**Document:** Officer Report 12/01192/B
**Application:** 12/01192/B — Erection of a detached garage, creation of new vehicular access and drive and extension of domestic curtilage into adjacent Field no 224042
**Decision:** Refused
**Decision Date:** 2012-11-06
**Parish:** Michael
**Document Type:** report / officer_report
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/3304-ballaugh-harleys-extension-garage/documents/1278483

---

# Officer Report 12/01192/B

## Planning Report And Recommendations [Table omitted in markdown export]

## Officer's Report

### The Site

1. The application site includes the residential curtilage of a detached dwelling in the countryside and part of field number 224042 to the south and east.

2. The dwelling is a dormer bungalow, located on the eastern side of the A10 Ballaugh to Jurby coast road, near to the junction with the A13 Ballamona Straight. The dwelling has recently been given planning approval for alterations and extensions (PA 11/00629/B). These works have been carried out.

3. The dwelling was built under the Agricultural Worker's Tied Housing Scheme, previously administered by the Local Government Board. Planning permission was granted for the erection of the dwelling in 1964 (IDO 19238). In 2010, a certificate of lawfulness was agreed for the use of the building as a residential dwelling, with no planning conditions restricting the occupancy of the dwelling (PA 10/01648/LAW). The residential curtilage of the site was confirmed in the 2010 certificate of lawfulness.

### The Proposal

4. Proposed is the erection of a detached garage building, the creation of a vehicular access / drive and the extension of the domestic curtilage into the adjacent land. The application is accompanied by a letter which explains how, in the view of the applicant, the application overcomes the reasons for refusal of 11/01229/B (see planning history below). This letter points out that the proposed garage is only a little bigger than what is allowed under the Permitted Development Order and would be within the existing curtilage of the property. There would be no living accommodation above the garage and it would be much closer to the dwelling (necessitating the re-siting of the septic tank). For all of these reasons the applicant believes that the proposal would now meet with policy.

5. With regards to the proposed access, it is set out that this as proposed previously as this is the safest point, offering maximum visibility. The shortcomings of the existing access and drive are set out as is the reduction in how much of the adjacent land is proposed to become part of the domestic curtilage. Finally, it is pointed out that a new access into the adjacent field would be required any way as there is not one currently.

The proposed building:

6. The proposed detached building would be located to the rear (east) of the existing dwelling and at its closest would be around 3.5 metres from the rear outlet of the house. The building would be positioned within the existing residential curtilage of the dwelling.

7. The building would be a double garage with a foot print of approximately 7 metres by 7 metres. It would have a window in one of its side elevations and a pedestrian doorway in the other. The roof would have a pitch of around 45 degrees which is similar to that of the existing dwelling. A hatch providing access to the loft area would be provided. The building would have 2 garage doors on the front (south) elevation.

8. The external walls would be finished with painted render and the roof would be finished with brown interlocking concrete tiles to match those on the existing house. The windows would be framed in white uPVC.

The proposed vehicular entrance and driveway:

9. It is proposed to block up the existing vehicular entrance to the north of the dwelling and construct a new entrance and driveway to the south of the dwelling, outside of what is currently the residential curtilage. The existing pedestrian access in front of the dwelling would be retained.

10. The existing driveway has off road parking for 2 vehicles, although there is no turning area and visibility from the entrance is restricted by a sod hedge and telegraph pole. It is proposed to block up the existing vehicular entrance with a wall and grass verge to match the existing. The existing driveway itself would be planted with shrubs.

11. The proposed vehicular entrance would be formed in the existing sod hedging, with the hedge being reduced in height along the boundary to 1 metre. The new entrance would have visibility splays of  metres. The gate entrance would be 3.5 metres wide and it would be set back from the road in order to enable a vehicle to drive in without blocking the highway whilst the gate is closed.

12. The driveway would extend eastwards to beyond the frontage of the proposed garage, where there would be a turning area. The surface would be paving from the road to the gate and "grasscrete" from the gate to the new drive and turning area.

The proposed extension to the residential curtilage:

13. In a letter from the agent accompanying the application, they state that they feel it would not be possible to construct a garage, access and turning area within the existing residential curtilage.

14. It is proposed to extend the existing curtilage eastwards and southwards to include more of field number 224042. This field is in the same ownership as the dwelling. The remainder of the field outside of the proposed residential curtilage would be a triangular shaped portion of land and it appears in drawing number 337/2/5 that the applicant intends to lawn this area and plant trees.

### Planning History

15. The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:

IDO 19238 – Permitted 24.04.64 Tied Farmworker's Cottage, Ballamona Ballaugh

(The applicant was the Local Government Board of the Isle of Man Government) PA 01/01815/B – Refused at Appeal 05.08.02 Alterations and extension to dwelling and erection of car port

R.1 By reason of the size of the extension and the nature of the alterations proposed the development would increase significantly the level of built development on the site to the extent that the resultant dwelling would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area which has High Landscape and Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.

PA 05/00939/B – Refused at Appeal 15.03.06

Erection of replacement dwelling, driveway and vehicular access

R1. The proposed residential development would be contrary to Planning Circular 1/88, Housing Policy 14 and Environment Policy 3 of the emerging Isle of Man Strategic Plan in that i) by reason of the siting, design, size and massing of the proposed development it would increase significantly the level of built development on the site to the extent the resultant development would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area which has High Landscape and Coastal Value and Scenic Significance; and ii) the proposed curtilage would amount to being a significant encroachment of a residential curtilage into the open countryside which will further diminish the openness, character and quality of the surrounding area which would cause demonstrable harm to visual amenities of the locality.

R.2 The proposed entrances do not provide adequate visibility for vehicles leaving the site and therefore would be prejudicial to highway safety.

PA 10/01648/LAW – Certificate of Lawfulness AGREED 21.12.10

Application for a certificate of lawfulness to confirm the lawfulness of the use of a building as a residential dwelling

C1. From the evidence provided, and from historic archive, there are no planning conditions attached to the planning permission dated 20th April 1964 for the erection of a dwelling on the land and defined by the red line on the Site Plan herewith attached and now known as Harleys, Jurby Coast Road, Killane.

This decision was made by the Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority delegated under the Government Departments Act 1987. PA 11/00629/B – Permitted 21.07.11 Alterations and extensions to dwelling PA 12/01229/B - Refused 29.02.2012

Erection of a detached garage and store with study/office above, creation of a vehicular access and drive and extension of domestic curtilage.

R1. The extension to the residential curtilage of the dwelling would be contrary to General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Environmental Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, as it would result in an unwarranted domestic intrusion into the countryside beyond the existing residential curtilage, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the countryside.

R2. The proposed garage and store/office, due to its design, size and siting, would be tantamount to the erection of a dwelling in the countryside contrary to the aims of the Strategic Plan; would be visually intrusive and detrimental to the appearance of the area; and would represent unwarranted development within the countryside contrary to General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan 2007.

This decision was taken to appeal where it was confirmed. In recommending that the appeal be dismissed, the appointed person made the following comments:

"17. The main issue in this case is whether the proposals would result in unwarranted development in the countryside. The outbuilding would be comparable bulk and height to a modest sized dwelling. Simply by its presence it would incrementally make the locality somewhat less rural and a little more built up, and the location away from the existing dwelling, further from the road, would only add to the impact. Screening by planting would soften but not overcome the impact...

18. The presence and usage of the new entrance and lengthy new drive would also spread the extent of domestication, again undermining rural character. It is not unusual for a rural dwelling to have associated land outside the domestic curtilage, which may be used for a variety of purposes, say as an orchard, paddock or simply kept as grassland. In this case the field outside the defined curtilage is already somewhat domestic in character, which could only be reinforced by the presence of the drive and garage building."

### Development Plan Policies

16. The application site is located within an area designated as White Land that is not designated for development, in addition to an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance on the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area.

17. Due to the land use zoning of the site and the nature of the proposal, the relevant planning policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 are General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 2.

### General Policy 3 states:

Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:

- (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10);
- (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11);
- (c) previously developed land(1) which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment;
- (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14);
- (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services;
- (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry;
- (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and
- (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage.

### Environment Policy 1 states:

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 overriding 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 states:

"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."

### Consultations

18. Ballaugh Parish Commissioners have no objections to the proposal.

### Representations

The owner of Crawyn House, Killane, Ballaugh objects to the application. The reasons for their objection can be summarised as follows:

- Their property is the next dwelling to the north of the application site, although the two are separated by a field. The proposed garage block would block out some of the scenic views from their dwelling.
- Their views of the proposed garage block would be of its rear, where there would be a very large and unsightly roof.
- The proposed garage block would be almost as large as the recently extended house and will have a visual impact from both directions of the A10 road and also the Sandygate to Ballaugh main road.

### Assessment

19. The site is a non-traditional dwelling lying within an area designated as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance in the 1982 Development Order. Due to this land use zoning, the proposal site is constrained by General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 2.

The proposed building:

20. The proposed garage is smaller and simpler in form than that which was proposed by the recently refused 2011 application. The garage would nonetheless be larger in terms of foot print and height that what is allowed for by the Permitted Development Order. Given that the site is within an area of countryside which is also recognised as being of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Significance, it is judged that unless the building would not have a harmful impact upon its surroundings, it would fail to meet with policy.

21. From visiting the site, it was clear that views into the site are available from the highway and this would mean that the proposed garage would become have a visual impact. Its size and height would make it more obtrusive within the landscape than necessary. For this reason, it is judged that the garage would fail to comply with EP2.

The proposed vehicular entrance and driveway:

22. The proposed vehicular entrance and driveway would result in an encroachment of the residential curtilage into the countryside and the driveway would take up a considerably larger area than the existing. The existing driveway has parking for two vehicles and it is stated that this is not enough space for the existing resident's cars. However, Appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 requires residential dwellings to have two off street parking spaces, so the existing arrangement complies with the requirements of the Strategic Plan.

23. Whilst there may be an argument for improved access and/or additional car parking in order to improve highway safety by removing further vehicles from the road, it is considered that the size of the proposed driveway is excessive, as three cars could be accommodated within the proposed garage, in addition to at least five on the proposed driveway. To calculate this, I have taken a parking space to measure 2.4 by 4.8 metres. This increased parking area

would be disproportionate when taking into account the modest size of the existing dwelling and residential curtilage.

24. The proposed entrance would be located in the existing sod hedge on the western boundary of the site and the height of the existing hedge adjacent to the entrance would be lowered to 1 metre high. It is stated that the proposed access would have greater visibility than the existing, which would be due to the splayed entrance and lowered hedge. Whilst there may be some benefits to road safety as a result of the proposed access, it is judged that any such benefit would not be sufficient to overcome the harm caused to the character and appearance of the landscape.

The proposed extension to the residential curtilage:

25. The applicants also own the remainder of field no. 224042, which is to the south of the current application site. Drawing number 337/2/5 shows that it is intended to lawn this area and plant hedges and trees to the east and west boundaries. Whilst cutting the grass and limited planting can be undertaken without acquiring planning permission, the drawing suggests that the use of the site would be changed to garden, as there would be no physical barrier between the proposed curtilage and the remainder of the field. However, this area is outside the red line which represents the curtilage of the site, so if this proposal was approved, the use of this area as garden would not be lawful. Notwithstanding this, two sheds and a green house have been erected along the northern boundary, outside of the existing curtilage. This would clearly suggest that the applicant's intent to use the land as an extension to their garden

26. The planning history of the site is considered to be relevant in the assessment of the proposed extension to the residential curtilage. The dwelling was approved in 1964 (IDO 19238) as a small agricultural worker's dwelling. Permission was refused for alterations and extensions under PA 01/01815/B, due to the size of the proposed extension having a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the Area of High Landscape and Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. Following this, planning permission was refused for a replacement dwelling under PA 05/00939/B, as it would significantly increase the level of built development to the extent that it would have a detrimental effect on the character of the area, because the increased residential curtilage would diminish the character of the area and because the proposed entrances would not provide adequate visibility for vehicles leaving the site. A certificate of lawfulness was agreed under PA 10/01648/LAW for the use of the building as a residential dwelling, with no restrictions on occupancy. The residential curtilage of the site was confirmed in the 2010 certificate of lawfulness. Finally, planning permission was granted under PA 11/00629/B for alterations and extensions to the dwelling, which did not result in any changes to the residential curtilage of the site. Although these extensions result in the impact of a non traditional dwelling in the countryside being greater to the public, it was felt that because the size and form of the extensions would be in keeping with the existing dwelling, there was a provision to extend the property.

27. It was proposed to increase the residential curtilage of the site under planning applications 01/01815/B and 05/00939/B, but both of these proposals were refused. One of the reasons for refusal of PA 05/00939/B referred to the significant encroachment of the residential curtilage into the open countryside "which will further diminish the openness, character and quality of the surrounding area which would cause demonstrable harm to visual amenities of the locality." The residential curtilage proposed under PA 05/00939/B was larger than what is proposed in this current application, as it also included the remainder of field no. 224042. In this current planning application, the proposed residential curtilage would physically accommodate the proposed garage building, vehicular entrance and driveway. However, due to the details shown in the proposed site plan (drawing no. 337/2/5A), it is judged that it is intended to use the remainder of field number 224042 as a garden for the

dwelling with lawned areas and planting, so the residential curtilage of the site would actually be increased more than what is indicated.

28. Going by the proposed curtilage as shown in the submitted drawings, the proposal would represent a significant increase over the existing. A comparison between the existing and proposed is depicted in drawing no. 337/2/2. Whilst there may be an argument for improved access and/or additional car parking outside of the existing residential curtilage, it is considered that the proposed garage and driveway would be excessive for this site and would result in an unacceptable encroachment of the existing residential curtilage into the countryside.

### Recommendation

29. It is recommended that this application be refused. Whilst the proposal is an improvement on the recently refused 2011 application, it is judged that it would have an unacceptable impact upon the surrounding area contrary to EP1 and EP2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

### Party Status

30. It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, should be afforded interested party status:

Ballaugh Parish Commissioners are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an “interested person” and as such should be afforded party status.

31. It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, should not be afforded interested party status:

The owner of Crawyn House, Killane, Ballaugh does not own or reside in land or buildings which physically adjoin the site as there is a field between the two properties. For this reason, they cannot be afforded party status in this instance.

### Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 29.10.2012

### Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval
N : Notes attached to conditions
R : Reasons for refusal
- : Notes attached to refusals

R 1.

The proposed new access and driveway and extension to the existing residential curtilage of the dwelling would be contrary to General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Environmental Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, as collectively they would result in an

unwarranted domestic intrusion into the countryside beyond the existing residential curtilage, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the countryside.

R 2.

The proposed garage due to its size and height, would be visually intrusive and detrimental to the appearance of the area and would therefore represent unwarranted development within the countryside contrary to General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan 2007.

I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager/ Senior Planning Officer.

Decision Made : Refused Date : 3/1/11/12

### Determining officer (delete as appropriate)

Signed : _________________________
Anthony Holmes
Senior Planning Officer

Signed : _________________________
Michael Gallagher
Director of Planning and Building Control

Signed : Sonnelford Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer

Signed : _________________________
Jennifer Chance
Development Control Manager

---

*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/3304-ballaugh-harleys-extension-garage/documents/1278483*