Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90998/C
Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90998/C Applicant : Mrs Laura Quine Proposal : Change of use of part of field 424837 to extend the residential curtilage of five dwellings (retrospective) Site Address : Hillside, Orrisdale, Fairview, Cronk My Chree, Mount Pleasant Main Road Colby Isle Of Man IM9 4AE
Planning Officer: Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken : 20.11.2025 Site Visit : 20.11.2025 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 31.12.2025 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The curtilage extensions here are considered proportionately small in scale relative to the remaining field and results in overall garden size aligning with neighbouring properties. The proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the site or surrounding area, and key aspect views remain unaffected. There is no visual or practical harm arising in this case and the application is not considered to undermine Environment Policies 1 or 14 of the IOM Strategic Plan and is considered to meet with the general development tests of General Policy 2.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the following all date published online 23 Oct 2025: o Location Plan 1:2500 o Site Plan 1:500 o Site Plan with dimensions 1:500 o Planning Statement & Photos o Covering Letter
__
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90998/C
Page 2 of 6
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AS THE RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE MAY BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 2(1)(c) PLANNING COMMITTEE STANDING ORDERS.
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application relates to five properties all sitting along the northern side of the main road running through Colby. These properties are known as 'Hillside', 'Orrisdale', 'Fairview', 'Cronk My Chree' and 'Mount Pleasant'.
1.2 Topography here means that properties site at a level higher than the main road with expansive views over the road and to the south. At the rear the ground steps upwards and connects with field 424837 at the rear.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Change of use of part of Field 424837 to extend residential curtilages of each of the five dwelling (retrospective).
2.2 The depth of each proposed garden extension is approx. 6m and the total length across all the properties is approx. 52m.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 This application comes following a separate application 25/90860/B at 'Fairview' which seeks extension and alteration works to the dwelling and includes the relocation of an oil tank into the extended residential curtilage. It became apparent that the relocated oil tank fell in field 424837 and outside of the established residential curtilage, and that along with four of its neighbours all appeared to have unlawfully extended their gardens into the field. This issue was raised with the applicant, and they and the neighbours have all sought to regularise the works as part of this application. 3.2 There have been a number of similar residential curtilage extension proposals over recent years the following are considered relevant:
o 25/90339/C - residential curtilage extension for three properties Brook, Ballavere And Miranda Cottages, Main Road, Colby - Approved. While in conflict with GP3 and EP14, the case officer considered the size and scale of the proposal to be proportionately small compared with the remaining field and resulted in an overall plot size and curtilage akin to neighbouring properties. In the absence of any visual and practical harm it was considered acceptable and not undermining EP1 of the IOM SP.
o 23/00884/C - extensions to curtilage of 4 dwellings in Andreas APPROVED AT APPEAL. The inspector concluded that "Limited harm has been identified to the character of the countryside as well as harm by reason of an at face value conflict with IMSP Policies EP1, GP2 and GP3. However, I have ascribed considerable weight to the benefit of the scheme in the provision of garden space of an adequate standard to appropriately serve 4bedroom family homes. This would be in the interests of the health and wellbeing of residents. Also weighing in the positive side of the balance in favour of the proposal, is the permission granted at a neighbouring site, Thie Cheerey where circumstances are very similar to that of this appeal."
o 22/00169/B - erection of extension and change of use from agricultural to residential, Gordon, Peel - APPROVED. The case officers reason for approval was "In this case there is an absence of practical harm to the countryside by the extension of the residential curtilage due to its small size and where it is situated within the streetscene, it is considered that the proposal would not offend the objectives of GP3 and EP1 which seek to avoid harm to the countryside and therefore the application is considered acceptable."
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90998/C
Page 3 of 6
o 13/91006/C - change of use of land from agricultural to residential - Knock Rushen, Castletown - REFUSED AT APPEAL. The Inspector for this application stated that the settlement boundary of this part of Castletown was clearly visible from near and far, and the edge of the field made it unambiguous and obvious interface between built up area and the countryside, and such interfaces can be vulnerable and merit special attention. They accepted that part of the site was partially screened by another house and the further landscaping could be provided, this did not justify the incursion into the field and would be a gradual detriment of the countryside openness. An approval could encourage existing and future owners of nearby houses to apply for similar extensions and further erosion of the visual important interface here having harmful effect on the character and appearance that surrounds Castletown's settlement boundary.
PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The field and extended curtilages are not zoned for any use on the Area Plan for the South 2013. The dwellings are allocated as 'residential'. The site is not within any Conservation Area and is not recognised as being at any flood risk. There are no registered trees on the site.
4.2 LOCAL PLAN / AREA PLAN - 4.2.1 Section 3.19 and 3.20 refers to Arbory and the general strategy and implications of landscape character assessment including; o the need to protect tranquil, rural character and open views; o consider sensitive location of new buildings and use of screen planting, o avoiding the physical or visual amalgamation of roadside housing; o the protection and enhancement of the identity of Ballabeg and Colby by conserving the rural character of adjacent landscapes.
