to vernacular architecture, including Manx cottages, which are small in size due to the brittle nature of the stone. The proposed extension, with the attached garages, alone has a bigger volume than that of an authentic Manx vernacular cottage. Therefore, it is the Department’s opinion that Manx stone cladding on the proposed extensions does not have a positive impact on the design of the proposed house, nor does it represent a right echo of the character of the Manx Countryside. 4.20 The proposal does not include any proposed landscape work. The existing sod banks and hedges are insufficient to mitigate the harm the proposed house could cause in the broader area. Nor should this argument be valid, according to paragraph 4.3.11 of the Strategic Plan, which 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.”
==== PAGE 24 ====
Page | 14
This page has been left blank by intention.
==== PAGE 25 ====
Page | 15
5 No Exceptional Circumstances 5.1 The appellant believes that since the size of the existing house is too small, the sizes of the proposed extensions are necessary to: • bring the house to an up-to-date living standard, which requires larger space due to changes in general lifestyle, ageing-in-place demand and building standards; and • utilise more alternative energy equipment, which requires additional space. 5.2 Therefore, despite the extensions exceeding the 50% limit imposed within Housing Policy 15, the agent and the appellant argue that these reasons justify the size of the extensions enough to be considered as exceptional circumstances mentioned in Housing Policy 15. 5.3 The Department understand that the appellant has needs for a larger house, but disagrees that these reasons are exceptional, nor are they enough to outweigh Housing Policy 15. POLICY INTERPRETATION 5.4 The Strategic Policy contains the following material consideration about the countryside: • Paragraph 8.12.2 As there is a general policy against development in the Island’s countryside, it is important that where development exists, either in an historic or recently approved form, it should not, when altered or extended detract from the amenities of the countryside. Care therefore, must be taken to control the size and form of extensions to property in the countryside. • Paragraph 8.12.2 (continuing) In the case of traditional properties, the proportion and form of the building is sensitively balanced and extensions of inappropriate size or proportions will not be acceptable where these destroy the existing character of the property. • 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). • Appendix 1 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 questions … should not include attics or outbuildings.
==== PAGE 26 ====
Page | 16
5.5 In Section 3, the Officer has explained why the proposed extension is not considered to respect the proportion, form or appearance of the existing property, which was considered sufficient for the Officer to judge the application failing to comply with design requirements, which includes Housing Policy 15. 5.6 In the meantime, without accepting the design arguments made by the appellant, putting aside the first part of Housing Policy 15, the proposal would still fail to comply with the second part of Housing Policy 15. Definition of Existing Footage 5.7 The second part of Housing Policy 15 sets out a limit of 50% of the existing property. In practice, the external floor space (footage) of the existing property is considered to be that in 2007, the year the Strategic Plan came into effect. 5.8 Appendix 1 of the Strategic Plan has excluded outbuildings, which include garages, from the calculation for external floor space. Therefore, the external floor space of the application house is measured at approximately 70 square metres. 5.9 Reference back to the officer’s report, the extensions are therefore considered to be approximately 220% of the existing 70 square metres area, way exceeding the 35 square metres limit (50% of 70) set out by Housing Policy 15. Strength of the 50% limit 5.10 It is the Department’s opinion that, as far as material consideration goes, policies are considered more objective than most other material considerations, because of the extensive researches that lead to them, the public scrutiny they went through and the democratic process that empowers them to heavily influence the decision-making process, as mentioned in the eariler parts of this statement of case. 5.11 Housing Policy 15 is part of such policies. The 50% limit is considered an objective limit for extending to traditional houses, as explained in paragraph 8.12.2 of the Strategic Plan. Therefore, unless an applicant submits strong evidence that convinces the officer otherwise, exceeding the 50% limit should be considered a failure of the design standard and a failure of the design requirement in general, which is what happened in this application. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE 5.12 The Department also considers public interest as an exceptional circumstance, as it is the spirit of the planning system. 5.13 The applicant argues that bringing the house up to a modern living standard while improving the energy sufficiency fits in with national aspirations and therefore should be considered exceptional circumstances. The Department disagrees with this argument, mostly because this argument is more about the benefit solely of the applicant rather than that of the general public. Size and Occupants
==== PAGE 27 ====
Page | 17
5.14 The current house, with its 70 square metres area, is sufficient, even abundant, for one or two people. 5.15 The appellant argues that the current house is too small for a family of three or four, which is factually correct. However, seeking alternative dwellings should have been an option, especially when the proposed extensions are significantly bigger than the main house. 5.16 The applicant didn’t explain why this site was chosen to accommodate a large family, given that the existing house’s size does not meet such requirements. Therefore, the housing need of the applicant carries no weight in the assessment of the application. Standards and Regulations 5.17 The appellant also mentioned housing standards as well as building control regulations. The Department want to remind the agent that these are not material considerations in a planning application, as other authorities regulate them, which in addition to the judement the Officer made in 5.14. Energy Efficiency 5.18 The appellant also argues that the energy efficiency improvement should become an exceptional circumstance. 5.19 The application includes no evidence for the energy efficiency of the proposed house, such as an SAP report. Therefore, this claim carried little weight in the assessment of the application. 5.20 The Department also believes that energy efficiency is only part of the sustainability goal. Planning-wise, the most important thing is to limit unsustainable development, such as excessive extension to a house in the countryside, which brings significantly more carbon emissions.
