Officer Report

Application No.: 25/91109/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Russell Vaughan Proposal: Widening of existing vehicular gate access, increasing existing gate pillars in height and installation of new personnel gate Site Address: Mill House Dogmills Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 4AD Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken: 01.09.2025 Site Visit: 01.09.2025 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 23.02.2026 _________________________________________________________________

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 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.

• C 2. For the avoidance doubt no approval is hereby given for the use of Field 111381 to the south of the application site (red line) for any other purposes than agricultural use.

Reason: As proposed by planning application and in the interests of the visual amenities of the countryside.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.

The proposed development comprises modest alterations to an existing residential curtilage that are considered to respect the site's context in terms of siting, scale, materials, and landscape integration. Whilst the works alter the appearance of the site entrance, they do not result in adverse impacts on the character of the surrounding countryside. The limited vegetation loss is not considered ecologically significant and does not affect protected habitats or species. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with General Policy 2, particularly clauses (b), (c), (d), and (f), as well as Strategic Policies 4(b) and 5, and Environment Policy 1, which collectively support development that protects landscape quality, ecological value, and contributes positively to the Island's built environment.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the documents and plans received 5 January 2026. _________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: o DOI Highway Services - No objection _________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site comprises the residential curtilage of a modern detached dwelling known as "Mill House", situated at the southeastern end of The Dog Mills in Bride. Access is via a gravelled driveway entered through a black metal gate framed by concrete pillars. The dwelling, featuring large, glazed openings, is set within a landscaped garden enclosed by mature vegetation that provides privacy and visual containment. The site is bisected by an access lane, which also serves as a public footpath, separating the main house from a detached garage located on a small triangular plot to the north of the lane, immediately east of the neighbouring property "Sea View". - 1.2 The immediate vicinity is characterised by a mix of traditional residential properties within a semi-rural coastal setting. Dwellings typically feature painted render or natural Manx stone finishes, with traditional proportions and a variety of boundary treatments including rendered walls, dry stone walls, timber fencing, and mature hedgerows. These elements contribute to a sense of enclosure and continuity along the lane, reinforcing the area's established character. Mature vegetation and the proximity to open coastal and agricultural land enhance the transitional countryside setting. - 1.3 Agricultural land borders the site to the south, while to the west (beyond Bride Road) and north lies sporadic residential development interspersed with further farmland. To the immediate east is the Island's coastline, where the Raad ny Foillan long-distance footpath runs along the beach. The southern edge of the path is bounded by hedging within the applicant's ownership.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Widening of existing vehicular gate access, increasing existing gate pillars in height and installation of new personnel gate. - 2.2 The proposed works comprise the following:

• i. Gate Pillars: The existing gate posts are to be increased in height from approximately

1.45 metres to 1.95m.

• ii. Vehicular Gate: The existing double-leaf gate, which currently opens inward into the

site, is to be replaced with a new sliding gate. The new gate would be 1.8m in height and constructed with a steel frame and solid timber panels.

• iii. Pedestrian Gate: The existing pedestrian gate is to be relocated approximately 4.2m

westward and replaced with a new 1.8m gate, also comprising a steel frame with timber panels to match the vehicular gate.

• iv. Wall: A new wall about 1m tall would sit between the new gates.
• v. Planting: Existing planting is to be retained where possible, with hedging measuring

about 4.5m wide removed along boundary to allow the proposed alterations.

- 3.0 PLANNING POLICY

3.1 Site Specific:

• 3.1.1 The application site is not designated for any site-specific purpose but is located within a wider area of land classified as high landscape or coastal value and scenic significance under

the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982. The site is largely not prone to flood risks, although the parking area within the site is considered to be prone to high surface water flood risks. The site is not within a designated nature conservation site but sits about 30m west of the Ramsey Bay Marine Nature Reserve.

3.2 The Strategic Plan stipulates a general presumption against development in areas which are not designated for a particular purpose and where the protection of the countryside is of paramount importance (EP 1 and GP3). However given there is an existing dwelling on the site, it is relevant to consider the general development considerations under General Policy 2. - 3.3 Relevant Strategic Plan Policies:

• 1. General Policy 3 - Sets out exceptions to development in the countryside.
• 2. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations.
• 3. Environment Policy 1 - Protection of the countryside and inherent ecology.
• 4. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources.
• 5. Strategic Policy 2 - Priority for new development to identified towns and villages.
• 6. Strategic Policy 4 - development proposals must protect or enhance the nature

conservation and landscape quality of urban as well as rural areas.

• 7. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact
• 8. Spatial Policy 5 - Development in the countryside will only be permitted in accordance

with General Policy 3.

3.4 Permitted Development (PD) Compliance

• 3.4.1 The proposed works have been assessed against Class 16 of Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2025, which permits certain alterations to fences, walls and gates within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse, subject to specific limitations. In this case, the proposed gates are positioned closer to the highway than the dwellinghouse and exceed the maximum permitted height of 1 metre under Class 16(2)(a)(i). As such, the development does not meet the criteria for permitted development and requires express planning approval.

4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS - 4.1 Residential Design Guide (2021)

• 4.1.1 This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction. Section 3.1 deals with Local Distinctiveness, 4.0 on Householder Extensions, while Section 7.0 deals with Impact on Neighbouring Properties.

4.2 The Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy (2015 - 2025)

• 4.1.1 The Department's Biodiversity Strategy is capable of being a material consideration. It seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary.
• 5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 The site has been the subject of six previous planning applications, two of which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of the current application:

• 1. PA 14/00505/B for Landscaping works involving retaining walls, cut and fill levels in

association with proposed new dwelling (PA 13/91221/B) - Approved.

• 2. PA 16/00250/B for Erection of new gate pillars and associated wall and installation of

domestic bulk gas storage tank and base - Approved.

