713525

==== PAGE 1 ====

Appeal: AP25/0030

Planning Application: 25/90539/B __ __

1

Report on an Inquiry into a Planning Appeal

Inquiry: Tuesday 28 October 2025 Site Inspection: Monday 27 October 2025

Appeal made by GDC Home Improvements Limited against the refusal of a planning application for approval for the erection of pantry, porch and orangery extensions and a stand-alone storage building within the residential curtilage of Balnahow Farmhouse, Balnahow, Santon, Isle of Man, IM4 1HN. __

Present:

Mr G Cregeen - GDC Home Improvements, Appellants Ms O Reid - of Balnahow Farmhouse Val Lloyd - Architecture in Man - Architect to the Appellants Mr J Singleton - DEFA Planning (remotely)

Description

Balnahow Farm comprises a detached, two-storey, farmhouse with agricultural land to the south and west of the dwelling curtilage, which is the extent the appeal site. The Farm is reached from Castletown Road over a narrow, winding road that rises steeply up past the Meary Veg sewage treatment works and leads on to a private access road.

The Farmhouse was originally of traditional Manx pitched-roof design, now with roof dormers added. Its principal elevation faces south east, towards the sea. There is an off-centre rear porch. The glazed orangery has a flat roof with a lantern light. This was attached to the front of the building in 2017, under approval PA16/01408/B. A double garage is attached to the west side of the dwelling.

The appeal property is opposite and to the south west of a built group, including a dwelling, Greenfields. To the north east there are traditional farm outbuildings. The intervening private lane leads on to Ballacregga and another farm further east.

The single-storey, pitch-roofed pantry extension would be on the east side of the dwelling, measuring 3.6m x 6.3m x 4.3m high overall, finished in render under a slate roof to match the main house. Its floor area would be 22.7sqm.

The single-storey, oak-framed, largely glazed porch extension would be on the west side under a mono-pitch roof. It would measure 2.5m x 3.4m x 4.2m high overall, with a floor area of 8.5sqm.

The orangery extension would measure 4.9m x 6.3m x 3.8m high overall, have a further lantern light, and would tie in with the existing orangery, extending the floor area by 30.6m. The whole of the orangery would then be clad in vertical timber boarding.

The new detached storage building would stand some 10m south west of the house and garage. It would be L-shaped on plan and measure 15m x 13.6m overall externally with a depth of 6m to both wings. Its eaves and ridge heights would 2.6m and 4.6m respectively. Its plan area would be 135sqm. The building would be finished in oak wall cladding under a slate roof.

==== PAGE 2 ====

Appeal: AP25/0030

Planning Application: 25/90539/B __ __

2

Planning Policy and Guidance

Relevant planning policies are contained within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP).

General Policy 3 (GP3) and Environment Policy 1 (EP1) together protect the open countryside for its own sake from the effects of new development, save for exceptions not applicable to this case.

Housing Policy 15 (HP15) limits extensions of traditional rural dwellings to 50% of the original floor area and provides that they should respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. HP16 resists the extension of non-traditional rural dwellings where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public.

General Policy 2 (GP2) requires development to respect the site and surrounding area in siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping and avoid adverse effect on the character of the landscape.

The Case for the Appellants - GDC Home Improvements

The material points are:

Introduction

Whilst every application is considered on its own merits, it is submitted that there are several cases where stand-alone buildings have been approved within the vicinity of Balnahow Farm that are relevant to this appeal.

For example, under Ref 21/01036/B, a detached boathouse was approved for No 5 Balnahow Farm Cottage on grounds that the building was designed to be acceptable in the countryside in siting and appearance. Under Ref 16/01084/B, an agricultural barn was approved in a field adjacent to a dwelling, Hillcrest, for reasons that impact would be limited.

It is considered that the present proposal for Balnahow aligns better with policy than those examples. The proposed siting of the outbuilding is as close as practical to the dwelling and its height and footprint relatively modest.

Further, the stand-alone building in this case is for domestic garaging and storage purposes and would be more in keeping with its location, as compared for example with a replacement storage building approved under Ref 14/01412/B at Gregs Weld.

A garage annex extension at Yn Rheash, Ballasalla, allowed at appeal under Ref 22/00550/B, was found acceptable under EP1 and HP16 of the IMSP, as the only policies applicable.

Planning Policy and Effects

Farmhouse

In the present proposal, the original house is traditional in nature but the orangery has established a non-traditional form.