==== PAGE 28 ====
Page | 18
This page has been left blank by intention.
==== PAGE 29 ====
Page | 19
6 Amplified Visual Impact 6.1 The agent and the appellant argue that the proposal would not increase the visual impact of the house due to • good quality of the design, • screening from the existing landscape, and • not being closer to the highway. 6.2 Therefore, the agent and the appellant argue that given that the house is not traditional, the proposal would comply with Housing Policy 16. 6.3 The Department has rebutted the majority of the argument in 6.1 within Chapters 3 and 4. In the meantime, without accepting the house being non-traditional, the Department also disagrees with the appellants’ definition of “increased impact” 6.4 In other words, the Department believes that the proposed house would increase its visual impact. 6.5 Based on the section Architectural Critic in Chapter 3, the proposed house is visually significantly larger, which makes it more visible than the existing house. It is evident that the proposal has an increased visual impact; therefore, it fails to meet Housing Policy 16. 6.6 In addition, the existing vegetation would only provide some screening when a vantage point is very close to the site. In the meantime, the house is quite visible from several sections of St Marks Road, where the boundary vegetation of the site provides very little screening. 6.7 Due to the enlargement of the house, not being closer to the highway would also weigh very little when assessing the visual impact of the proposal. 6.8 In conclusion, even if the proposal were only assessed under Housing Policy 16, the proposal would still fail to comply with it.
==== PAGE 30 ====
Page | 20
This page has been left blank by intention.
==== PAGE 31 ====
Page | 21
7 Planning Balance 7.1 The agent and the appellant argue that the 50% external floor space increase limit in Housing Policy 15 was given too much weight in deciding the application, and more weight should be given to: • other good design elements; • the lack of material harm, other than maybe the size of the extension; and, specifically, • meeting the government’s sustainability goal. 7.2 Therefore, the agent and the appellant believe that if these factors were given more weight, the application would have been approved. 7.3 The Department has discussed each element of this argument in the previous chapters and disagrees with this argument. 7.4 Firstly, the reason for refusing the application was an identified planning harm, namely detracting from the existing character of the house and surrounding areas. As can be reviewed in Chapters 3 and 4 of this statement, the design assessment is conducted independently of the 50% extension limit. 7.5 Secondly, the Department believes that only a planning good has the potential of mitigating or outweighing a planning harm. As can be reviewed in Chapter 5 of this statement, the applicant provided no evidence to support a material consideration that can outweigh the identified planning harm. 7.6 Lastly, the Department also believes that the lack of planning harm in some aspects does not usually outweigh an identified planning harm. The proposal would not harm the neighbouring amenities or highway safety, but these are not reasons to approve the application. 7.7 In conclusion, given there is an identified planning harm and no planning good to outweigh or mitigate this harm, the application was refused. The Department believes that this statement has proven that the original assessment is balanced and impartial.
==== PAGE 32 ====
Page | 22
This page has been left blank by intention.
==== PAGE 33 ====
Appendix 3 – Potential Conditions In the event the proposal is recommended for approval, the following conditions should be considered as part of the approval notice: 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.
Within one month of this approval, a plan clearly distinguishing the residential curtilage and the associated field shall be submitted. This plan should clearly show the proposed subdivision and layout of the new curtilages, ensuring that all boundaries are distinctly marked and comply with the guidelines set forth. Reason: To ensure that the curtilage is clearly defined in the interest of protecting the countryside.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2025 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), and other than those that has been approved as part of this application, no: o extensions or alterations to the approved dwellinghouse o garages or other free-standing buildings o deckings o garden sheds or summerhouses o greenhouses or polytunnels o no fences, gates, walls or other means of enclosure o garage doors o solar panels (attached or free-standing) shall be erected or placed within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval. Reason: To control future development on the site and in the interests of the wider countryside.
(Continuing to condition 4)
==== PAGE 34 ====
No development shall commence until: o a schedule of materials and finishes, o samples of the materials, and o design details of all proposed windows to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
No development shall be commenced until a hard and soft landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Such a scheme shall include details of all walls, fences, trees, hedgerows and other planting which are to be retained; details of all new walls, fences and other boundary treatment and finished ground levels; a planting specification to include numbers, density, size, species and positions of all new trees and shrubs; the location of grassed areas details of the hard surface treatment of the open parts of the site and a programme of implementation. All hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the Department. Any trees or plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with other trees or plants of a species and size to be first approved in writing by the Department. All hard landscape works shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.
(Continuing to condition 6)
==== PAGE 35 ====
Prior to the commencement of any works, an Energy Statement shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Department (planning), which demonstrates the completed house has an improved Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) rating, or similar, over that of the existing house. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling, a further Energy Statement post completion shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department (planning) demonstrating that the design SAP rating has been achieved.
Reason: A reason why the application is considered acceptable is due to the overall environmental impacts as outlined in Housing Policy 15, namely the eco-efficiency credentials of the completed house.
==== PAGE 36 ====
This page has been left blank by intention.
==== PAGE 37 ====
Reproduced from the IoM Survey map with the permission of the Department of Infrastructure © Crown Copyright 2015. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Appendix 4 – Suggested Residential Curtilage 2001 Satellite Image Scalebar: 0 10 20 5 Metres Department Division/Office Case Reference Date DEFA PA 24/91345/B Isle of Man Government 23/07/2025 Scale:1:625
==== PAGE 38 ====
Reproduced from the IoM Survey map with the permission of the Department of Infrastructure © Crown Copyright 2015. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Appendix 4 – Suggested Residential Curtilage 2006 Satellite Image Scalebar: 0 10 20 5 Metres Department Division/Office Case Reference Date DEFA PA 24/91345/B Isle of Man Government 23/07/2025 Scale:1:625
==== PAGE 39 ====
Reproduced from the IoM Survey map with the permission of the Department of Infrastructure © Crown Copyright 2015. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Appendix 4 – Suggested Residential Curtilage 2012 Satellite Image Scalebar: 0 10 20 5 Metres Department Division/Office Case Reference Date DEFA PA 24/91345/B Isle of Man Government 23/07/2025 Scale:1:625
==== PAGE 40 ====
Reproduced from the IoM Survey map with the permission of the Department of Infrastructure © Crown Copyright 2015. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Appendix 4 – Suggested Residential Curtilage 2018 Satellite Image Scalebar: 0 10 20 5 Metres Department Division/Office Case Reference Date DEFA PA 24/91345/B Isle of Man Government 23/07/2025 Scale:1:625
==== PAGE 41 ====
Reproduced from the IoM Survey map with the permission of the Department of Infrastructure © Crown Copyright 2015. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Appendix 4 – Suggested Residential Curtilage 2021 Satellite Image Scalebar: 0 10 20 5 Metres Department Division/Office Case Reference Date DEFA PA 24/91345/B Isle of Man Government 23/07/2025 Scale:1:625
==== PAGE 42 ====
Appendix 5 – Planning History Nearby 08/02005/B APPROVED Alterations, erection of extension and detached garage (Amendments to PA 08/01645/B) New Dwelling Upper Stuggadhoo Braaid Isle Of Man IM4 2AL The officer’s report states: “The dwelling displays a combination of traditional and modern styles, with the front (principal) elevation having vertically proportioned windows which occupy a small proportion of the surface area of the front elevation which results in a more vernacular appearance. The rear elevation, which is not visible from the road, has a much more modern appearance, being characterised by a double height feature window. It is considered that on balance the most appropriate policy by which to assess the proposed extension is Housing Policy 16. This sets out that non traditional dwellings may be extended only where there would be no increase in the impact of the building as viewed by the public. The extension would not be visible by the public due to its position and its relatively modest single storey scale. As such it is concluded that the proposed development is acceptable.”
