**Document:** Officer Report
**Application:** 18/01174/B — Alterations and erection of a two storey extension to side and rear elevations
**Decision:** Refused
**Decision Date:** 2019-01-08
**Parish:** Patrick
**Document Type:** report / officer_report
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/29896-patrick-ballacreggan-sound-road-glen-maye-alteration-extension/documents/1049820

---

# Officer Report

**Application No.:** 18/01174/B
**Applicant:** Mr Gordon & Mrs Claire Clague
**Proposal:** Alterations and erection of a two storey extension to side and rear elevations
**Site Address:** Ballacreggan Sound Road Glen Maye Isle Of Man IM5 3BJ Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett
**Photo Taken:** 29.11.2018
**Site Visit:** 29.11.2018
**Expected Decision Level:** Officer Delegation
**Recommended Decision:** Refused
**Date of Recommendation:** 04.01.2019 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The proposed extension would provide self contained living accommodation of a scale and design that would allow it to be occupied separate from the main house. It is not accepted that there is justification for what is essentially a new house in the countryside and as such the proposal is contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 2 and those policies which support sustainable development in the Island's towns and villages - Strategic Aim, Strategic Policies 1c, 2 and 10, Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 4. - R 2. Notwithstanding reason 1 above, the size and design of the proposed extension conflicts with Housing Polic1y 15 of the Strategic Plan in that it exceeds the recommended 50% in floor area and does not respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. The development would therefore be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside which is designated as of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance and from where a clear view of the proposed works would be available from a public right of way. _______________________________________________________________

### Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):

Hon Ray Harmer MHK as he does not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy, he is not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in

- accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy, he does not refer to the relevant issues in
- accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and as he has not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by him and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report THE SITE

1.1 The site is the curtilage of Ballacreggan Farmhouse, a relatively new property built in the 1990s as an agricultural dwelling with an agricultural occupancy condition imposed. The dwelling sits at the end of Sound Road which runs south from the A4 as it runs through Glen Maye and the site defined in red also contains agricultural outbuildings. - 1.2 The house is a simple, traditionally designed two storey dwelling with a single storey annex to the east accommodating a bedroom and en-suite shower. The first floor accommodates three bedrooms and a bathroom and downstairs, as well as the bedroom, is a lounge, hall and kitchen/dining room with a small porch on the front and a modest conservatory on the rear. - 1.3 The house has a basic footprint of 7.9m by 11.1m with the various single storey annexes arranged around the side. - 1.4 A public footpath runs towards the site along Sound Road, turning south just before the farmyard but from where the house is clearly visible. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Proposed is a two storey extension on the eastern side of the house, replacing the side bedroom annex. The extension would have a footprint of 13.3m by 6.85m over two storeys with a single storey section at the front, adding a further 2m by 6.5m. The conservatory at the rear is to be rebuilt marginally larger. The new accommodation is to be a lounge and bedroom at first floor level with an internal staircase leading down to an en-suite bedroom, study, hall, porch and utility room with an internal larder and shower. The accommodation has its own access but is internall accessible to and from the main accommodation through two internal doors. - 2.2 The extension will amount to a total floor area of 383 sq m compared with an existing floor area of 214 sq m, resulting in an increase in floor area, measured externally, of 79%. - 2.3 The new accommodation will take the form of a slightly lower ridge which runs partly at right angles to the main ridge with the front part parallel with but 600mm lower than the main ridge. The roof would be pitched and finished to match the existing and the walls finished in sand cement render to match the upper part of the front elevation and the remainder of the existing walls. - 2.4 The applicant explains that the site comprises 135 acres of agricultural land with a further 295 acres rented with current stock levels including 450 breeding ewes, 300 fattening lambs, 100 turkeys, 150 chickens for fattening and a small livery business accommodating 9 horses on a full and part time basis. They also own two rare breed Clydesdale horses used for vintage ploughing matches. The land has been in the applicant's family since 1836 and has been farmed by the current applicants for 29 years. - 2.5 They explain that their daughter's partner lives with them after moving to the Island and the extension would provide them with their own space whilst still being on site to assist with lambing and to attend to the horses during winter. Mrs. Cringle senior spends half of the week with them at the farm and due to her health and mobility problems would benefit from an en-

- suite with space for mobility aids and very possibly wheelchair access. Her current accommodation at the site in what was the utility room is not ideal.
- 2.6 Their daughter works in the care industry but helps on the farm in her spare time and also has an interest in rare breeds. The applicant's son also helps with the farm. They believe that the extension would enable the whole family to live together, helping on the farm and could avoid Mrs. Cringle to be cared for at home without relying upon the state health service. The land on which the extra accommodation would be provided is not agricultural. It is not intended that the original dwelling or the extension would ever be sold as separate properties.
- 2.7 They explain that the design approach intends to ensure that the works are sympathetic and unobtrusive to its rural setting and believe that it would only be truly visible from the Bayr Glion Rushen Road on the other side of the balley and from the field fate access on the public footpath at the bottom of the yard. The view from Glen Rushen is over 150m away and they don't believe that the public footpath offers many views of the farmhouse to members of the public. They believe that the setting back and down of the front wall of the extension from the existing house enables it to remain subservient and subordinate and creates an architectural hierarchy with the main house when viewed from the road.

## PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The site lies within an area not designated for development and is identified as of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. As such, there is a presumption against development as set out in the following policies. In addition, there are policies which guide the extension of traditionally styled dwellings in the countryside:

- Environment Policy 1: The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative.
- Environment Policy 2: The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:

- (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or
- (b) the location for the development is essential.

Housing Policy 15: The extension or alteration of existing traditionally styled properties in the countryside will normally only be approved where these respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. Only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions which measure more than 50% of the existing building in terms of floor space (measured externally).

## PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The dwelling was approved under 91/0049/A and 92/00820/B. Extensions were refused at appeal under 04/02401/B where the inspector noted the applicants' desire to have larger accommodation for their growing children but also for an aunt who looked after the children. The proposed accommodation included a farm office, shower room and garage with a self-

contained unit above for the aunt. The inspector saw no agricultural case for the additional living accommodation where the agricultural need for the farm holding related to one full time unit with the additional employee being able to live nearby. He considered that whilst the proposal would suit the applicants' family circumstances, this was little to do with the proper running of the farm. The application was refused, without prejdice to a simpler, smaller extension. He also noted that the extension would be detrimental to the appearance of the existing house and significantly harmful to the character of the area. The design of that extension differed from that now proposed in that this was for a two storey extension with its ridge running at right angles to the main house with a one and a half storey dormered link to the main house.

REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Mr. Harmer MHK wrote to the Director of Planning and Building Control to advise that he is "happy to support" the application (26.1.18). No address is provided for Mr. Harmer and it is assumed that he writes as the constituency MHK rather than in his position as Minister for Infrastructure.

5.2 Patrick Parish Commissioners have no objection (17.12.18). ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The site lies within an area where new dwellings are generally discouraged, illustrated by the previous refusal on this site. What is now proposed is very similar to that in that it is an extension but for something which is intended to be capable of being occupied separately from the main house, with its own means of access and no means of interconnectivity at first floor level and where the case for the accommodation relates to family members, albeit different family members to those referred to in the earlier application.

6.2 In order for a new dwelling to be considered acceptable here, it must be demonstrated that the accommodation is necessary in agricultural terms or that there are other overriding reasons why the application should be considered acceptable. It is notable that there was not considered to be such circumstances in 2004 where the family circumstances of the applicant were given in support of the proposal but were not accepted by the Department to be sufficient to override the presumption against development here.

6.3 Whilst it is understandable that more convenient living accommodation would be desirable for the applicants' mother/mother-in-law, this application proposes much more than that, with the living accommodation associated with the proposed bedroom on the upper level, which is hardly convenient for an ageing occupant who may benefit from ground level accommodation. The lounge proposed is commensurate with that in the main house and the upstairs bedroom similar in size to the master bedroom in the main house. This is not accepted to be ancillary accommodation and is essentially another house attached to the existing cottage. - 6.4 In order to assess whether there is a justification for the additional accommodation in agricultural terms, it is sometimes helpful to consider whether an agricultural occupancy condition could be attached and complied with by the occupants. As the occupants would help out only at some times with the farm, they could not comply with an agricultural occupancy condition and the additional accommodation would therefore be unrestricted - effectively a new house in the countryside. - 6.5 Setting aside the justification, it is also important that the extended building is visually acceptable and Housing Policy 15 provides advice on this. Whilst images of the site from a public perspective have been provided by the applicant, they omit the most direct view of the house from the footpath at the end of Sound Road from where the dwelling is clearly visible. From here, the extension of the front elevation, even though it is set back slightly, would be visible at ground floor as well as partly at first floor level. The view from the field gate

alongside the public footpath would also be of a significantly extended dwelling and in a form which does not respect the form, proportions or simple form of the existing property.

## CONCLUSION

7.1 It is not accepted that there is justification for what is essentially a new house in the countryside and as such the proposal is contrary to EPs 1 and 2 and those policies which support sustainable development in the Island's towns and villages - Strategic Aim, Strategic Policies 1c, 2 and 10, Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 4. In addition, the size and design of the proposed extension conflicts with Housing Polic1y 15 of the Strategic Plan. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:

- (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
- (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
- (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material
- (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
- (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 The decision maker must determine:

- o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
- o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Statu

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Refused Date : 04.01.2019 Determining officer

Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management

## Customer note

## This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.

---

*Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).*
*Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/29896-patrick-ballacreggan-sound-road-glen-maye-alteration-extension/documents/1049820*