Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90880/B
Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90880/B Applicant : Mr David Salkeld Proposal : Erection of a replacement dwelling Site Address : Perk Cottage Knock Froy Road Santon Isle Of Man IM4 1JD
Senior Planning Officer: Mrs Louise Phillips Photo Taken : Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 24.11.2025 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposed replacement dwelling would be much larger than the dwelling to be replaced, with its external floorspace far exceeding the general limit set out in Housing Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan. The dwelling would also be larger than one previously refused planning permission partly on account of its size, and so the proposal would undermine that decision. By virtue of its size and bulk, the proposed dwelling would have a significantly greater visual impact on the countryside than the original building. Given the countryside is protected for its own sake, this would be contrary to Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan.
R 2. By virtue of its almost square footprint and wide, shallow pitched roof when viewed from the sides, the plan and form of the proposed replacement dwelling would be inconsistent with that typically seen for dwellings in the countryside. Consequently the proposed development would be intrusive in the countryside and harmful to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Strategic Policy 5 and General Policy 2(b) and (c) of the Strategic Plan, and to the advice in Circular 3/91.
__
Right to Appeal
There is no right to appeal other than for the applicant. __
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90880/B
Page 2 of 5
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE
1.1 The site is on Knock Froy Lane which runs east from the A5 Castletown Road. The application relates to the curtilage of a replacement dwelling approved under 17/00214/B. The single storey dwelling to be replaced has now been demolished, but a large garage building with accommodation above, approved under 17/00871/B, is sited at the southern end of the plot.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The proposed development is a replacement dwelling which effectively seeks to amend the scheme approved under 17/00214/B by increasing the depth of the building towards the front/west of the site. The resultant new dwelling would measure approximately 12.9m wide x 13m deep x 7m to the ridge.
2.2 It would have an approximately square floorplan, but the rear elevation would have two gables with large feature windows on the ground and first floors beneath them. The walls would be rendered except for a central section of the front elevation which would be finished in stone to mark the entrance. The roof would be covered in artificial slate and solar panels would be added to the front, back and side roof slopes.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY
Site Specific 3.1 The application site is not within a Conservation Area and there are no Registered Buildings, Registered Trees or Registered Tree Areas which would be affected by the proposal. The site is not at risk of flooding.
Area Plan for the East 2020 3.2 The site is not zoned for any particular purpose and is therefore in the countryside for planning purposes.
Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 3.3 Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policy 5 generally direct development towards settlements and away from the countryside.
3.4 Strategic Policy 5 requires new development to make a positive contribution to the environment.
3.5 General Policy 2 provides various criteria for managing the impact of development, including those below which are relevant to this proposal. The development should:
(b) respect the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (g) not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provide satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; and (i) not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways.
3.6 General Policy 3 sets out the exceptional types of development which can potentially be permitted in the countryside, including type (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings.
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90880/B
Page 3 of 5
3.7 Environment Policy 1 protects the countryside and its ecology for its own sake.
3.8 Housing Policy 12 states that the replacement of an existing dwelling in the countyside will generally be permitted.
3.9 Housing Policy 14 requires that replacement dwellings should not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, having an externally measured floor area not more than 50% greater than that of the original building. Generally, the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2-7 of Planning Circular 3/91. Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact.
3.10 Transport Policy 7/Appendix 7 requires residential development to provide two off road parking spaces.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Circular 3/91: Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside 4.1 This includes information about the typical form and dimensions of country houses, including that they are rectangualr in plan with a steep pitched roof and gable ends.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY
5.1 16/00886/B - Erection of a replacement dwelling. Refused by Committee.
5.2 17/00214/B - Erection of a replacement dwelling. Permitted.
5.3 17/00871/B - Alterations, driveway extension and erection of a replacement detached garage with ancillary living accommodation above. Permitted.
5.4 21/00238/B and 23/00036/B - Both sought to increase the time for implementing permission granted under 17/00214/B. Permitted.
5.5 The other planning history of the site is not relevant to the current application.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 The Ecosystem Policy Team commented on 17 October 2025 in relation to the potential for bats to be present in the existing building to be demolished. The comment can be seen in full online. However, the present application essentially proposes an amendment to a previously approved scheme and the existing building has already been demolished. The Ecosystem Policy Team has therefore accepted that there is no need for a Bat Survey now (correspondence dated 29 October 2025).
6.2 The following organisations were consulted on 6 October 2025 but, at the time of writing this report, no comments had been received:
o Highways Services, DEFA o Manx Utilities Authority, Electricity o Santon Commissioners
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.1 Having regard to the planning history set out in Section 5.0, both the refused application 16/00886/B and the approved application 17/00214/B for a replacement dwelling
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90880/B
Page 4 of 5
are significant material considerations for the assessment of the present proposal. The reasons for refusal of 16/00886/B include reference to how the height, size and mass of the proposed dwelling would have a significant impact on the character and appearance of the area contrary to the objectives of Housing Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan; and that it would be more prominent and of significantly greater proportions than is advocated in Planning Circular 3/91. The size of the dwelling proposed was clearly a concern. The dwelling approved under 17/00214/B was considered to address the issues raised by the previous scheme, and the one now proposed would have the same curtilage and would be sited in the same position on the plot, although it would be deeper.
7.2 Taking account of the matters above, the main issue for the determination of the present application is whether the replacement dwelling would be acceptable in the countryside taking account of its size and its effect upon the character and appearance of the area.
7.3 Starting with size, Housing Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan includes that the externally measured floor area of the replacement dwelling should not be more than 50% greater than that of the original building. The demolished bungalow had an external floor area of approximately 92sqm. The refused dwelling would have had an external floor area of approximately 300sqm (226% greater than the bungalow); the approved dwelling would have an external floor area of approximately 265sqm (188% greater than the bungalow); and the dwelling now proposed would have an external floor area of approximately 335sqm (264% greater than the bungalow).
7.4 The dwelling now proposed would have an external floor area significantly greater than that envisaged by Housing Policy 14 and it would therefore be in conflict with it. Notwithstanding that the dwelling approved under 17/00214/B also exceeded the 50% guideline, the one now proposed would also have a larger floor area than the one refused under 16/00886/B. Given that the latter was refused partly on account of its size and the impact this would have on the character and appearance of the countryside, to approve an even larger dwelling now would undermine the decision previously made and the efforts to address the reasons for refusal.
7.5 Turning to character and appearance, the additional floor area now proposed over two storeys, would increase the massing of the dwelling and bring it closer to the road. It would result in an almost square plan form, which would make it look bulky and be contrary to the typical rectangular form sought by Circular 3/91. The additional bulk would be particularly apparent in views of the north and south side elevations, where the "gable ends" would now be wide and shallow, whereas the Circular recommends a steep pitched roof.
7.6 Overall, the proposed additional floor area, over and above that already approved, would result in a larger and more bulky building which would have a significantly greater visual impact in the countryside than the bungalow it would replace. This would be contrary to Housing Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan and to Environment Policy 1, which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake. The resultant square plan form of the building and its shallow pitched roof would be out of keeping with the proportions typical of country dwellings, making the building visually intrusive and harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Thus the development would also conflict with Strategic Policy 5 and with General Policy 2(b) and (c) of the Strategic Plan.
Other Issues 7.11 The proposal does not raise any highway safety issues and no other residential properties would be affected. The Ecosystem Policy Team has confirmed that its comments in respect of bats related to the demolition of the bungalow and so they are not now relevant to the present scheme. None of these issues weighs against the proposal.
8.0 CONCLUSION
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90880/B
Page 5 of 5
8.1 The proposed replacement dwelling would be much larger than the bungalow to be replaced, far exceeding the upper limit on external floorspace set out in planning policy. It would also be larger than a similar proposal previously refused by Planning Committee. The dwelling would be large and bulky and have a significantly greater visual impact on the countryside than the original building, and it would have a plan and form inconsistent with that typically seen for dwellings in the countryside. Consequently the proposed development would appear intrusive in the countryside and be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. This would be contrary to planning policy and to the advice in Circular 3/91 and it is therefore recommended for refusal.
9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE
9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).
9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to: o applicant (in all cases); o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.
9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10.
9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required): o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant); o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area; o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and o in the case of a petition, a single representative.
9.5 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given the Right to Appeal. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 25.11.2025
Determining Officer Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal