Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90946/MCH Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90946/MCH Applicant : Mrs Kate Mulhern Proposal : Minor change to 25/90366/B (Replacement of existing utility room with single storey extension) part change of approved post and wire boundary fence to stone wall with pedestrian access gate Site Address : Ballavayre Farmhouse Ballakilpheric Road Colby Isle Of Man IM9 4BX
Planning Officer: Paul Visigah
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 28.11.2025 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. This refusal relates only to: The erection of a stone wall along the new residential boundary. This change fails Articles 21(2)(c)(v) and 23(1)(b), (e), and (f) because it alters an imposed condition requiring a visually permeable post-and-wire fence, introduces a materially different boundary treatment with a stronger domestic character, and fundamentally changes the basis on which the original approval was granted. Accordingly, the application is not acceptable as a minor change under Article 23(2). __
Officer’s Report
INTRODUCTION
The following application is to be assessed against the criteria set out in Part 3 - Minor Changes Applications of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 specifically Articles 21, 22, 23 and 24.
BASIS OF APPLICATION
21(1) At least one of the following applies:
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90946/MCH Page 2 of 5
all previous minor changes applications have related solely to the installation of a low carbon technology.
PASS - relates to 25/90366/B
21(3) The application relates to the approval of low carbon technology and would it be Permitted Development if the building which it is to serve were substantially complete (if this test is passed, ignore section 3).
N/A
PASS - relates to Replacement of existing utility room with single storey extension linking the dwelling house and existing detached garage, and extension of residential curtilage.
PASS - The application seeks to create a stone wall along the new residential boundary, using original stone stockpiled on site and matching lime mortar, in line with the original boundary prior to recent works.
Pass - Provided in Email dated 27 November 2025.
21(2)(c)(i) The Minor Change Application does not increase the number of dwellings or buildings for which planning approval has been granted
PASS - no increase
21(2)(c)(ii)The Minor Change Application does not increase the net external footprint of a building for which planning approval has been granted where this would increase the total floor plan by more than 5% or result in any part of the development being located closer to the curtilage of an adjacent dwelling.
PASS - no increase
PASS - no change to site
21(2)(c)(iv) The Minor Change Application does not make material changes to the vehicular access arrangements for which planning approval has been granted
PASS - No changes
FAIL - Condition 5 of the original approval requires the curtilage boundary adjoining the agricultural field to be defined by a post-and-wire fence, completed prior to occupation and permanently retained. The current proposal seeks a stone wall, which would alter this condition.
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90946/MCH Page 3 of 5
21(2)(d)The Minor Change Application has not been made where the parent approval is less than 21 days old, subject to an undetermined appeal or has expired
PASS - original application approved on 28th July 2025
APPLICATION CONTENT
22(3)(a) Application Form
o Site location plan (with red/blue lines) o The planning approval that is the subject of the application o Explanation of changes being applied for and reasons why o IF relevant, drawings of the proposed minor changes with buildings and structures amended to indicate the changes o Flood risk assessment is not necessary in this case
PASS - provided
PASS - no other documents provided
PASS - dealt with at submission
22(6) Such further info as Department may request prior to determination (has anything further been requested and provided?
PASS - Requested and provided. Email detailing why applicant considers the application to be minor was provided by applicant following request.
DETERMINATION
23(1)(a) The Minor Change does not significantly increase the size or scale of the development in question
PASS - The proposal does not significantly increase the size or scale of the approved development.
23(1)(b) The Minor Change does not significantly change the nature of the development in question
FAIL - The proposal replaces a lightweight post-and-wire fence with a substantial stone wall along a countryside boundary. This introduces a markedly different visual impact and domestic character, to the rural setting than intended by the original approval. Such a change warrants full planning assessment rather than treatment as a minor change.
23(1)(c) The Minor Change does not result in an approval which, at the time of approval, complied with a Development Plan, National Policy Directive or a Planning Policy Statement, ceasing to do so
PASS - remains compliant.
23(1)(d) The Minor Change does not result in new or increased adverse impacts on adjoining or neighbouring properties or highway safety or having a significant or disproportionate impact on the environment (irrespective of whether such impacts might be outweighed by other considerations)
FAIL - The proposal introduces a stone wall in place of a visually permeable post-and- wire fence along a countryside boundary. This results in a more solid and enclosed form,
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90946/MCH Page 4 of 5
creating a different visual impact on the rural landscape character, which warrants full planning assessment.
23(1)(e) The Minor Change is not more than minor and is not of a magnitude to warrant a new application
FAIL - Replacing a visually permeable post-and-wire fence with a solid stone wall along a countryside boundary introduces a substantial change in appearance and character. This is not a minor alteration; it materially affects the rural setting and conflicts with a condition imposed to maintain that character. The magnitude of this change warrants assessment through a new planning application or a variation of condition.
23(1)(f) The Minor Change does not otherwise fundamentally change the basis on which the grant was originally made.
FAIL - The original approval was granted on the basis that the curtilage extension would be defined by a lightweight, visually permeable post-and-wire fence to maintain the rural character of the area. Replacing this with a solid stone wall fundamentally changes that basis, as it introduces a more domestic and permanent boundary treatment contrary to the condition imposed to protect landscape character. This change fundamentally alters the basis on which the grant was originally made and therefore fails Article 23(1)(f).
23(2) If it does not do any of the above, must then be considered. - is the application considered acceptable?
FAIL - The application cannot be accepted as a Minor Change. While the reinstatement of a stone wall may appear limited in scope, it fails Articles 21(2)(c)(v) and 23(1)(b), (e), and (f) because it alters an imposed condition requiring a visually permeable post-and-wire fence, introduces a materially different boundary treatment with a stronger domestic character, and fundamentally changes the basis on which the original approval was granted. Accordingly, the application is not acceptable under Article 23(2).
NOTICE OF DECISION
The proposed change is not accepted as a minor change.
The proposed reinstatement of a stone wall along the new residential boundary is refused. It fails Articles 21(2)(c)(v) and 23(1)(b), (e), and (f) because it alters an imposed condition requiring a visually permeable post-and-wire fence, introduces a materially different boundary treatment with a stronger domestic character, and fundamentally changes the basis on which the original approval was granted. Accordingly, the application is not acceptable under Article 23(2). __
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: 04.12.2025
Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90946/MCH Page 5 of 5
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 services/ customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal