713732

==== PAGE 1 ====

Appeal: AP25/0017

                 Planning Application: 24/91345/B

__ __

1

Report on an Inquiry into a Planning Appeal

Inquiry: Wednesday 20 August 2025 Site Inspection: Monday 18 August 2025

Appeal made by Mr Andrew Butterworth against the refusal of a planning application for approval for extension to existing dwelling to provide new kitchen, living space, principal bedroom suite and integral garage at Balladhoo Croft, Clannaugh Road, The Braaid, Isle of Man, IM4 2HW. __

Procedural Matters

The Appellant complains of non-engagement and reporting inaccuracies on the part of the Planning Authority but these are not matters for this appeal which provides for fresh assessment of all material considerations.

Description

Balladhoo Croft is on the east side of Clannaugh Road a short distance south of its junction with St Marks Road, where there is a mixed scatter of traditional and modern dwellings. Otherwise, the only nearby property is Balladhoo House, immediately to the north, and the surrounding area is rural.

The appeal site slopes westward towards the Road with a driveway leading up to the side of the house and a large, detached garage at the rear. Both buildings are situated in the northern part of the site.

The existing house is of two storeys, finished in white render under a pitched slate roof, and faces west towards the Road. Its overall dimensions are 9.9m by 6.7m, equivalent to a plan area of some 70sqm. The single- storey, detached rear garage measures about 6.5m by 6m.

The proposal is to demolish the detached garage and erect a two-storey side and rear pitch-roofed extension behind the existing house with roof lines set down a little below the existing main ridge, increasing the footprint to some 225sqm. The present main elevation would stand forward onto a new frontal driveway.

The rear part of the extension would be about 8.5m by 14.7m and finished in white-painted render under a slate roof. The side part would measure 7.9m by 12m also with a slate roof but the elevations finished in stone cladding. In the west elevation there would be double doors to an integral garage.

Other features would include a covered balcony on the first floor of the rear extension facing east; a 3.2m by 1.8m mono-pitched, rear porch at the

==== PAGE 2 ====

Appeal: AP25/0017

                 Planning Application: 24/91345/B

__ __

2

inner corner of the two extensions; an existing pitch-roofed front porch reclad in stone; and solar panels on the roof slopes facing south and east.

Planning Policy and Guidance

The rural site is not designated for development by the Area Plan for the East (APE).

The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP) contains the following policies relevant to this appeal.

10. Spatial Policy 5 (SpP5) Environment Policy 1 (EP1) and General Policy 3 (GP3) together protect the countryside for its own sake and limit new development to defined settlements, subject only to specific exceptions which do not apply in this case.

11. Housing Policy 15 (HP15) states that extension or alteration of existing, traditionally styled properties in the countryside will normally only be approved where the extension respects 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.

12. HP16 provides that extension of non-traditional dwellings will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact on public views of the building.

13. General Policy 2 (GP2) at criteria (b) (c) and (g) sets out design requirements for development, that they should respect the character of the site itself and its surroundings and protect amenity.

14. Planning Circular 3/91 (C3/91), Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside, states that two-storey, L-shaped extensions should be avoided and that extensions to existing buildings should maintain the character of the original form.

15. The adopted Residential Design Guide (RDG) provides generally that extensions to dwellings should be subordinate to the existing house.

The Case for the Appellant - Mr A Butterworth

The material points are:

Preliminary Matters

16. The existing property is incorrectly described by the Planning Authority as a traditional Manx cottage. In reality, the dwelling is a 25-year-old structure, designed in the style of a Georgian farmhouse, with no historical or architectural features typically associated with vernacular Manx cottages.

==== PAGE 3 ====

Appeal: AP25/0017

                 Planning Application: 24/91345/B

__ __

3

17. The proposed extension represents a 190% increase over the existing footprint, not 220% as alleged. This includes the integral garage which consolidates a more efficient layout compared with the present detached garage, which is proposed to be demolished.

Policy

18. The site is part of an existing established residential curtilage, not a greenfield or undeveloped rural plot. It was zoned and approved for residential development in 1997 with the demolition of a former Manx cottage. Therefore, GP3 of the IMSP is not applicable, and the restrictions designed to prevent new development in the countryside should not be applied to the extension of an existing home.

19. Balladhoo Croft is not a heritage property and HP15, which strictly applies to traditionally styled properties, should be interpreted flexibly in this case. Whilst the proposed extension exceeds the 50% policy guideline, the circumstances of this application clearly warrant an exception.

20. The original house, with a gross external floor area of approximately 70sqm, falls well below acceptable standards for modern family accommodation. By comparison, the current UK base standard for a four- bedroom home is 106-124sqm gross internal area. The energy-efficient home proposed requires additional space to house essential plant, battery storage, air source heat pump and insulated service zone. Moreover, the proportion of site coverage would remain relatively low, leaving a substantial garden space to the south.

21. Even for non-traditional properties, HP16 permits redevelopment where it improves appearance and does not increase visual impact.

Form and Character

22. With respect to HP15 and HP16, the proposed use of Manx stone, balanced rooflines and sympathetic siting would ensure that the design would enhance, rather than harm the visual quality of the area. The building would still be set back and partially screened from the Road and would not significantly increase public visibility or affect the landscape.

23. C3/91 advises that two-storey L-shaped extensions should be avoided but that is guidance and not a rigid requirement. In this proposal, the L-shaped extension is architecturally balanced, incorporates natural local materials, including Manx stone, and improves the character of the site. It also employs sustainable technologies, consistent with Government net zero carbon goals. Thus, the extension would respect and enhance the rural context, even if the development departed modestly from traditional forms.

24. The proposed extension would not dominate the original house. It would be broken into separate volumes and ridge lines would be stepped down from

==== PAGE 4 ====

Appeal: AP25/0017

                 Planning Application: 24/91345/B

__ __

4

the existing roof to reduce massing. Landscaping, orientation, and material choice have been carefully considered to soften visual impact and reflect the surrounding rural aesthetic. Concern about mass is subjective. It is submitted that the design quality and awareness of context outweigh the numerical increase in floorspace. Neighbouring Amenity and Highway Safety

25. The Planning Authority confirms that there would be no overbearing, overshadowing or overlooking of other property due to the development and DoI Highways and other statutory consultees raised no objections. The proposal includes functional parking, turning, and garage space, in line with GP2(h-i) of the IMSP. Compliance with Policy

26. The proposed development should be assessed under GP2 and other relevant development management policies, rather than under the exceptions-based framework of GP3.

27. The design is sympathetic to the existing built environment and surrounding landscape. The development would integrate well with local character through appropriate use of materials, building orientation, and landscaped open spaces. Accordingly, it would not harm the character of the surrounding landscape. On the contrary, the development would enhance the setting through thoughtful and context-sensitive architecture and contribute positively to the visual quality of the area, retaining and working with the existing topography. Natural features, including trees, sod banks, and hedgerows would be kept wherever feasible.

28. The scheme respects neighbouring residential amenity, avoiding overshadowing or overbearing impacts, and maintains a harmonious relationship with the surrounding locality. The extended dwelling would provide a high standard of amenity for occupiers, including safe and convenient access and adequate off-site parking, servicing, and turning space.

29. The development would thus comply in all respects with GP2 of the IMSP, as a sustainable and sensitive, best-fit solution in the locational and policy context.

30. While the extension would exceed the 50% plan guideline under HP15, it would reflect the most balanced, sustainable, and visually appropriate outcome when compared to other design options considered. It would retain and enhance existing character, minimise visual and environmental impact, support energy-efficiency and carbon reduction, and provide high- quality living for contemporary family needs.

31. The development would avoid fragmented or sprawling development, reducing cumulative landscape impact. The design is not only justifiable as an exception under HP15 but exemplifies good planning practice by embedding sustainability, respecting local character, and future-proofing a rural home with minimal impact.

==== PAGE 5 ====

Appeal: AP25/0017

                 Planning Application: 24/91345/B

__ __

5

32. The proposed development is also in line with the spirit of HP16, which allows for redevelopment or improvement of non-traditional dwellings where architectural and visual quality is enhanced. Examples of Comparable Developments
33. Attention is drawn to a range of other local developments where the same restrictions have not been applied. These are detailed in the appeal statement of the Appellant. In this connection, there is legitimate concern over consistency of approach on the part of the Planning Authority. Conclusion
34. For the foregoing reasons, the Appellant respectfully requests that the appeal be allowed, and planning permission granted.

The Case for the Planning Authority

The material points are:

Issues

35. The key considerations are the impact of the design of the proposed development on the existing building, the character and street scene of the area and the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

Design of the Extension

36. GP2 of the IMSP requires development to respect the site and surroundings in layout, scale, form, design and landscaping. The existing house a traditionally styled Manx cottage to which HP15 applies, while HP16 for non-traditional houses, applies in part with regard to public views.

37. The size of the house would increase far over the 50% guideline of HP15. The fact that the proposed extension would be eco-friendly does not justify such an excessive increase in floor area. The existing house has the typical length, width and height proportion of a traditional Manx cottage. The extension, and especially the lengths of its two main elements, would not conform to the existing proportions of the house. The extension would be more significant in mass, making it insubordinate to the existing house, irrespective of its overall design quality.

38. Balladhoo Croft is the first house visible when travelling north on Clannaugh Road towards St Marks Road. Therefore, the proposed extension would detract from the existing street scene.

39. In summary, it is considered that the appeal proposal fails to comply with HP15 and HP16 of the IMSP.

==== PAGE 6 ====

Appeal: AP25/0017

                 Planning Application: 24/91345/B

__ __

6

Street Scene

40. Existing houses around the St Marks Road junction have many forms, including extensions that are subordinate to and respect the style of the main house. The extension proposed in this case, however, is not considered to respect the design of the existing house. Therefore, it would detract from the character of the street scene of the area.

Neighbouring Amenity

41. There is no residential building within 20m of the proposed extension, so the proposal is considered to have no additional overbearing, overshadowing or overlooking impact.

Response to the Appeal

Policy

42. The Agent for the Appellant is incorrect to assert that the established residential use of the site amounts to zoning for development in the sense of a development plan designation. The IMSP policies cited in the refusal and in the case for the Planning Authority are the appropriate basis for the assessment of a rural house extension.

Character and Appearance

43. It is not accepted that the existing house is non-traditional and it is maintained that its traditional appearance is alone sufficient to require the preservation of its character from the design perspective and in terms of HP15 of the IMSP, C3/91 and the RDG. Whilst the existing house is comparatively recent and of no historic value, neither has it Georgian characteristics as suggested.

44. The extended house, as proposed, can be considered as three blocks with a similar shape but different scale, arranged near each other. All three would have similar height but would be different in scale, width, depth, articulation and finishes. The Planning Authority view of incongruity should carry the greater weight. The two elements of the extension would visually dominate the present house, with a large percentage increases in the surface area of their elevations. The existing house would still stand prominently forward, creating a contradiction in visual hierarchy. The design thus fails to comply with the requirements of GP2(b) and (c) of the IMSP to respect the existing house.

45. The site sits on a slope that rises from west to east. The existing house is elevated above the road, and its existing hard standing has cut into this slope. The proposed extension would cut further into the slope. There would be little variation in the height or roofscape of the house as proposed. Therefore, the proposal would have no design elements that demonstrate a response to the topography. Manx stone has a strong tie to vernacular architecture, including Manx cottages, which are small in size due to the

==== PAGE 7 ====

Appeal: AP25/0017

                 Planning Application: 24/91345/B

__ __

7

brittle nature of the stone. The proposed extension alone has a bigger volume than that of an authentic Manx vernacular cottage. Therefore, the Manx stone cladding on the proposed extension does not have a positive impact in this case. Nor does the proposal echo of the character of the Manx countryside.

Curtilage

46. It is argued for the Appellant that the extension would sit well within the site because the enlarged house would still only occupy a small proportion of the entire curtilage. However, the demarcation of the appeal site boundary, although defined by sod banks and hedges, is not sufficient justification to regard the whole site as comprising the domestic curtilage. The southern part of the site is more agricultural in character and should be excluded from the residential curtilage in any approval. However, it is not argued that the increased development ratio is a ground for objection.

Other Examples

47. Other dwellings near the appeal site have extensions which, unlike the appeal design, exhibit a visual hierarchy in their roofscapes, legibly re- emphasising the main houses.

48. Extensions approved since the initial adoption of the IMSP in 2007 all comply with HP15. There is no inconsistency in the refusal of the proposal in this appeal.

Exceptional Circumstances

49. The Department accepts the need for a larger house but disagrees that this is exceptional or sufficient to outweigh HP15-16 of the IMSP. There would be little benefit to the public from modernisation of the dwelling.

Planning Balance and Conclusion

50. While the proposed development would not harm neighbouring amenity, the extension would be out of proportion compared with the existing house. The development would harm the character and appearance of the house as well as the countryside. This is sufficient reason to recommend that this appeal be dismissed.

==== PAGE 8 ====

Appeal: AP25/0017

                 Planning Application: 24/91345/B

__ __

8

Assessment by the Inspector

Planning Issues

51. The sole main issue in this case is the effect the proposed extension would have on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling house at Balladhoo Croft and its surrounding rural location, having regard to adopted planning policy for the extension of houses in the countryside.

Policy

52. I do not accept the claim made for the Appellant that the rural appeal site is zoned for development merely because it is in established residential use.

53. The appeal proposal is clearly governed by EP1 and GP3 of the IMSP to resist unwarranted development in the countryside and HP15-16 dealing with house extensions when permitted, as well as the broad design provisions of GP2.

54. I agree with the Planning Authority that the existing countryside house at Balladhoo Croft is traditionally styled. However, it is of relatively recent construction and so is neither historic nor strictly a traditional Manx cottage.

55. My approach in response to this appeal is to assess the proposed development largely on its inherent design and individual merit with reference to the requirements of both HP15 to respect the existing property and HP16 that the extension should not increase impact on public views. I then give consideration to the overarching requirements of EP1, GP3 and GP2 of the IMSP concerning rural development generally.

Character and Appearance

56. The extension would radically increase the size of the dwelling over the 50% guideline of HP15 but I interpret that guideline alongside the more pragmatic provision of HP16 concerning public views.

57. The large side and rear extension would be set back from the original front elevation, which would continue to predominate in frontal views. The development would appropriately consolidate the built development by including the integral double garage replacing the existing separate outbuilding.

58. Although the extension would occupy much more of the northern part of the appeal site, it would leave ample garden and amenity space within the site. In this connection, the appeal site is well delineated by boundary features and I give little weight to the submission of the Planning Authority that the curtilage of the dwelling should be curtailed within the bounds of the application site, any more than it apparently was when the present house was permitted 25 years ago.

==== PAGE 9 ====

Appeal: AP25/0017

                 Planning Application: 24/91345/B

__ __

9

59. I am more concerned with the overall shape and proportionality of the proposed extension in relation to the form of the existing house. The long walls of both elements would contrast uncomfortably with the smaller scale house that now exists. While the slate roofs would be of pitched profile, they would not be much set down from the existing main ridge, and would not achieve any real degree of visual subordination.

60. I therefore consider that the extension would be excessive in mass and would fail to respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property, contrary to HP15 and would, in consequence, also adversely affect public views, in terms of HP16. It would also conflict with the general guidance of C3/91 and the RDG that two-storey, L-shaped additions should be avoided and that extensions to existing buildings should be subordinate to and maintain the character of the original form.

61. I reach these views not so much on the pure size and scale of the proposed extension but with regard to its inherent design. Despite partial screening, mere unobtrusiveness is widely held to be no justification for an unacceptable design. It follows that the proposed development would cause a significant degree of harm to the wider countryside landscape contrary to EP1 and GP3 of the IMSP.

Other Matters

Amenity

62. I recognise that there is no objection on grounds of adverse impact on residential amenity, given the separation of the proposed extensions from any other property.

Highway Safety

63. Nor do I find that the development would harm highway safety, given that the development would include acceptable access, on-site parking and turning arrangements and would generate little if any additional traffic.

Benefits

64. I accept that there is a personal need for a larger modern dwelling, albeit that benefit would be largely personal and does not carry overriding planning weight

Conditions

65. Should approval be granted, I consider that the conditions suggested without prejudice by the Planning Authority would be required, save that there would be no need, in my view as explained, for a curtilage limitation.

66. Other conditions would properly limit further built additions to the dwelling (but not the usual ancillary outbuildings subject to permitted development limits), secure advance approval of finishing materials and landscaping of

==== PAGE 10 ====

Appeal: AP25/0017

                 Planning Application: 24/91345/B

__ __

10

the site, all in the interests of visual amenity; and finally ensure the installation of energy efficiency measures.

Conclusions

67. Whilst I acknowledge that, in many aspects, the proposed development would avoid undue planning harm, I have reached the conclusion that the effect of its design on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling house at Balladhoo Croft and the surrounding rural landscape would be unacceptable, having regard to adopted planning policy for the extension of houses in the countryside.

68. I recognise that there are many examples of approved large-scale extensions to rural properties in the local area and some of them may or may not strictly adhere to the foregoing polices in detail. But the appeal proposal falls to be assessed on its own individual planning merits and I find the objection I have identified to be overriding.

69. For the reasons explained therefore, I conclude finally that this appeal should be dismissed and the refusal upheld.

Recommendation

70. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed. If accepted, this recommendation would have the effect of upholding the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application.

71. However, if the Minister were to grant planning approval, I suggest the imposition of the conditions scheduled in the Appendix to this Report, together with a reason for approval and list of approved drawings.

B J Sims

Brian J Sims BSc (Hons) CEng MICE MRTPI Independent Inspector

19 September 2025

==== PAGE 11 ====

Appeal: AP25/0017

                 Planning Application: 24/91345/B

__ __

11

APPENDIX

Schedule of Suggested Planning Conditions Reason for Approval and List of Approved Drawings to be applied if the Minister decides to grant permission

Conditions

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.

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 extensions or alterations to the approved dwellinghouse shall be erected or placed within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse hereby approved.

Reason: To control future development on the site and in the interests of the wider countryside.

No development shall commence until a schedule of materials and finishes to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved schedule.

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 scheme shall include details of all walls, fences, trees, hedgerows and other planting 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 for implementation. The hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved details and programme.

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 species and size to be first approved in writing by the

==== PAGE 12 ====

Appeal: AP25/0017

                 Planning Application: 24/91345/B

__ __

12

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.

Prior to the commencement of any works, an Energy Statement shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Department. Such Statement shall demonstrate that the extended house will have an improved Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) rating, or similar, over that of the existing house. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling, a further post-completion Energy Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department, demonstrating that the design SAP rating has been achieved.

Reason: To ensure the eco-efficiency of the completed house.

Reason for Approval

The proposed extension would comply with Housing Policies 15 and 16 and General Policy 2 of the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in that it would respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property and avoid undue impact on public views of the building

List of Approved Drawings

P1000 - Location Plan as Existing P1002 - Location Plan as Proposed P1003 - Site Plan as Proposed P3100 - Elevations as Proposed P1200 - Ground Floor Plan as Proposed P1201 - First Floor Plan as Proposed P1202 - Roof Plan as Proposed