• 3. The most recent application under PA 25/90695/B for Increase in height of existing gate

pillars and installation of new vehicle gate; erection of timber fence with installation of new personnel gate, was refused on 8th October 2025. The application was refused for the following reasons:

• R1. The proposal involves the expansion of residential curtilage into agricultural land located outside the defined settlement boundary, which is strictly controlled under General Policy 3. The development does not meet any of the policy exceptions, such as essential agricultural or forestry need, location dependency for minerals or services, or overriding national interest. It

• also fails to demonstrate compliance with Strategic Policy 2, which prioritises development within existing towns and villages, and Spatial Policy 5, which confirms that development in the countryside is only acceptable where it aligns with General Policy 3. The scheme introduces domestic use into land that remains in agricultural use, without any locational justification, and is therefore contrary to the strategic spatial framework and countryside protection objectives of the Strategic Plan.
• R2. The site lies within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, where the protection of landscape character is paramount. The proposed fencing and curtilage expansion introduce domestic features that result in visual harm and the domestication of the rural setting, contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 2, and Strategic Policies 4 and 5.
• R3. The development would result in the functional and visual loss of Class 2 agricultural soils, which are among the most versatile and protected on the Island. The proposal does not demonstrate overriding need or explore reasonable alternatives, and therefore conflicts with Environment Policy 14 and the strategic objectives of Paragraph 7.13 of the Strategic Plan.
• R4. The proposal involves the removal of established hedgerow linked to sodbanks, which contributes to habitat connectivity and supports local biodiversity. This feature lies within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, where ecological integrity is a key component of landscape character. The curtilage expansion and fencing introduce domestic elements that fragment habitat and erode ecological value. No mitigation or enhancement measures have been proposed. The development is therefore contrary to Environment Policy 1, Strategic Policy 4(b), and General Policy 2(d), which require the protection of ecological features and nature conservation value in rural areas.

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.

6.1 DOI Highways Division find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as the site access is on a very low flow and vehicle speeds cul-de-sac where the site is the only car user, therefore the proposed access and visibility is acceptable. (16 January 2026).

6.2 No comments have been received from Bride Parish Commissioners although they were consulted on the application on 6 January 2026. - 6.3 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties.

- 7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this application are:

• 1. Potential Impacts on the character and appearance of the site and immediate vicinity;

and

• 2. Potential Impacts on Biodiversity

7.2 Character and Appearance (GP 2, STP 4 & 5)

• 7.2.1 The proposed alterations are confined to the entrance of an existing residential curtilage and involve modest physical changes to existing boundary features. While the new gates would introduce a more contemporary treatment, the materials, timber panels within a steel frame, are consistent with the site's established palette and do not conflict with the surrounding vernacular, which includes a mix of rendered walls, timber fencing, and hedgerows.
• 7.2.2 The increase in gate pillar height and the introduction of a sliding gate represent a functional upgrade rather than a significant visual departure. The works are contained within the existing driveway entrance and do not extend the built form or curtilage. Views from the public footpath and access lane are limited by mature vegetation and the orientation of the site, and the proposed changes would not appear visually intrusive or out of character. Granting the applicant notes that the new 1m wall falls under the PDO, its introduction here would serve to continue the permeability offered by the existing gates which are permeable. As such, its introduction in the scheme is vital for its acceptability.

• 7.2.3 Given the factors highlighted above, the development is considered to respect the established settlement pattern and the new gate treatment which offers a new feature is not judged to be detrimental to the sites character, given the modern appearance of the existing building on site. While the design introduces solid elements, these are balanced by the retention of planting and the introduction of a low boundary wall to allow permeability. As such, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of visual impact and aligns with the objectives of Strategic Policy 5, Environment Policy 1, and General Policy 2, which support development that is sympathetic to its setting and does not detract from the character of the countryside.

7.3 Biodiversity (GP 2, EP 1 and STP 4)

• 7.3.1 The proposed works are confined to the residential curtilage and do not involve encroachment into undeveloped land or designated ecological areas. However, the relocation of the pedestrian gate would necessitate the removal of a section of established hedging, which currently forms part of the site's boundary treatment.
• 7.3.2 While the extent of vegetation loss is limited, hedgerows are recognised as valuable ecological features that contribute to habitat connectivity and biodiversity. Their removal, even in small sections, can result in short-term disruption to nesting or foraging species. Nonetheless, the impact is considered minor and reversible, particularly given the retention of surrounding planting and the opportunity to replant or reinforce hedging elsewhere on site.
• 7.3.3 The site lies approximately 30 metres west of the Ramsey Bay Marine Nature Reserve, but the proposed development is not expected to affect coastal habitats or species. The works do not introduce new lighting, drainage, or landform changes that could influence the adjacent ecological corridor.
• 7.3.4 On balance, although the proposal involves the removal of a small section of hedging, the limited extent of vegetation loss and the opportunity for reinforcement planting elsewhere on site mean that formal mitigation is not considered necessary. The proposal is therefore considered to align with Environment Policy 1, which seeks to protect the countryside and its ecology for its own sake. Furthermore, the development is not expected to adversely affect locally important habitats or protected wildlife, consistent with Strategic Policy 4(b) and General Policy 2(d), which require the protection and enhancement of nature conservation value and ecological features.

- 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 The proposed development represents a modest and well-considered alteration within an established residential curtilage. It respects the site's context in terms of design, materials, and landscape integration, and does not give rise to adverse impacts on biodiversity, visual amenity, or the character of the surrounding countryside. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with the relevant provisions of General Policy 2, Strategic Policies 4 and 5, and Environment Policy 1, which collectively support development that is sympathetic to its setting, protects ecological value, and contributes positively to the Island's built environment. - 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.

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 : Permitted Date: 25.02.2026 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.