Officer Report

Application No.: 24/00124/B Applicant: Mr Matthew Costain Proposal: Renovation and extension to existing cottage. Site Address: Cottage Ballachrink Farm Glen Road Colby Isle Of Man IM9 4HW Planning Officer: Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken: 31.05.2024 Site Visit: 31.05.2024 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 16.05.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. Minded of the lack of evidence of the structural capability of the existing cottage to withstand the proposed works the application is considered to fail Housing Policy 11 (b) and Housing Policy 13(a) of IOM Strategic Plan 2016. - R 2. By reason of the proposed extensions enveloping the existing cottage to a degree which adversely impacts its original character and interest the proposal is considered to fail Housing Policies 11 and 13. The cumulative impact of the proposed extension and alterations works also result in an overall level of works which are not subordinate and fail to respect the form and proportion of the host cottage contrary to Housing Policies 11, 13 and 15 of IOM Strategic Plan 2016. - R 3. The unacceptable level of extension and alteration are considered to have an adverse visual impact on public views from the footpath passing the site contrary to General Policy b, c, and g of IOM Strategic Plan 2016.

_________________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status None

_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application relates to an existing cottage forming part of a cluster of buildings at Ballachrink Farm, Glen Road, Colby. The existing stone built cottage has two integrated stacks

24/00124/B Page 1 of 11

at each gable, is single storey with a rear cat slide lean-to. The roof is finished in corrugated sheeting and there are two windows and a door on the front elevation, two roof lights, two small first floor gable windows and small windows in the rear lean-to. There is no evidence of the cottage being lived in.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is the renovation and extension of the existing cottage comprising the following works:

• o Upwards extension to create increased head height to first floor
• o Installation of two front dormers
• o Two storey rear extension
• o Single storey side extension including additional sun room and porch
• o Rear single storey lean to extension
• o Installation of new slate roofs throughout
• o All extensions are proposed to be finished in Manx stone with exception to the sunroom which is to have a timber frame detail
• o Two parking spaces are shown to the east of the side extension

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The site has been subject to two previous planning applications considered materially relevant to the current planning application. Both relate to the redevelopment and conversion of existing buildings to create new dwellings on the site. The cottage subject to this application was included with those applications:

• o 12/00282/A - Approval in principle for the redevelopment of redundant farm buildings into 6 residential units (including two for tourist accommodation)
• o 13/91357/REM - Reserved Matters application for the redevelopment of redundant farm buildings into six residential units (including two for tourist accommodation)

3.2 The 13/91357/REM application was approved for the conversion of the long barn as well as the cottage. The sheep dip which previously connected the two was approved for its replacement with a new single storey extension which was considered on an exceptional basis on the circumstance that it positively retained the historic farm building layout by linking the barn and cottage and 'L' shape arrangement. This 2013 scheme retained the cottage as single storey.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 Site Specific 4.1.1 The site is not designated for any development on the Area Plan for the South 2013 and sits outside of the main settlement boundary of Colby. The site is not within any Conservation Area and there are no registered buildings. The site is not recognised as being at any flood risk. The site is within Landscape Area D 14;

D14 - BALLAMODHA AND ST MARK'S Key Characteristics

• o Land slopes down from the southern uplands towards the coast.
• o Numerous deeply incised wooded river valleys and glens cut down into the landscape forming ribbons of fragmented woodland.
• o National Glens at Silverdale and Colby
• o Settled farmland character with some large nucleated settlements along the A7, small villages and a variety of scattered dwellings and farms.
• o Smaller predominantly rectangular pastoral fields with Manx hedges topped with gorse
• on the upland slopes to the north.
• o Patches of gorse, bracken and heather in fields on the upper slopes.
• o Larger rectilinear pastoral and arable fields with large deciduous trees growing on Manx hedges on the more gently sloping southern slopes.

24/00124/B Page 2 of 11

• o Around the various settlements and farms there are smaller rectangular arable and pastoral fields with Manx hedgerows containing numerous trees and some stone walls.
• o Network of tracks, small lanes and larger roads enclosed by substantial hedgerows containing deciduous trees all growing on grass covered Manx hedges.
• o Numerous small reservoirs and water bodies associated with water courses.
• o some small churches with spires as well as various standing stones and other visible archaeological sites.
• o Presence of Manx Milestones.
• o Quarries at Turkeyland and at Ballown Landscape Strategy
• o The overall strategy for the area should be to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of this farmed landscape with various field patterns defined by different hedges, a scattered settlement pattern of traditional hamlets, farmsteads and nucleated settlements fringed by trees, a varied road network enclosed by grassed Manx hedges and roadside vegetation, and numerous wooded valleys and glens.
• o In addition to the conservation of archaeological sites, measures should also be adopted to conserve and enhance the physical structure and setting of upstanding heritage features such as the Silverdale watermill. 4.2 Relevant policies of Area Plan for the South 2013:

• 4.2.1 Character Area D14 - key views and strategy
• 4.2.2 3.19 Arbory (Colby and Ballabeg) - description and strategy and implications of the landscape character assessment including iv) protection and enhancement of identity of both settlements, their conservation area status and rural character of adjacent landscape.
• 4.3 Relevant policies of IOM Strategic Plan.

• o Strategic Policy 1 - best and efficient use of sites and reusing building materials
• o Strategic Policy 5 - new development (including individual buildings) should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment (and in some cases a Design Statement will be required)
• o Spatial Policy 4 - Colby recognised as village
• o General Policy 2 - General standards towards acceptable development including visual impact, neighbouring amenity, landscape features, reducing energy consumption
• o Environment Policy 1 - countryside protected for its own sake
• o Environment Policy 2 - AHLV to be protected from harm
• o Housing Policy 11 - Criteria for the conversion of a rural building into a new dwelling
• o Housing Policy 13 - dwellings which have lost habitable status redevelopment criteria
• o Housing Policy 15 - extensions to existing traditionally styled dwellings
• o Community Policy 7 - designing out crime
• o Community Policy 11 - prevention of outbreak and spread of fire
• o Infrastructure Policy 5 - water conservation and management measures
• 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".

4.3.1 Housing Policy 11: Conversion of existing rural buildings into dwellings may be permitted, but only where:

• (a) redundancy for the original use can be established;
• (b) the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation;
• (c) the building is of architectural, historic, or social interest;
• (d) the building is large enough to form a satisfactory dwelling, either as it stands or with modest, subordinate extension which does not affect adversely the character or interest of the building;

24/00124/B Page 3 of 11

• (e) residential use would not be incompatible with adjoining established uses or, where appropriate, land-use zonings on the area plan; and
• (f) the building is or can be provided with satisfactory services without unreasonable public expenditure. Such conversion must:

• (a) where practicable and desirable, re-establish the original appearance of the building; and
• (b) use the same materials as those in the existing building. Permission will not be given for the rebuilding of ruins or the erection of replacement buildings of similar, or even identical, form. Further extension of converted rural buildings will not usually be permitted, since this would lead to loss or reduction of the original interest and character.

• 4.3.2 Housing Policy 13: In the case of those rural dwellings which have lost their former residential use by abandonment, consideration will be given in the following circumstances to the formation of a dwelling by use of the remaining fabric and the addition of new fabric to replace that which has been lost. Where:

• a) the building is substantially intact; this will involve there being at least three of the walls, standing up to eaves level and structurally capable of being retained; and
• b) there is an existing, usable track from the highway; and where
• c) a supply of fresh potable water and of electricity can be made available from existing services within the highway.

This policy will not apply in National Heritage Areas (see Environment Policy 6). Permission will not be given for the use of buildings more ruinous than those in (a) above, or for the erection of replacement buildings. Extensions of dwellings formed in accordance with the above may be permitted if the extension is clearly subordinate to the original building (i.e. in terms of floor space(3) measured externally, the extension measures less than 50% of that of the original).

*Habitable Status and non-residential use is defined in Appendix 1.

• 4.3.3 Appendix 1:

• o Habitable status (see Housing Policy 12) In the context of Housing Policy 12, "habitable status" means whether or not a building which has previously been occupied as a dwelling may be re-occupied as such without the need for planning permission for that use.
• o Non-residential use (see Housing Policy 12) In the context of Housing Policy 12, "nonresidential use" means use for a purpose other than as a dwelling

• 4.3.4 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).

4.4 Reference any relevant PPS or NPD

• 4.4.1 None
• 5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Legislation

• o None

5.2 Policy/Strategy/Guidance

• Manual for Manx Roads - Parking and access standards o Residential Design Guide - local distinctiveness, extensions, architectural details and neighbouring amenity o Planning Circular 3/91 - design guidance for rural dwellings in the countryside

- 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS

24/00124/B Page 4 of 11

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

6.1 DOI Highways - do not oppose (9/02/2024) no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as there is available parking on-site for the proposals. - 6.2 DEFA Ecosystems - do not oppose subject to conditions (10/04/2025) - further information was provided in respect of bats and bird. There was evidence of bats found at the site and exiting the building above a south facing window which will be lost as a result of the works, also evidence of an old birds nest inside the building was found and this nesting area will be lost to future uses too. As such compensation should be provided for both in the form of bat and bird boxes by condition. The applicant is to be reminded of their obligations under the Wildlife Act 1990 regarding the protection of bats and their roosts and to contact DEFA before any works starting on site. A condition to prevent any external lighting unless details are submitted to the Department is also considered necessary. - 6.3 The following were consulted but no comments received at the time of writing the report 14/05/2025:

• o Local Authority
• o Manx Utilities

7.0 ASSESSMENT - 7.1 The key matters to consider in the assessment of this application are:

• i. Principle of proposed works
• ii. Structure Capability
• iii. Extensions to host building
• iv. Visual impact on site, surroundings and wider landscape
• v. Neighbouring amenity impact
• vi. Previous works 13/91357/REM
• vii. Highway Safety
• viii. Ecosystems impact
• ix. Any other matters

7.2 Principle

• 7.2.1 Housing Policy 13 refers to the redevelopment of sites which have lost their habitable status and offers support to such subject to criteria. It makes clear that a dwelling may be formed out of the remaining fabric and with new fabric to replace that which has been lost but only where the building is substantially intact (at least 3 walls standing to eaves and structurally capable of being retained, there is existing access from highway, and were water and electricity is available. It states that some extensions may be permitted if the extension is clearly subordinate to the original building (measured externally and less than 50% of that of the original).
• 7.2.2 Housing Policy 11 also allows for the conversion of existing rural buildings into new dwellings and includes the criteria for such conversion to be acceptable. This includes the building being structurally capable of conversion and of merit/interest to warrant its conversion. It needs to be compatible with adjoining uses and be provided with services. It allows for some subordinate extension so long as such does not affect adversely the character or interest of the building.
• 7.2.3 Housing Policy 15 states that extension or alteration should respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property, and only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions which measure more than 50% of the existing building..

24/00124/B Page 5 of 11

• 7.2.4 Through these policies it is clear that wording seeks to best retain and maintain the character and interest of the original building, and there is a general presumption against the loss or reduction to that original character and interest.
• 7.2.5 The existing cottage does not appear to be lived in nor to have been lived in for quite some time minded that some of the information submitted with the 2013 also shows the cottage in a similar uninhabited condition. So leaning on HP11 and 13 in the first instance in the assessment of the application, although HP 15 will be covered later in this report. The proposal seeks to bring the property back in to residential use and both HP11 and HP13 support such in principle. However the application fails parts of the specified criteria within those two policies.
• 7.2.6 It is accepted that the building is of historic interest and which features on the 1860's historic mapping, is standing complete with all four walls, roof and chimneys, is surrounded by other residential properties where a new dwelling would be compatible and which is in an area already served by an access, water and electricity and therefore meeting some tests of the policies. However there are concerns about the buildings structural capability to accommodate the proposed works and concerns in respect of the proposed works being of such a scale as to not be subordinate and adversely affecting the original character and interest of the building. 7.3 Structural Capability

• 7.3.1 The building is intact but no updated structural report has been provided with this application. The previous structural report submitted with 2013 application stated for the cottage at 3.4 "the building, to become habitable, would need, new floors, roof covering, insulation, stairs etc. Care should be taken not to overload the structure and tying in of all cross walls/floors etc, would need to be carried out. All vegetation would need to be removed carefully not to cause further distress to the stonework."
• 7.3.2 The proposed works include an upwards extension as well as modifications and extensions to the rear. It has not been demonstrated that the existing structure as of 2025 is structurally capable of withstanding the proposed works in particular the upwards extension, dormers and new roof structure which would likely have the most load bearing impact on the existing structure.
• 7.3.3 On this structural uncertainty basis the application is considered to fail HP11(b) and HP13(a).
• 7.4 Extensions to Host Building Upwards Extension, Dormers and Rear Lean-to

• 7.4.1 T principle of extension is generally supported but such extensions must be subordinate so as to not adversely impact the character or interest of the building (Hp11) and be no more than 50% of that of the original (Hp13). The erosion of the structures original quality and interest is to be avoided. The existing cottage in this instance is single storey and with some additional space in the roof served by roof lights and upper floor windows in the gable. The submitted floor plans do not show any first floor windows and it does not appear that there is any internal staircase or access to the first floor.
• 7.4.2 The proposal seeks a first floor upwards extension, incorporating two peaked dormers and an increase to the existing stacks. The retention of the stacks, albeit modified to fit the upwards extension, helps to preserves one of the traditional positive features of the building. The proposed dormers are of size and scale which would be proportionate and sensitive to the overall uplift works, and in keeping with the traditional merit of the building especially when compared to a flat roof alternative. When viewed from the west gable the uplift and rear leanto cat slide would not appear so out of place and mimicking the existing roof line and overall form and proportion of the existing cottage.

24/00124/B Page 6 of 11

• 7.4.3 However there is a lack of clarity as to how the proposed uplift works will be finished externally and whether this will be suitably in-keeping or how it will integrate with the existing stone cottage. Cross referencing of the drawings and section also appear to indicate that the internal floor will cut straight through the retained first floor west gable window. The rear west gable window is to be lifted up, but there is lack of clarity in how the existing wall will be made good and whether this will be suitably in-keeping.
• 7.4.4 While the uplift and rear lean-to have to some regard been proportionately designed and incorporate small sensitively sized dormers, however the combined works result in a significant change compared to the original single story building and this weighs against the proposal, particularly minded of those parts of Hp11 and Hp13 which seeks to retain the character and interest of the original building which would be piecemeal eroded by the changes sought. Side Extensions
• 7.4.5 The existing cottage has a ground floor footprint measuring 70sq m. The side and rear extensions on their own have a footprint measuring 97sq m. Hp13 states that extensions should measure less than 50% of that of the original. In this case the proposal would be 137% bigger than the existing. Planning Circular 3/91 sets out general rules of thumb in the extension and alteration of traditional dwellings and cottages and the importance of proportion and form. Policy 3 of PC3/91 indicates that traditional dwellings should be "rectangular in plan and simple in form. Extensions to existing buildings should maintain the character of the original form."
• 7.4.6 The 2013 application granted approved for a linked side extension and with a sunroom. This link was set well back beyond the front building line and the side extension and sunroom also beyond the principle building line sitting at angle to the cottage and 90degrees linked with the long barn. The extension was considered as a new build on an exceptional basis that it sought to retain the farm building layout of the long barns around a yard.
• 7.4.7 The link extension now proposed is much bigger and runs flush to the front elevation of the cottage. The side extension and its sunroom now projects beyond the front elevation of the cottage creating a dominating and overbearing impact on its original character and appearance and negatively affecting its original building line. The separation of the extensions from the long barn also taking away one of the key design successes of the previous 2013 approval.
• 7.4.8 There is some tolerance for extensions in PC3/91, Housing Policy 11,13 and 15 and yes the link and side extensions may be subordinate in height. Their plan form, siting and arrangement and the mix of roof finishes and pitches, overwhelm the original cottage and negatively affecting the simple plan form. Rear Extension
• 7.4.9 Again there is tolerances for rear extensions in PC3/91, and the two story rear extension is of simple plan rectangular form and does not project above the central ridge line. It might be that the staircase alone may not be so bad as to warrant refusal, however its success relies solely on the uplift of the main cottage, and so one cannot progress without the other. Extensions Conclusion
• 7.4.10 When viewed cumulatively, there is significant concern that the uplift, backward and sideways extensions adversely and negative envelop the original host dwelling and together the extensions are not modest nor subordinate and adversely affect the original cottage by overwhelming and dominating its original character and appearance. In addition, the various projections, single and two storey arrangement, mix of roof styles, position and orientation of side extensions and porch and sun room projections create a jarring and unsympathetic impact

24/00124/B Page 7 of 11

to what is currently a simple plan form. The proposal is considered to fail Housing Policies 11 and 13, and to go against guidance of PC3/91 and principles of Housing Policy 15.

7.5 Visual impact on site, surroundings and wider landscape

• 7.5.1 The works will be visible from within the immediate area to those living within the barn and the main house on the opposite side of the shared access lane. There is also a public footpath running directly past the site from which prominent public views will be seen. Minded of the above conclusions of the unacceptability of the extensions on the host dwelling, the proposal would be considered to have a negative and unacceptable impact from immediate public view and at odds within its immediate setting. However being clustered amongst the existing build development and the nearby estate and surrounded by large mature trees does help to ensure to adverse harm to the wider landscape and the development contained within the site.
• 7.5.2 So while the wider landscape may be protected from any adverse visual harm due to the setting and context of the site, the proposal is considered to have an unacceptable visual impact on immediate public views passing the site that the proposal is considered contrary to GP2 (b, c and g).

7.6 Neighbouring amenity impact

• 7.6.1 Red and blue line plans show the applicant owning all of the site and surrounding areas. The proposals in this case would most likely impact the far western end of the long barn. The proposed cottage extensions sit south of the barn and so within the sun path. From site visit it was noted that there are two ground floor doors on the long barn and three first floor windows. Given the off set siting of the cottage the first floor uplift is not considered to result in any significant adverse impacts on general amenity. While the two ground floor doors may be impacted to a small degree, the distance between the proposals, the single storey design of the extensions and the lack of windows in the rear elevation of the proposed cottage all help to ensure impact is limited and the proposals unlikely to cause any significant amenity harm to occupants of the long barn.

7.7 Previous works 13/91357/REM

• 7.7.1 The supporting information for the application indicates that approval was already granted and remains extant for side extension works, however as mentioned in paragraphs above, the works now sought differ notably from what was granted approval previously, and as concluded above are considered to have a significant adverse impact on the cottage and from public views. Any revised scheme would have to form part of a separate planning application.

7.8 Highway Safety

• 7.8.1 The site is set back from the road and already provided with a shared access and egress. The site is shown to provide off street parking for the site and surrounding properties. There are no changes proposed with any of the access onto the main road, and any additional traffic associated with one dwelling would be acceptable in this instance minded of the existing properties and the routes in and out of the site. The proposal in this respect is not considered to result in any new or adverse highway safety impacts and is to be provided with sufficient parking to meet minimum standards.

7.9 Ecosystems impact

• 7.9.1 DEFA Ecosystems comments on the application indicating that they do not oppose subject to conditions for bat and bird boxes to compensate for lost nesting areas within the cottage, and to prevent any external lighting. The applicants also to be reminded of their separate obligations under the Wildlife Act 1990. Whilst the loss of the habitat and nesting area is recognised, it is not felt that the provision of bird and bat boxes goes to the heart of the application and so while it would be welcomed to have such in the area it is not felt this should be actioned by condition and rather added by way of note along with the reminder for the Wildlife Act. A condition revoking any external lighting in this case is also not felt to go to the

24/00124/B Page 8 of 11

heart of the approval. Any external lighting columns would require planning, and internal illumination and any typical domestic lighting would not constitute development nor in this case could it be any worse than the existing situation from the converted barns and other dwelling and lighting near by. No condition is considered necessary for any external lighting and so a note could be added again for information purposes.

7.10 Any other matters

• 7.10.1 There are no other matters in this case requiring considering at this stage.
• 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 Minded of the lack of evidence of the structural capability of the existing cottage to withstand the proposed works the application is considered to fail Housing Policy 11 (b) and Housing Policy 13(a). By reason of the proposed extensions enveloping the existing cottage to a degree which adversely impacts its original character and interest the proposal is considered to fail Housing Policies 11 and 13. The cumulative impact of the proposed extension and alterations works also result in an overall level of works which are not subordinate and fail to respect the form and proportion of the host cottage contrary to Housing Policies 11, 13 and 15. The unacceptable level of extension and alteration also having an adverse visual impact on public views from the footpath passing the site contrary to General Policy b, c, and g. The application is recommended for refusal. - 9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material. 9.2 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 above who should be given Interested

Person Status.

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 : Refused Date: 20.05.2025 Determining Officer Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner 24/00124/B Page 9 of 11

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.

24/00124/B Page 10 of 11

24/00124/B Page 11 of 11