Officer Report

Application No.: 25/90657/B Applicant: Mr Richard Fathers Proposal: Erection of extension to existing barns with associated alterations to create garage Site Address: Rose Cottage Glen Chass Road Port St Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5PL Planning Officer: Hamish Laird Photo Taken: 05.08.2025 Site Visit: 05.08.2025 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 15.09.2025 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal - R 1. The principle of development is unacceptable because it would result in the extension to the existing barn to form a garage being out of scale and character with the countryside location. In this case, the close proximity of the new garage building to the dwelling, is read as an extension to the dwelling. Policy H15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, permits up to 50% increase in floor space for rural extensions. The floor-space of the new garage structure would increase from the existing approx. 77.6m2 to approx. 176.4m2, representing an increase of approx. 98.8m2, or 136%. This is in addition to the floorspace created by previously approved extensions to the dwelling at Rose Cottage. This area demonstrably exceeds this floor-space limit. Therefore, the proposal would result in an excessive form of development in the open countryside, out of scale for the site and its rural surroundings, and would be contrary to the provisions of Strategic Policy ST2; Spatial Policy SP5; General Policy GP2 b) and c); General Policy GP3 a), b) and c); and Housing Policies H15 and H16 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016; and, Planning Circular 3/91. - R 2. The proposed extension to the barn to form a garage is unacceptable because it would be out of scale and keeping with the dwelling on site. Its poor design would result in it appearing as a visually intrusive, and incongruous addition at odds with the appearance of the traditional Manx Barn/Stables appearance of the host structure. Whilst views of the site and surroundings are limited it would represent a large oversized structure which would be poorly related to its rural surroundings and as such it would be contrary to the provisions of Policies GEN2 b) and c); GEN3 c) H15; ENV1 and ENV2 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and, Planning Circular - 3/91. In respect of Policy ENV2, this indicates that such development will only be permitted where: "(a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential." In this case, neither of these criteria in Policy ENV2 are met. _________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: Arbory and Rushen Parish District Commissioners - No objection. DoI - Highways Drainage - Comments only with no objection. DEFA - Ecosystems Policy Team - Comments only with 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 The application site comprises an existing detached, stone built, single storey, stable building housed under a mixture of natural slate and balck metal sheet roofing. It lies within the residential curtilage of Rose Cottage, Glen Chass Road, Port St Mary, and is located on the north side of the dwelling. There is a gravelled fenced area to the rear of the stables marked by a wooden post and rail fence on 2 sides. The dwelling on the property sits to the east of the highway at a much lower level and is characterised as a two-story Manx stone cottage within its own generous grounds. Looking at the chimney stacks, the property could be read as having been two smaller cottages now internally knocked through to make one larger dwelling house. To the rear elevation (east) is a pitched roof Upvc conservatory. - 1.2 The surrounding area is generally built up of predominately two storey dwellings adjacent to the highway. The site lies in the countryside outside the recognised settlement boundary for Port St Mary.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is the extension and alteration of the existing barn (stables) garage and the roofing over of the gravelled fenced area to the rear of the stables where the existing a wooden post and rail fence on 2 sides, would reflect the extent of the new covered structure. This would create a garage facility on site to house classic cars with a space to carry out maintenance work to serve Rose Cottage. This would involve:

• o Retaining the existing Manx stone features to the north, east and south elevations, of the barns;
• o Demolishing the rear wall and extending into the existing hard standing to the rear of the barns;
• o The removal and replacement of the existing insulated panel roof with a traditional cut roof on purlins which will in turn be sat on a steel portal frame;
• o The roof pitch will be reduced from 35 degrees down to 17 degrees so that the proposed new pitch will be sat lower than the existing;
• o The north elevation extension works will be finished in Manx stone so that from the site entrance it will marry through with the existing;
• o The south and west elevations will be finished in a box profile plastisol and finished in laurel green to blend in with the natural surroundings;

• o Natural screening for the proposed extension would be in the form of the existing dwelling and large sod bank that runs along Glen Chass Road;

2.2 The area of the existing stables equates to approx. 5.1m wide x 16.0m long = 81.6m2 minus 4.0m2 accounting for the indent in the FE of the stables = 77.6m2; and, 2.25m high to the eaves and 4.0m high to the ridge. - 2.3 The area of the proposed converted and extended garage equates to approx. 11.0m wide x 16.4m long = 180.4m2; minus 4.0m2 accounting for the indent in the FE of the stables (which would remain)= 176.4m2; and, approx. 2.2m high to the eaves and 3.9m high to the new ridge.

2.3 The new walls (except where the existing Manx stone wall would be retained) would be of Box profile plastisol coated metal sheets finished in Laurel Green; and, the new roof would be of Slate roof tiles to match existing dwelling roof.

2.3 The new roof would feature 7 No. 660mm wide x 1400mm long Velux conservation type rooflights. 4 in the west elevation roofslope; and, 3 in the east elevation roofslope. The proposed east elevation roofslope would have 12 No. photovoltaic solar panels attached to it. - 3.0 PLANNING POLICY The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 as not for a particular purpose and where there is a presumption against development.