4.3 Relevant policies of IOM Strategic Plan 2016: o Strategic Policy 2 - new development to be located within existing towns and villages and only in countryside in line with GP3 o Strategic Policy 3 -individual character of towns and villages protected or enhanced by avoiding coalescence, maintaining separation between settlements, and design of new development having regard to materials and character o Strategic Policy 4(b) - protect and enhance landscape and nature conservation value o Strategic Policy 5 - new development to make a positive contribution to the environment o Spatial Policy 5 - new development directed to existing settlements and only in countryside in line with GP3. o General Policy 2- general development standards including visual, amenity, landscape features. o General Policy 3 - Exceptions to development in the countryside o Environment Policy 1 - Protection of the countryside o Environment Policy 2 - Protection of the character of AHLV o Environment Policy 10 and 13 - flood risk on and off site. o Environment Policy 14 - High quality agricultural land protected from loss o Paragraph 4.3.11 of the Strategic Plan 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".
4.4 Reference any relevant PPS or NPD o None
5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Legislation o N/A
5.2 Policy/Strategy/Guidance
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90998/C
Page 4 of 6
o Residential Design Guide - Sections local distinctiveness and boundaries o Agricultural Soils Map - Evidence Base Land Capability
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 Arbory and Rushen Commissioners (23/12/25) - support.
6.2 The following were consulted but no comments received at the time of writing: o DOI Highway Services
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of the current application are i. Site and surroundings; ii. Principle (GP3, EP1, & SP5); iii. Visual Impact on Landscape (EP1, SP4, & GP2); iv. Impact on Agricultural Soils (EP14).
7.1 Site and Surroundings 7.1.1 The site is located just outside of the small settlement of Colby, and forms part of the linear development running along the main road between Colby and Ballakillowey. The majority of development here (including the application dwellings) sits on the northern side of the road and with extensive and uninterrupted views south towards the steam railway line and beyond to Scarlett and Gansey bay.
7.1.2 The five dwellings subject to this application form part of a small group of 10 dwellings book ended by small field gaps providing access gates into fields at the rear. Five of the dwellings nearest Ballakillowey have slightly longer rear gardens and the other five subject to this application have recently extended their rear gardens to match. Each garden has a defined rear boundary with fencing or walls, in addition to a further stock fence erected by the farmer. The field and gardens are clearly demarcated to show the extent of the private ownership from the remaining agricultural field.
7.2 Principle (GP3 and EP1) 7.2.1 None of the exceptions of GP3 apply in this case. EP1 states that any 'development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is over-riding national need in land use planning terms'. There is no over-riding national need in this case, the garden extensions being for personal benefit of the applicants and property owners only and so at face value there is conflict with both GP3 and EP1.
7.2.2 Therefore, other material considerations need to be considered and weighed into the planning balance, particularly in terms of EP1 and whether development would 'adversely affect the countryside'. In this case considering whether the extension to the curtilages would have any unacceptable visual impact on the rural character and appearance of the countryside or impact on the interface between the built up area and the openness of the countryside (SP4, SP5, GP2 and EP1), and whether it would result in any unacceptable loss of agricultural land (EP14) as to undermining the thrust of EP1.
7.3 Visual Impact on Landscape (SP4, SP5, EP1 & GP2) 7.3.1 Due to the elevated roadside position of the main cottages, it means that the extended gardens are not visible from public view. The area of extended curtilage represents only a small proportion of the overall field size and does not significantly erode the remaining acreage remaining for agricultural use. The alignment with the neighbours garden creating a flush and straight boundary edge might simultaneously aid farming operations. The small projection does
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90998/C
Page 5 of 6
not result in any harmful spread of domestic development nor impeded any of the key distant views in this location.
7.3.2 On the basis of the proposal resulting in proportionately small garden extensions compared to the remaining agricultural field, the creation of the harmonious boundary edge with the adjacent neighbours and the limited visual harm on the wider countryside and rural setting that the proposal in this case is not considered to offend the objectives of SP4, SP5, EP1 and GP2.
7.3.3 Consideration could be given to the inclusion of conditions to revoke permitted development and retain a more open rural feeling. However the gardens are not felt to be unreasonable in size, and align with those in the immediate vicinity. Typical domestic structures like greenhouses or summerhouses would not be uncommon within such gardens and can be found within the immediate area. Revoking PD within the extended gardens is not considered necessary in this case, and conditions of the relevant Permitted Development Order classes is considered sufficient to ensure suitable control of any development in the future (such as oil tank relocation as sought within simultaneous application 25/90860/B).
7.4 Impact on Agricultural Soils (EP14) 7.4.1 The land here appears within 'Class 3/2'. EP 14 seeks to ensure that new development does not unacceptably erode or take away higher quality nor suitable land for agricultural purposes which could in term have implications on the Islands rural economy. In this case the proposal results in only a small proportion of this lower-classification field being lost, and no other visual or amenity harms arising the proposal is considered acceptable and not to undermine EP14.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 There is always risk that in accepting these types of extensions to curtilages in the countryside will start a proliferation of similar proposals, however each would need to be assessed on their own merits.
8.2 None of the exceptions in General Policy 3 apply, and there is no overriding national need to outweigh the requirement to protect the countryside under Environment Policy 1. As such, the proposal appears, at face value, to conflict with the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. However, the curtilage extensions here are proportionately small in scale relative to the remaining field and results in overall garden size aligning with neighbouring properties. The proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the site or surrounding area, and key aspect views south remain unaffected. There is no visual or practical harm arising in this case and the application is not considered to undermine Environment Policies 1 or 14, and meets with the general development tests of General Policy 2.
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.
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90998/C
Page 6 of 6
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 confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made: Permitted Date: 26.01.2026
Signed : Miss Lucy Kinrade Presenting Officer
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