**Document:** Officer Report PA 08/01416/B
**Application:** 10/00208/B — Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings at Close Leece and erection of a replacement dwelling in Field 330418
**Decision:** Permitted
**Decision Date:** 2010-04-30
**Parish:** German
**Document Type:** report / officer_report
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/35844-st-johns-close-leece-farm-replacement-demolition/documents/1557993

---

# Officer Report PA 08/01416/B

**Application No.:** 08/01416/8 Case Officer : Mr A Holmes
**Applicant:** Heritage Homes Ltd
**Proposal:** Replacement of existing dwelling and a number of existing farm buildings with a new dwelling and use of remaining buildings for ancillary purposes, creation of paddock and access amendments
**Site Address:** Camlork Farm Mount Rule Douglas Isle Of Man IM4 4HT
**Recommendation:** Refused Consultations Highways Division Do not oppose Braddan Parish Commissioners Objection Manx Electricity Authority Interest expressed Representations Oakbank Strang Road Union Mills Braddan Objects to the proposal 33 Ballaquark Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 2EY Interest expressed Ardine Strang Road Union Mills Isle Of Man Objects to the proposal Tymescot Strang Road Union Mills Braddan Objects to the proposal Highfield 17 Ballamillaghyn Mount Rule Braddan Objects to the proposal Twoways 1 Cronk Road Union Mills Isle Of Man Objects to the proposal Ash House 5 Camlork House Strang Douglas Objects to the proposal Ca'd'Zan 5 The Downs Union Mills Isle Of Man Objects to the proposal Groves Cottage Trollaby Lane Union Mills Isle Of Man Objects to the proposal Greendale The Downs Union Mills Isle Of Man Objects to the proposal Thie Ooylagh Strang Road Union Mills Isle Of Man Objects to the proposal 13 Cronk Drive Union Mills Isle Of Man Objects to the proposal Forest Lodge Strang Road Union Mills Isle Of Man Objects to the proposal Glen Haven Strang Road Union Mills Isle Of Man Objects to the proposal Ravensdale Strang Road Union Mills Isle Of Man Objects to the proposal Ravensdale Strang Road Union Mills Isle Of Man Objects to the proposal Lynwood Strang Road Union Mills Isle Of Man Objects to the proposal The Sycamores Strang Road Union Mills Isle Of Man Objects to the proposal + PAGES 2-3-4 OBJECTORS ### Planning

## Officer's Report

[Table omitted in markdown export]

#### The Application Site And Proposed Development

The application site comprises a farm grouping of existing dwelling and associated agricultural buildings that is located between Union Mills and Ballamillaghyn in Braddan.

The proposed development comprises the replacement of the existing dwelling and a number of existing farm buildings with a new dwelling and use of remaining buildings for ancillary purposes.

The planning application is being considered by the Planning Committee due to the level of new floorspace proposed and the number of representations received.

## Planning History

The application site has been the subject of one previous planning application that could be viewed as potentially material to the assessment of the current planning application:

Planning application 08/00011/B sought planning approval for the replacement of existing dwelling and a number of existing farm buildings with a new dwelling and use of remaining buildings for ancillary purposes. However, for legal reasons relating to the land ownership this previous planning application was deemed invalid.

## Representations

Braddan Parish Commissioners object to the planning application on the grounds that they consider the proposed development to be contrary to planning policy.

The Department of Transport Highways Division do not oppose the planning application. The Manx Electricity Authority expresses an interest in the planning application. The Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service express an interest in the planning application.

A significant number of third party representations to the planning application have been received. The grounds for objection contained within these representations can be summarised as concern:

- that the proposal is contrary to planning policy;
- that the application site is not designated for residential development;
- that the loss of agricultural activity and occupancy is not justified;
- that demolition of the existing agricultural buildings is inappropriate;
- that the submitted planning application is incorrect; and
- that the planning application is linked to planning application 07/00625/A.

This planning application sought planning approval in principle for residential development including community and educational facilities on fields 324213, 521518, 521519, 521522 & 524239, which is land adjacent to Strang Road in Union Mills, Braddan. This planning application was refused on the 30th October 2007, with an appeal against the refusal dismissed on the 10th December 2008.

In respect of previous planning application 07/00625/A it should be noted that the application site and type of development proposed by that previous planning application is wholly different to that of the current planning application. As such, it is considered that outcome of previous planning application 07/00625/A carries very limited weight in the assessment of this current planning application.

## Planning Policy

In terms of land use planning the application site is located within a wider area of land that is designated as open space (agricultural) under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Braddan Parish District Local Plan) Order 1991 - Plan No. 2. Planning Circular 6/91, which constitutes the written statement to be read in conjunction with the local plan, contains one policy that is considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. Policy 5.8 states:

"Residential development in the countryside has been the subject of Planning Circulars:

i) No. 1/88 (Revised) Residential Development - Houses in the Countryside ii) No. 3/88 New Agricultural Dwellings iii) No. 3/89 Renovation of Buildings in the Countryside iv) No. 8/89 Low Density Housing in Parkland v) No. 3/91 Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside.

This is a separate publication in its own right.

The foregoing set out in detail the policy of the Department with regard to residential development in the countryside and as such must be respected. These circulars comprise appendices nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to this document.

In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains five policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.

**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 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."

**Housing Policy 4 states:**

"New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:

- (a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10; (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14."

**Housing Policy 12 states:**

"The replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside will generally be permitted unless: (a) the existing building has lost its residential use by abandonment; or (b) the existing dwelling is of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation. In assessing whether a property has lost its habitable status by abandonment, regard will be had to the following criteria: (i) the structural condition of the building; (ii) the period of non-residential use or non-use in excess of ten years; (iii) evidence of intervening use; and (iv) evidence of intention, or otherwise, to abandon."

**Housing Policy 14 states:**

TI16780165

"Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the 'footprint' of the existing, and should have a floor area which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally, the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91, (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in general, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building.

Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact."

**ASSESSMENT**

The planning application seeks planning approval for the erection of a replacement dwelling together with the use of a number of the existing buildings contained within the application site for associated ancillary purposes (garaging, general storage, etc).

The existing dwelling contained within the application site pre-dates the formal introduction of the planning system in 1934. Whilst the dwelling is currently occupied by an agricultural worker, in association to its use as a farmhouse, there are no planning restrictions that prohibit its occupation by non-agricultural workers, i.e. it is not an agriculturally tied workers dwelling. As the planning system does not control the sale and occupation of such property it cannot be taken into account as a material planning consideration in the assessment of the planning application. Furthermore, whilst the outcome of the planning application may result in the sale or transfer of the land surrounding the application (outlined in blue on drawing no. 2287/004) it has to be borne in mind that the planning system does not control the sale or transfer of land. The land surrounding the application site is currently used for agriculture, under the provision of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 the use of land for purposes of agriculture does not constitute development. The farming of the land from elsewhere would not require planning approval and any other material change of use of the land would have to be the subject of a separate planning application. It is not the role of this current planning application to examine this issue.

Taking account of the land use designation, it is reasonable to say that the application site comprises the curtilage of an existing dwelling with a number of existing outbuildings that is located within the countryside. Under General Policy 3 (d), Housing Policy 4 (c) and Housing Policy 12 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 there is provision under planning policy for the erection of replacement dwellings in such circumstances. The planning policy behind the specifics of a replacement dwelling is covered by Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. It is therefore considered that the main issue to examine is the acceptability of the proposal against Housing Policy 14.

Housing Policy 14 deals specifically with the replacement of existing dwellings in the countryside. In essence this policy can be divided into four parts. Firstly, the issue of siting and size plus overall environmental improvement; secondly, the issue of traditional design; thirdly, the issue of modern and innovative design; and fourthly, the issue of existing dwellings of poor form. The first paragraph of the policy dealing with replacement dwellings that propose no more 50% increase in floorspace and the

second paragraph dealing with grounds for allowing replacement dwellings that propose more than 50%. Based on the submitted drawings the proposed dwelling equates to an approximate 235% increase in floorspace over that of the existing dwelling. It is therefore appropriate to assess the proposal against the second paragraph of the policy and examine whether there are sufficient grounds to allow the proposal as an excepted larger dwelling. There are two grounds under which consideration of a larger replacement dwelling may be made. Either where the proposal involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character or where the proposed development would, by its design or siting, be have less visual impact.

In terms of whether the proposal replaces an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character it can be seen that the existing dwelling is of traditional form and appearance (i.e. two-storey dwelling with central door and two windows either side at ground floor and three windows at first floor on the front elevation). Although the existing dwelling is a relatively modest dwelling it cannot be said that it is of poor form. The proposal does therefore not constitute an exception against the first of the two possible grounds for considering a larger replacement dwelling.

As regards the issue of whether the proposed development would, by its design or siting, be have less visual impact it is necessary to examine the general visual impact of the existing situation. In terms of existing visibility the application site, and perhaps more importantly the buildings contained within it, are relatively hidden from public view within the immediate surrounding area, with only limited glimpse views being available. From the opposite side of the valley, such as from Lhergy Cripperty, the application site with its existing dwelling and buildings is much more visible. However, at this distance the group of buildings effectively reads as a single entity. Whilst it is difficult to determine whether the proposed dwelling would be more visible within the immediate surrounding area it is reasonable to say that the proposal increases such potential as the proposed dwelling is significantly larger and taller than the existing dwelling. At distance this increase in height is unlikely to be as noticeable but the general increase in size may be. In any event it is concluded that the siting and design of the proposed dwelling does not result in less visual impact. The proposal does therefore not constitute an exception against the second of the two possible grounds for considering a larger replacement dwelling.

Setting aside the above there remain a number of other issues to examine, such as the impact on private residential amenity, the impact on highway safety, and the acceptability of the use of remaining buildings for ancillary purposes. In terms of impact on private residential amenity it is concluded that due to its separation from the nearest residential property the proposal does not cause undue harm. As regards the impact on highway safety the proposed amendments to the access onto the public highway meet the standards set out by the Department of Transport Highways Division. The use of the various outbuildings for ancillary purposes is generally acceptable, as these buildings are in existence and reasonably well related to the residential dwelling. It could be said that the degree of alterations proposed by their use (i.e. partial demolition of non-traditional and unattractive elements) aids to tidy the appearance of the application site.

In conclusion, having had regard to the above there is insufficient grounds on which to allow the proposed development as a larger replacement dwelling in the countryside under the provisions of Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. It is therefore recommended that the planning application be refused.

## PARTY STATUS

It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should be afforded interested party status:

Braddan Parish Commissioners (statutory consultee); and

The Department of Transport Highways Division (statutory consultee).

It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should not be afforded interested party status:

The Manx Electricity Authority (non material planning issues);

The owners and/or occupants of Oakbank, Strang Road, Union Mills (C W & J D Gawne) (no known adjoining land ownership and too distance from application site to be materially affected);

The owners and/or occupants of 33 Ballaquark, Douglas (Mr G Clark) (no known adjoining land ownership and too distance from application site to be materially affected);

The owners and/or occupants of Ardine, Strang Road, Union Mills (Mr & Mrs Crellin) (no known adjoining land ownership and too distance from application site to be materially affected);

The owners and/or occupants of Tymescot, Strang Road, Union Mills (Mr & Mrs Bennett) (no known adjoining land ownership and too distance from application site to be materially affected);

The owners and/or occupants of Highfield, 17 Ballamillaghyn, Mount Rule (Mr & Mrs Corlett) (no known adjoining land ownership and too distance from application site to be materially affected);

The owners and/or occupants of Twoways, 1 Cronk Road, Union Mills (Mr Peter L Cain) (no known adjoining land ownership and too distance from application site to be materially affected);

The owners and/or occupants of Ash House, 5 Camlork House, Strang (Mr & Mrs Collier) (no known adjoining land ownership and too distance from application site to be materially affected);

The owners and/or occupants of Ca'd'Zan, 5 The Downs, Union Mills (Mr John Quaye) (no known adjoining land ownership and too distance from application site to be materially affected);

The owners and/or occupants of Groves Cottage, Trollaby Lane, Union Mills (Mr & Mrs Wannenburgh) (no known adjoining land ownership and too distance from application site to be materially affected);

The owners and/or occupants of Greendale, The Downs, Union Mills (Mr & Mrs Irving) (no known adjoining land ownership and too distance from application site to be materially affected);

The owners and/or occupants of Thie Ooylagh, Strang Road, Union Mills (F Murphy) (no known adjoining land ownership and too distance from application site to be materially affected);

The owners and/or occupants of 13 Cronk Drive, Union Mills (T P Kissack) (no known adjoining land ownership and too distance from application site to be materially affected);

The owners and/or occupants of Forest Lodge, Strang Road, Union Mills (Mrs A & Mr R Dennett) (no known adjoining land ownership and too distance from application site to be materially affected);

The owners and/or occupants of Glen Haven, Strang Road, Union Mills (Mr Peter Norris) (no known adjoining land ownership and too distance from application site to be materially affected);

The owners and/or occupants of Ravensdale, Strang Road, Union Mills (Mr & Mrs Sinn) (no known adjoining land ownership and too distance from application site to be materially affected);

## + PAGES 11-17 OBJETORP KST

## CIVEN PARTY STATUT

The owners and/or occupants of Dhoouale, Union Mills (H Toontas) (no known adjoining land ownership and too distance from application site to be materially affected); The owners and/or occupants of Riverside House, Main Road, Union Mills (B Woods) (no known adjoining land ownership and too distance from application site to be materially affected); The owners and/or occupants of Skyrwyllin, Main Road, Union Mills (Mrs Helen Kaneen) (no known adjoining land ownership and too distance from application site to be materially affected); The owners and/or occupants of Boaldwyn, Main Road, Union Mills (Miss Charlotte Quirk) (no known adjoining land ownership and too distance from application site to be materially affected); The owners and/or occupants of Albany, Burnside Terrace, Main Road, Union Mills (D A & D M Jamieson) (no known adjoining land ownership and too distance from application site to be materially affected); The owners and/or occupants of Parella, Maitland Terrace, Main Road, Union Mills (D Billington) (no known adjoining land ownership and too distance from application site to be materially affected); The owners and/or occupants of Ashleigh, Burnside Terrace, Main Road, Union Mills (E R Bregann) (no known adjoining land ownership and too distance from application site to be materially affected); The owners and/or occupants of Orrisdale, Maitland Terrace, Main Road, Union Mills (C Kaneen) (no known adjoining land ownership and too distance from application site to be materially affected); The owners and/or occupants of Coiden, Burnside Terrace, Main Road, Union Mills (N R Taylor) (no known adjoining land ownership and too distance from application site to be materially affected); The owners and/or occupants of Brookvale House, Main Road, Union Mills (S Crerand) (no known adjoining land ownership and too distance from application site to be materially affected); and Save Camiork Committee (c/o Ravensdale, Strang Road, Union Mills) (no known adjoining land ownership and non-statutorily recognised organisation).

### Recommendation

**Decision Recommended by the Director of Planning and Building Control:**

**Refused**

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

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

R 1. As the planning application proposes a replacement dwelling with a greater than 50% increase in floorspace the proposal will only accord with Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 where this involves i) the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character; or ii) where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact. In this instance, in terms of i) the proposal does not represent the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character; and in respect of ii) the increase size of the replacement dwelling does not, by its design or siting, have less visual impact than the existing

situation. As such, the proposal is detrimental to the protection of the countryside from unwarranted development and contrary to the provisions of General Policy 3, Housing Policy 4 and Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.

---

*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/35844-st-johns-close-leece-farm-replacement-demolition/documents/1557993*