3.1 The site is not within a conservation area or is identified as being at flood risk. There are no registered trees on site that are affected by the proposals.

3.2 Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the following policy are considered to be the pertinent relevant policy in the determination of this application:

3.3 Whilst there is a presumption against development here as set out in General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1, there is also support for certain types of works and extension and alterations to existing residential properties in the countryside, notably that set out in Housing Policy 16. Any design for new build development should have make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island, as noted in Strategic Policy 5. - 3.4 Whilst the land is not zoned for development, the general principles contained with GP2 (a-n) offer guidance that specifically addresses those issues affecting building on site that would be general 'development control' and considered capable of being applied to this proposal. - 3.5 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)." - 3.6 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." - 3.7 Planning Circular 3/91 "Guide to the design of residential development in the countryside" is materially relevant to this proposal. Policy 3 in particular:

• "The shape of small and medium sized new dwellings should follow the size and pattern of traditional farmhouses. They should be rectangular in plan and simple in form. Extensions to existing buildings should maintain the character of the original form."
• 3.8 The principles of the Residential Design Guidance 2021 which sets out a number of general development standards for alterations to existing dwellings including neighbouring amenity.

- 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The application site benefits from the following approvals; 87/00728/B 1 January 1994 a planning application was permitted for "erection of front porch". 92/00265/B 1 January 1994 a planning application was refused at appeal for "extension to create additional living accommodation".

99/00769/B 29 September 1999 a planning application was permitted for "extension to dwelling".

00/00036/B 18 May 200 a planning application was permitted for "erection of replacement porch".

04/01004/B 18 October 2004 a planning application was permitted for "Alterations and twostory extension to side of dwelling and extension to patio and parking area". 25/90511/B - Erection of two-storey extension to east elevation - permitted - 10.07.2025.

- 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Arbory and Rushen Commissioners - support received from the Commissioners (7/8/25).

5.2 Highways Drainage (31/7/25) comments: "Allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads.

Recommendation: As no levels are shown the Applicant should demonstrate compliance with the clause above. Ie do not discharge surface water onto the highway!"

5.3 DEFA Ecosystems Policy Team (EPT) (25/7/25) comments: "General Stance No objection Detailed Comments

• o Photos provided with the application show that the barns are old stone buildings, partly covered by a slate roof, but the inside conditions do not look conducive for bats. However, there may be some limited potential for occasional or transient use of the building by single numbers of bats in the building or under ridge riles. We therefore recommend that precautions are taken when the building is being converted. Thorough checks for bats and birds must be made in and around the building prior tile removal and alterations taking place. If bats or birds,
• or evidence of bats and birds, such as nesting material or piles of droppings, are discovered, all work must stop and advice be sought from the DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team on 01624 651577.

Roosting bats and nesting birds are legally protected under the Wildlife Act 1990 and this includes protection from reckless action. Works without suitable checks for bats and birds would be considered reckless."

5.4 No third party representations had been received by the Report Drafting stage (10/9/25).

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

• (i) Principle (SP5; GP3)
• (ii) Design (STP5; GP2b)
• (iii) Visual impact (Ep1, HP16, GP2,c,f,)
• (iv) Neighbouring amenities (GP2g)
• (v) Other issues

Principle

6.1 The starting point here is the land designation within the area plan which designates the site as land not zoned for development. As General Policy 3 would be applicable in this instance, the proposal is for a two storey rear extension to an existing residential dwelling and does not specifically fit into any of the criteria for acceptable development (a-h), therefore regard must be given to the reasonableness of the scale and siting of the proposed developments within the defined residential curtilage in view of their subsequent impacts.

6.2 In this case it is relevant to give weight to both Housing Policy 15 and Housing Policy

1. Housing Policy 16 allows for extensions to properties in the countryside with the emphasis on visual impact and also any built additions must respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. Environment Policy 1 protects the countryside for its own sake and restricts development that would have an adverse visual impact on the countryside. Also, the general principles contained with Policy GP2 (a-n) offer guidance that specifically addresses those issues affecting building on site that would be general development control principles.

6.3 Whilst there isn't a specific policy which relates to the extension of rural buildings to non-dwellings, there is a clear policy aim to ensure any works to rural building (dwellings or barns etc.) are appropriate for the site/landscape (See Environment policy 1), and therefore consideration of the application should take into account these other policies (i.e. Housing policies HP15 and HP16 which have already been listed and Housing policy HP 11 for conversion rural buildings into a dwelling) In addition, the provisions of Policy GP2 (a-n) are also of relevance in the determination of this planning application. - 6.4 Given the above, it is considered that the principle of the partial demolition, refurbishment and extension of the barn to provide garaging in the manner proposed represents an unacceptable form of development. The principle of an extension, which would be much larger than the existing structure, would represent an unacceptable form of development as outlined in the further assessment below. Design - 6.5 As advised above, it is considered that the provisions of Housing Policy 15 apply, regardless of the appearance of the outbuilding which here is being viewed as an extension to the dwelling because it would be sited approx. 10.0m from the house, and owing to the ancillary level of accommodation it proposes, and lawful uses which it could be put to. Housing Policy 15 applies a general rule permitting up to 50% increase in floor space for rural extensions. In addition the floorspace added via the approval and implementation of previous applications for extensions and alterations to the existing dwelling, as advised in the Planning History above, should be taken into consideration. - 6.6 The demolition of part of the existing barn structure would be acceptable, although in visual terms it would be undesirable. Whilst not a Registered Building, it is nevertheless, of architectural and historic merit. Once the roof is removed and the rear wall demolished it would lose its charm as a traditional Manx barn/stable, which internally, is fitted out as a horse/livestock accommodation with lime-wash, plastered walls; wooden stalls; original roof timbers; and, brick flooring with central drainage channel reflective of a traditional barn/byre/stable building. The proposed design involve the re-roofing of the partly demolished structure with a lower pitch roof to cover a greater span to accommodate the greatly increased floor area. This area would increase from the existing approx. 77.6m2 to approx. 176.4m2.

• This represents an increase of approx. 98.8m2, or 136%. This fails to comply with the provisions of Housing Policy 15 in the IoMSP 2016.
• 6.7 The proposed extension has been designed to maximise floorspace at the expense of the character, scale and proportions of the existing barn. The proposed choice of materials particularly the Box profile plastisol coated metal sheets finished in Laurel Green would be a poor substitute for the existing Manx stone, and would clash with the character and appearance of the Manx stone in the retained stables façade. This proposal is particularly poor in design terms because it would singularly fail to respect and appreciate the scale, character and appeance of the existing traditional barn/stables. This would fail to accord with the provisions of Policies STP5 and GP2b in the IoMSP 2106. Visual impact
• 6.8 In terms of how visible the scope of works are to the existing, Hp16 seeks that the impact when or if viewable is respectful to the properties proportions and appearance advising that extensions of poor or inappropriate form will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public.
• 6.9 The visual appearance of the new barn extension from the highway to the east would be limited, however, it would be extend on the side of the barn closest to the highway and there would be glimpsing views up the driveway entrance located immediately to the north of the barn when driving along this road heading in a southerly direction towards the coast and Perwick Bay. The barn is an isolated structure separate from the dwelling at Rose cottage and those passing views would ensure the enlarged building would continue to be read in the same context. When viewing the site from Fistard Road to the west, which is set at a lower level to Glen Chass Road, only glimpses of the barn are available owing to the undulating topography of the area. It is further noted that there is at present a dense, deciduous shrub screen on the boundary of the site with the highway, which when trimmed would reveal more of the enlarged structure on the site. Such exposure would simply further reveal what is a poorly designed extension which would be out of character and keeping with the area resulting in an unacceptable degree of visual harm.
• 6.10 It is considered the proposal represents an unacceptable form of development that would be out of scale and keeping with the character of the site and surroundings resulting in visual harm contrary to the provisions policies Ep1, HP16, GP2, and Gp3 in the IoMSP 2016. Neighbouring Amenities
• 6.11 The site sits amongst a liner line of residential dwellings, mainly two stories on the land scape, with the barn being located on the plot to the north of the dwelling at Rose Cottage. The nearest neighbours, to the north of the barn is 'Briarfield'. Approx. 20m away. Here the gable end of the extended barn containing the new dark green sectional door which would provide vehicular access into the new garage would face the front elevation of this 1 ½ storey dwelling and its attendant garage. The two properties share the existing, narrow, vehicular access onto Glen Chass Road, which is set between them. It is considered that the occupants of this neighbouring dwelling would not be impacted upon by the proposed development over the current level of built development on site through any loss of light, overlooking or loss of privacy. It is further noted we have not received any 3rd party/neighbour objections to the proposals. As such, these aspects would be considered to be compliant with the provisions of General Policy 2(g) in the IoMSP 2016. Other issues
• 6.12 The comments received from both the DoI Highways Team; and, DEFA Ecosystems Policy Team are both noted. They do not have any bearing on the outcome of the consideration of this application and the recommendation.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 The floorspace that would be created by the proposed extension to the barn to form a garage fails to accord with the floorspace restriction outlined in Policy H15. This, in addition to the floorspace added via the approval and implementation of previous applications for extensions and alterations to the existing dwelling would substantially, and unacceptably exceed the 50% floor-space threshold as outlined in IoMSP Policy H15.

7.2 For the above reasons, it is concluded that the proposal would fail to accord with the provisions of General Policy 2, and 3; Environment Policy 1 and Housing Policies 15 and 16 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. The application is recommended for refusal. - 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:

• o applicant (in all cases);
• o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and
• o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.

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):

• o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant);
• o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area;
• o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and
• o in the case of a petition, a single representative.

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: 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.