==== PAGE 3 ====

Appeal: AP25/0030

Planning Application: 25/90539/B __ __

3

If the original Farmhouse is regarded as a traditional dwelling, HP15 applies but the total net increase of 135.8sqm over the original 348sqm area of the dwelling would amount to only 39%, within the 50% policy guideline and the proportion, form and appearance of the property would be respected.

If the Farmhouse is regarded as a non-traditional dwelling, HP16 applies, merely requiring that impact on public views not be increased. . 20. The Planning Authority considers the design of the pantry and porch extensions to be acceptable in the context of the dwelling as previously extended. However, the proposed extension to the orangery is alleged to be out of scale and keeping with the dwelling, on grounds of the increased overall length and depth of the orangery.

The design of the orangery was amended at the suggestion of the Department as the original design approved in 2017 was no longer considered appropriate. At no point was a more traditional solution suggested.

Whilst the single-storey orangery extension would be non-traditional, the increase of 30.6sqm compared with the total floor area of around 484sqm would be marginal. Its lack of visibility from anywhere apart from within the site means its impact on the surroundings would be nominal.

Stand-alone Building

The Planning Authority accepts that there is no particular IMSP policy relating to the provision of new ancillary outbuildings within the curtilage of a dwelling in the countryside.

The floor area of the stand-building cannot be taken into account as for an extension to the house.

The outbuilding would sit within a residential curtilage, positioned as close as it reasonably could be to the existing house. Its size would be modest when viewed in the context of the large, three-storey house, and its stable-like, timber-clad design would be very much in keeping with its rural setting. Hedgerows preclude visibility such that the site cannot be seen from the nearest public road from Meary Veg, limiting the impact of the building as viewed by the public.

Summary and Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons it is submitted that the reasons for refusal are not made out.

All the development proposed would be within an accepted residential curtilage.

The relevant policies are GP2 and HP15-16 of the IMSP. The overall increase if floor area of the Farmhouse would be well within the 50% guideline.

Whilst the extension to the orangery is more contemporary, the orangery to which it would be attached is non-traditional and extensive pre-planning advice influenced the design of the extension.

The stable-like design for the stand-alone building is in keeping with its rural location and its siting would make best use of existing infrastructure.

==== PAGE 4 ====

Appeal: AP25/0030

Planning Application: 25/90539/B __ __

4

No public views of the site would be adversely affected and the development would have no adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours.

The appeal proposals thus fully accord with all relevant policies and the appeal should be allowed and the approval sought granted

The Case for the Planning Authority

The material points are:

Issues

The main issues to consider are the principle of the development, its design rationale and visual impact.

Principle

The appeal proposals do not accord with any of the defined exceptions of GP3 of the IMSP for development in the open countryside. Extensions to traditional and non- traditional rural dwellings can be permitted if compliant respectively with HP15 and HP16. However, regard must be given to the scale and siting of the proposed development within the defined residential curtilage, in view of its visual impacts on the character of the property and the surrounding rural area.

HP15 generally limits extensions of traditional dwellings to 50% of the original floor area but the extensions already made to the original house suggest that it is no longer traditional. For non-traditional extensions HP16 provides that the design should be of high quality, not detracting from the character or appearance of the countryside nor increasing overall visual impact. HP15 also resists unsympathetic extension that would increase impact adversely.

Thus, in principle, an exception to the general policy against rural development can be found within HP16. However, the proposal must be carefully assessed on a balance of competing policies. The design must be properly integrated into the landscape in terms of scale, materials, architectural style, engineering works and landscaping

Design Rationale

Orangery Extension

The development context of the appeal site has been compromised by earlier extensions and this application should not be seen as a reason to perpetuate what has gone before.

Previous modernisations to the Farmhouse have added some 74sqm of floor space over the original plan area of 348sqm. The current proposals would add another 197sqm of floor area to the property and result in an overall increase from the original of over 78%, numerically in excess of the HP15 guideline for traditional rural dwellings.

Visually, the main element of the Farmhouse proposals is the single-storey orangery extension. It would sprawl out from the existing built form of the dwelling house. This would increase built massing in this part of the building. The contrasting timber

==== PAGE 5 ====

Appeal: AP25/0030

Planning Application: 25/90539/B __ __

5

cladding would further exacerbate visual impact against the stark, render finish to the main house.

This would be contrary to HP15 which seeks design that is respectful to the existing character and identity of the building. This very prominent extension would be contrary to these policy aims.

Any extension should be subordinate to its host. In this case, the massing of the flat- roofed orangery extension would inappropriately cause the orangery to appear as the dominant feature of the Farmhouse. The projection of the orangery into the garden would introduce an incongruous design element to a traditional property. Due to its size and massing, this could not be considered complementary to its host and would be at odds with HP15 in failing to respect the existing building in proportion and form.

Storage Building

The proposed building of some 136sqm within 10m of the Farmhouse would be in addition to the existing 52sqm attached double garage. The proposed detached building in its siting, scale, massing, height and finishes would be visible from the access road. The proposed storage building would be unacceptably counter to HP15 and HP16.

Visual Impact

Even though most of the proposed additional built mass would be to the rear, it would still be publicly visible from the access road and mere unobtrusiveness is not a reason for approval in any event. Despite the softening effect of the timber finish, not uncommon in the countryside, the mere size of the proposed stand-alone building would erode much of the amenity space and garden space of the property.

On balance, the overall visual impact of the proposed development, compared with that of the existing property, would be unacceptably detrimental to the landscape of the countryside, contrary to GP2 and EP1 of the IMSP.

Other Matters

Neighbouring Amenity

Given the position of the proposed extensions and outbuilding in relation to the existing dwelling, their single-storey nature construction and their positioning away from any nearby dwelling, the proposed development would not give rise to any loss of privacy or result in any overbearing relationship with the neighbouring dwelling, Greenfields, or any other property.

Therefore, with regard to neighbouring amenity, the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with GP2(g) of the IMSP.

Conclusion

Overall, the siting, size, height and scale of the proposed storage building and the orangery extension in relation to the existing dwelling, are considered to be unacceptable in terms of their visual impact on the character and appearance of both the dwelling and its rural surroundings. This is contrary to established national planning policy.

==== PAGE 6 ====

Appeal: AP25/0030

Planning Application: 25/90539/B __ __

6

In conclusion therefore, this appeal should be dismissed and the refusal upheld.

Assessment by the Inspector

Planning Issues

The main issue is the effects of the several elements of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding countryside.

Policy and Principle

The development plan polices that clearly apply in this case are EP1 and GP2 of the IMSP which, together, protect the open countryside from harm due to new built development and provide criteria for its scale and design when allowed. Otherwise, the evidence of both parties relies upon both HP15 and HP16 of the IMSP, concerning respectively extensions to traditional and to non-traditional rural dwellings, whilst there is no policy specifically governing new rural buildings.

Balnahow Farmhouse was originally a traditional Manx dwelling but has been much extended and modified with overtly non-traditional additions, chiefly its roof dormers, attached double garage and its front orangery.

HP15 specifies a normal limit of a 50% increase in floor space for extensions to rural dwellings and requires them to respect the existing property but HP16 merely requires that extensions to non-traditional rural dwellings do not increase impact on public views.

Thus, in this case, the Planning Authority concedes that, in principle, an exception can be found in HP16 to the general presumption against rural development, subject to careful assessment on a balance of competing policies. I agree with that approach for the purpose of assessing this appeal.

In terms of identifying the appropriate policy tests for the several elements of the appeal proposals, I consider, firstly, that the Balnahow Farmhouse has very largely lost its traditional identity and should be assessed primarily with respect to HP16 regarding impact on public views but bearing in mind the provision of HP15 requiring respect for the existing property.

Secondly, it is clear to me that HP15-16 cannot be applied to the proposed stand- alone storage building which, while increasing the built mass within the domestic curtilage, would not be a house extension but a new building in the countryside to which only EP1 and GP2 are directly applicable.

In summary therefore, I do not concern myself with the numerical increase in floor areas due to the proposed development but directly assess the planning effects of the Farmhouse extensions and the new outbuilding separately before forming an overall view on the impact of the appeal proposals as a whole.

Farmhouse Extensions

The Planning Authority has no objection to the pantry and porch side extensions and, in view of the relatively modest scale and complementary finishes of those elements of the appeal proposals, I agree.

==== PAGE 7 ====

Appeal: AP25/0030

Planning Application: 25/90539/B __ __

7

The existing orangery extension already juts uncharacteristically forward of the main dwelling and the further addition now proposed would more than double its projection, right to the boundary of the domestic curtilage. However, reclad in timber boarding, I consider that it would succeed in making a better defined individual design statement than the present orangery, contrasting definitively with the main house.

Given the range of non-traditional additions to the Farmhouse previously approved, I find on balance that the design and scale of the orangery extension would be sufficiently respectful of the presently existing dwelling, with its attached garage, to meet the requirements of GP2 and HP15 of the IMSP in this regard.

Stand-alone Storage Building

The L-shaped stand-alone storage building is designed and would be finished to resemble many buildings, such as barns and stables, often approved in the countryside. It would be sufficiently distant from the main dwelling and its garage and of lesser height, such that it would be viewed separately.

I give no weight to the degree of personal need for the building but focus on its planning effects. I consider that, in terms of its design, the proposed building would be appropriate to its rural context in proximity to the nearby group of originally agricultural buildings.

Overall Impact

Considering the appeal proposals as a whole, the orangery would sever the garden area, whilst the new outbuilding would occupy much of the remaining western portion of the curtilage.

However, the orangery would continue to face out into the open field of the surrounding farmland and the development would still leave a substantial garden area with potential for some additional landscaping.

In wider views, the increased scale of the built development on the site would be visible from the open countryside to the south but the buildings would still be seen as a compact group. There would be no view from the public highway but the outbuilding would be seen from the private access road via the entrance, whilst the orangery would be invisible from that direction.

As a whole, I accept that the several elements of the proposed built development would adequately respect the site and surroundings in scale and design and would avoid significant adverse impact on public views.

Accordingly, I find that the appeal proposals are to be regarded together as compliant with the relevant aims of EP1, GP2, and HP15-16 of the IMSP to protect the countryside, respect the building as it now exists and its site and surroundings and avoid adverse impact on public views.

Conditions

Planning conditions are necessary, as suggested without prejudice by the Department, to remove permitted development rights for additional extensions and outbuildings, in order to safeguard the character and appearance of the site and surroundings. For a similar reason, it is also appropriate to require advance approval and subsequent

==== PAGE 8 ====

Appeal: AP25/0030

Planning Application: 25/90539/B __ __

8

implementation of landscaping details, albeit there is limited scope for substantial planting on the site. Further conditions are necessary to ensure that the stand-alone building is used only for private non-commercial purposes ancillary to Balnahow Farmhouse, as proposed in the application, and also in order to protect the character of the countryside. Finally, advance approval of finishing materials is appropriate to ensure that the outbuilding is retained in subdued colours suitable to its countryside location.

Conclusion

With those conditions in place and for the reasons explained above, I conclude that this appeal should be allowed and the refusal of the application overturned.

Recommendation

I recommend that the appeal be allowed and planning approval granted for the erection of pantry, porch and orangery extensions and a stand-alone storage building within the residential curtilage of Balnahow Farmhouse, Balnahow, Santon, Isle of Man, IM4 1HN, as shown on Drwg Nos 24016-01 to 06 and subject to the conditions and reasons for approval set out in the Schedule appended to this Report.

If accepted, this recommendation would have the effect of overturning the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application.

B J Sims

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

10 November 20225

==== PAGE 9 ====

Appeal: AP25/0030

Planning Application: 25/90539/B __ __

9

APPENDIX

Schedule of Recommended Planning Conditions and Reason for Approval

Condition 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.

Condition 2 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2035 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development shall be undertaken under the following classes of Schedule 1 of the Order at any time:

Class 13 - Greenhouses and polytunnels Class 14 - Extension of dwellinghouse Class 15 - Garden sheds and summer-houses Class 16 - Fences, walls and gates Class 17 - Private garages and car ports Class 21 - Decking

Reason: To control future development on the site in the interests of character and appearance.

Condition 3 Prior to the commencement of works on site, full details of soft and hard landscaping works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. All planting comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the initial use of the development. Any trees or plants which die or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

The hard landscaping works shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details prior to the use of the development hereby approved. No excavation works or changes to site levels shall be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.

Condition 4 The stand-alone storage building shall be used only for private and not commercial purposes associated with Balnahow Farmhouse, its curtilage and associated land, as outlined in red and blue on approved plan reference 24016/01.

Reason: To protect the countryside from unwarranted commercial development.

Condition 5 The stand-alone storage building shall be used only for the storage of private vehicles and/or machinery associated with the occupation and management of Balnahow Farm.

==== PAGE 10 ====

Appeal: AP25/0030

Planning Application: 25/90539/B __ __

10

Reason: To protect the countryside from unwarranted residential development.

Condition 6 The external walls and doors on the stand-alone storage building must be finished and thereafter kept in a dark green or brown colour.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

Reason for Approval

The proposed development, taken as a whole, would adequately respect the existing Balnahow Farmhouse, its site and the surrounding rural area, in accordance with Environment Policy 1, Housing Policies 15 and 16 and General Policy 2 of the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

end of schedule -