09/01651/B APPROVED Alterations, erection of an extension and detached garage Red Lyon Cottage St Marks Road Braaid Isle Of Man IM4 2AJ The officer’s report states: “In terms of HP15, the proposed extension is a modest addition to the rear elevation of the dwelling which is not readily visible from public vantage points. The extension would not exceed the 50% limit and whilst flat roofs are generally discouraged, the extension would be in-keeping with the existing rear outlet and would not dominate the existing property in any way. It is judged that the proposal meets with the requirements of HP15.”
12/00727/B APPROVED Alterations and extension to dwelling and driveway amendments Vaujany Clanna Road Braaid Isle Of Man IM4 2HW The officer’s report states: “The proposed extension would be erected on the rear elevation, whilst this would lengthen the side elevation, given that the extension would be single storey and given the orientation of the dwelling and the existing screening it is considered that the overall mass of the building would not increase when viewed from the public thoroughfare.”
==== PAGE 43 ====
12/01196/B APPROVED Alterations, erection of a single and a two storey extension and installation of replacement windows to dwelling Stuggadhoo St Marks Road Braaid Isle Of Man IM4 2AL The officer’s report states: “The application in 1999 was refused at appeal, the Inspector felt that the extension being about 63% bigger could not be considered modest, and it did not provide essential facilities. The inspector went on to say that the proposal would substantially increase the bulk and massing of the dwelling and the prominence of the building in the landscape. The Inspector felt that it would reduce still further any resemblance the building had to the character and appearance of the original buildings and be seriously contrary to the provisions of Housing Policy 3/89.” The officer’s report continues: “The existing floor space is approximately 2345qm, 50% of this would be 117sqm. The proposed extensions measure approximately 103sqm, this would be just below the 50% of the existing floor space. Also in need of consideration are the proportion, form, scale and overall design of the proposed extension and whether it would respect the existing dwelling. The proposed extension takes the form of a two storey pitched roof traditional element with a single storey adjoining extension with a lean- to roof. Both the two storey and single storey extensions would be off the West elevation.”
16/00434/B APPROVED Erection of an extension to replace existing conservatory to dwelling Mount View Cottage St Marks Road Braaid Isle of Man IM4 2AJ The officer’s report states: “it is considered that the proposed extension would respect the main dwellinghouse in terms of the siting, layout and scale. The design and form of the extension would be finished to match the existing dwelling in terms of appearance, character and the materials used would complement the dwelling house.”
16/00884/B APPROVED Alterations and erection of extension Stuggadhoo Cottage St Marks Road Braaid Isle of Man IM4 2AJ The officer’s report states: “The property is very traditional albeit with a very modern conservatory which detracts from the character of the property. Its replacement with a traditionally designed and finished extension is considered to be an improvement to the property, which has limited floor area and where internal space is important.”
==== PAGE 44 ====
21/00704/B APPROVED Erection of single storey ground floor extension erection of first floor extension over existing garage Vaujany Clanna Road Braaid Isle Of Man IM4 2HW The officer’s report states: “As well, the proposed extensions in terms of its proportion, form, scale, design and finishing are in keeping with the existing property and would not detract from the appearance of the property, which would make them fitting additions to the site and area.”
22/00837/B APPROVED Erection of replacement single storey extension with pitched roof and garage door Mount View St Marks Road Braaid Isle Of Man IM4 2AJ The officer’s report states: “The site is not designated for development, nor does it meet the expectation criteria in GP3, whilst this is the case Housing Policy 15 and its supporting text clearly allows for residential extensions/alterations in the countryside where they would not a) detract from the countryside and b) that the works must respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. The proposal is an extension of the already in situ single storey extension to the side elevation to create a garage. The proposal is deemed acceptable in terms of its form, mass and design and will create an additional usable parking space undercover, without impacting the traditional character and appearance of the dwellinghouse. Therefore, on balance, it is considered that the proposal complies with HP15.”
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
