Loading document...
Application No.: 25/90730/B Applicant: Mr Juan Brown Proposal: Erection of two-storey extension to rear elevation, external alterations including re-roofing and fenestration (amendment to 24/91206/B) Site Address: Dreemskerry Cottage Dreemskerry Hill Dreemskerry Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 1BE Planning Officer: Hamish Laird Photo Taken: 07.08.2025 Site Visit: 07.08.2025 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 12.09.2025 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: To prevent any damage to the trees root systems and prevent the storage of building materials/machinery within their Root Protection Areas (RPA's).
The proposal complies with the provisions of General Policy 2 b), c), f), and g); Environment Policies 1 and 2; Housing Policy 15; and Transport policies T4 and T7 in the Isle of Man
Strategic Plan 2016, and therefore, is acceptable. The application is recommended for approval.
The development, hereby permitted, shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings and details:
_________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: Department of Infrastructure Highways Services - No objection. Garff Commissioners - No objection. DEFA Forestry, Amenity and Lands - No objection. No third party representations have been received, therefore, no persons are granted a right to appeal.
_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 Dreemskerry Cottage, comprises a detached, 2-storey dwelling of white painted rendered walls under a pitched slate roof, with garage attached to its SW side elevation which sits in the eastern corner a quite a large triangular shaped plot, and which fronts onto Dreemskerry Hill. It is served by 2 No. gated vehicular access points, and is screened from the road by a mature hedge. The site is in a rural location and is to the west of the Dreemskerry Halt on the Manx Electric Railway (Douglas to Ramsey). Dreemskerry Hill is a single track, metalled highway. The applicant also owns/controls the field to the rear (north) of the dwelling and its curtilage. - 1.2 In its current state the dwelling measures approx.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The proposed development involves the erection of a 2 storey extension to the rear of the dwelling, plus external alterations including re-roofing and fenestration. The application is a re-submission of the previously refused 24/91206/B scheme which proposed a 2 storey
extension to south-east elevation; a single storey extension to north-west side of main dwelling; the removal of the porch to south-east elevation; and, external alterations including the replacement of roof slates and windows.
2.2 The works comprising the previously refused proposal involved:
"o 2 storey extension to south-east elevation - The removal of the porch to south-east elevation; and, external alterations including the replacement of roof slates and windows. This comprises the following accommodation: Ground floor: Hall, Lounge, Porch (with flat roofed canopy over) and Utility Room/WC; First floor: Bedroom, Bathroom, Gallery Landing The extension would measure approx. 9.7m long x 5.4m wide x 4.8m high to the eaves and
The extension would measure approx. 4.3m long x 4.0m deep x 3.2m high to the eaves of the new flat roof which would have a concealed parapet gutter. This would amount to a Gross External Floorspace Area increase of 17.2m2. It would have smooth painted render finish to the walls, with a fully glazed 4 panel, full-height set of bi-fold doors in the north-west elevation; 3 full-height windows in the south-west elevation; and, 2 full-height sliding patio doors and a window in the north-east elevation. It would have an insulated metal clad flat roof. All windows and doors would be clear glazed. The proposals also involve:
The whole dwelling would be re-roofed in a new natural slate covering in place of the existing fibre cement slates.
The area of new floor-space proposed as a percentage of the existing floor-space would amount to: Existing floor-space = to a Gross External Floor Area over 2 floors of 197.25m2. Proposed floor-space = first floor of 104.76m2 + ground floor of 17.2m2 = 121.96m2."
2.3 The covering letter accompanying the re-submitted application subject of consideration in this report advises that the proposed development now involves: "This revised the scheme and made significant changes to the design and location of the proposed extension. The extension is located to the rear of the dwelling and reduced in size for that refused.
This application is for:
Drainage: The existing surface water is discharged to soakaways, additional soakaways will be provided and located within the land to the north of the dwelling which is in the ownership of the applicant. The existing foul drainage is discharged into a septic tank. This tank will be assessed at Building regulation stage for suitability and enlarged/replaced as required by building control together with necessary percolation testing.
Access and Parking: Access and the current parking area for 3 cars will remain unchanged."
3.1 The application site lies within an area not designated for development and within an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV) on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982. In the Daft Area Plan for the North and West (2022) the site is featured as an area not designated for development. The site is not within a Conservation Area. - 3.2 In the Isle of Man Landscape Character Assessment (July 2008) at Figure 3.1 'Landscape Character Types and Areas', the site is identified as being within a Landscape Character Area that is broadly classified as 'D Incised Slopes' and is annotated as 'D1 Ballajora and Ballaglass.' - 3.3 Within the Isle of Man Landscape Character Assessment Written Statement (July 2008) under section 3.0 Landscape Character Area (LCA), page 60, the Landscape Strategy is:
"The overall strategy is to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of this area with its tranquil, relatively sparsely settled nature, its distinctive field patterns, its rural road network, its numerous areas of fragmented woodland and the setting of the various archaeological and historic features within the area."
" Key Views
3.4 It is noted the site is not identified as being at flood risk. - 3.5 The site is not within a Registered Tree Area. Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider Strategic Policy 2, General Policy 2, Environment Policy 2 and Housing Policy 16 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). - 3.6 Strategic Policy 2: New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3.
3.7 General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
3.8 Environment Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 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:
3.9 Housing Policy 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states: "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)." - 3.10 Housing Policy 16 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states "The extension of nontraditional dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public."
4.1 24/91206/B - 2 storey extension to south-east elevation. Single storey extension to north-west side of main dwelling. Removal of porch to south-east elevation. External alterations including replacement of roof slates and windows. Refused - 17.12.2024 for the following reason:
g) (visual amenity); and, Environment Policies 1 and 2 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016; and, would be harmful to the character of this area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV) as shown on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982.
4.2 No appeal was received.
5.1 Highways DC (5/8/25) comments: "The following planning application has no significant negative impact upon the highway network in terms of highway safety, highway operation and car parking. Highway Services HDC does not oppose (DNO) the following applications. Advisory comments are applied where relevant, such as for licences to use the highway for equipment and material during works:
After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking."
5.2 Garff Parish Commissioners (8/8/25) comments that: "The plans in regard to the following application have been considered by the Commission: 25/90730/B Dreemskerry Cottage Dreemskerry Hill Dreemskerry Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 1BE
Erection of two-storey extension to rear elevation, external alterations including re-roofing and fenestration (amendment to 24/91206/B)
The Board noted the previous proposals for development at this site. These latest proposals were considered and discussed, the outcome being an instruction from the Board that a submission be made indicating no objections to the proposals. Members agreed that these latest proposals were more sympathetic to the property itself and to the character of the area."
5.3 DEFA Forestry, Amenity and Lands (29/8/25) comments: "My apologies for the delay in correspondence. I have a few queries before an official comment is made.
The removal of T3 is acceptable with the mitigation, however there is a significant difference in form, structure and biodiversity value between the proposed new trees list. We would like clarification on the exact species intended for replanting.
I would also like to see a more detailed Tree Protection Plan which includes protection to the trees to the East of the property as well as T5 and T4. This should also include RPAs of retained trees, detailed implementation of how/when the CEZ will be erected with information on where/how materials are to be stored, mixed and transported around the site to limit disturbance to trees.
The implementation of the CEZ currently shown on the plans also raises some questionswithout the above information I don't see how it will be possible to implement the CEZ around T2 and T1 and transport/ store materials on site. Without categorisation of the trees to be retained on site it is also difficult to note if the CEZ around T1/T2 is truly necessary.
Without the above there is insufficient information to support the approval of this application."
6.1 The dwelling has been lawfully erected. And there are no outstanding enforcement issues relating to it. The principle of development is, therefore, accepted.
6.2 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are:
6.3 In terms of comparing the previously refused proposal and the provisions of Policy H15 of the Strategic Development Plan, which indicates that "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)." - 6.4 It is noted that there have been no previous extensions to the property, and it is in need of updating to provide a modern standard of living accommodation. The addition of the now proposed 2 Storey extension to rear elevation, which would have a combined floor area of approx. with an area of 75 sq.m. is greatly reduced from the floor area of the previously refused scheme at 121.96sq. m. and would result in an increase in the floor area of the property amounting to an approx. 61.83% increase in floor area. This is arrived at by the following calculation: Existing dwelling floor area 197.25m2. Additional floor area = 75m2 75 divided by 197.25 = 0.3802 x 100 = 38.02. Therefore the floor area increase would amount to 38.02% of the original floor area. - 6.5 This meets the 50% floor space limit imposed by Policy H15. - 6.6 The next question is, therefore, whether the proposed extensions would be in scale and keeping with the existing dwelling, and whether any adverse visual impact would arise as a result of their being added to the dwelling. - 6.7 This revised proposal involves a 2-storey rear extension which dispenses with previously proposed two-storey extension to the front of the dwelling which would have significantly added to its bulk and extent, and which was considered unacceptable. This does not apply to this revised scheme. The proposed 2-storey extension would measure approx. 5.0m wide x
7.5m deep, with its ridge set slightly lower than that of the main dwelling, with matching eaves height to same. It would have a pair of full-height, double sliding patio doors in the rear elevation, with a clerestorey style window, new corner window in at first floor level in the same elevation, these would face out over the rather large and well-landscaped rear garden area across open farmland towards the sea. Further windows at ground and first floor level would be inserted in the north-east side elevation, with a further pair of full-height, double sliding patio doors at ground floor level in the south west elevation of the new extension,. There would 3 No. Sevice windows added to this side elevation - 2 at first floor level serving the new en-suite bathroom and bedroom and one at ground floor level serving a cloakroom/WC.
6.8 The two-storey rear extension would provide a ground floor Hall leading into an open plan Lounge, with stairs to the first floor; and, on the first floor: a Bedroom, Bathroom, and Gallery Landing. It is consider4ed that the positioning of the extension on the rear of the dwelling, its height, width scale and bulk, would represent an acceptable addition the dwelling,
Neighbours amenities
6.11 No neighbour representations have been received in respect of this application. Given the position of the extensions and distance - 50.0 metres - from the nearest dwelling at White Farm Cottage to the west of the site on the same side of the road; and, the similar distance and dense tree and shrub screen in front of Ballakilley Beg on the opposite side of the road from White Farm Cottage, it is considered that the proposed extension and alterations would not give rise to any loss of privacy, or result in an overbearing relationship with these nearest neighbouring dwellings, or any other nearby dwelling.
6.11 Overall, with regard to the potential impact of the development on neighbouring residents amenities, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable and accords with the provisions of Policy GP2 (g) (neighbours amenity) and (h), in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. Other considerations - trees. - 6.12 The comments received from the DEFA Forestry, Amenity and Lands Team are noted. None of the trees on site are specimen trees worthy of a preservation Order whereby they became Registered trees. There is no objection to the removal of the T3 Weeping Birch tree which is locate on the patio to the rear of the dwelling very close to its rear elevation. In time, the tree would need to be removed because its root system would have an adverse impact on the foundations of the dwelling and owing to its proximity to the house, it may cause structural damage if it fell on it as a result of adverse weather conditions. Therefore, no objection to its removal is raised. - 6.13 With regard to the T1 and T2 trees which would be contained within the Construction Exclusion Zone (CEZ), neither is a Specimen Tree. These trees are contained within a tarmacked area to the rear of the dwelling, and movement across the CEZ to reach the site of the extension for materials delivery and construction equipment, is unlikely to adversely impact on these two trees root systems. In respect of the T4 and T5 trees, these are located approximately 12.0 - 13.0m from the rear elevation of the dwelling. The proposed extension would come out by approx. 7.5m plus another 2.0m for the patio surround, from the rear of the dwelling. The T4 tree is the larger of the two trees and its crown spread leans towards the dwelling. This deciduous tree could be pruned to ensure that its crown and branches did not interfere with the built form of the extension. This is likely to occur sometime down the years in any event once the extension is constructed.
6.14 It is considered that a more detailed Tree Protection Plan which includes protection to the trees to the East of the property as well as T5 and T4, can be conditioned with such plan to comply with "BS 5387:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction", with protective fencing erected around them, particularly in relation to them. This should prevent any damage to their root systems and prevent the storage of building materials within their Root Protection Areas (RPA's). - 6.15 Given the siting of the T1 and T2 trees which are contained within a tarmacked area to the rear of the dwelling, and movement across this area to reach to site of the extension to the rear of the dwelling, it is considered that a CEZ is not a necessity as any delivery of materials or movement of construction equipment on site, is unlikely to adversely impact on these two trees root systems. - 6.16 A standard landscaping condition relating to new tree planting should also be attached to any approval that may be granted? This would ensure that in the event of the unlikely failure of any new trees that are planted, replacement trees can be secured. This accords with the provision of General policy Gp2 f) in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
7.1 For the above reasons it is considered that the proposal complies with the provisions of General Policy 2 b), c), f), and g); Environment Policies 1 and 2; Housing Policy 15; and Transport policies T4 and T7 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and therefore, is acceptable. Recommendation - Approve. - 8.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE
8.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted). - 8.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:
8.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10. - 8.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):
8.5 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given the Right to Appeal.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 17.09.2025 Determining Officer Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton Principal Planner
Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/ customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
