Loading document...
Application No.: 24/91170/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Damian And Sharlotte Bird Proposal: Extension to outbuilding to provide ancillary living accommodation and creation of new detached double garage Site Address: Ballakewin Old Farmhouse Foxdale Road Ballasalla Isle Of Man IM9 3ET Planning Officer: Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken: 13.02.2025 Site Visit: 13.02.2025 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 19.09.2025 _________________________________________________________________
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 ensure the continued wellbeing of the trees in the interests of the amenity and environmental quality of the locality
Reason: To ensure the continued wellbeing of the trees in the interests of the amenity and environmental quality of the locality
Reason: The application has been assessed on this use basis only, and is to be located in a key area with a high potential for surface water flood risk.
Reason: The application has been assessed on this use basis only, and in the interest of the protection of the countryside.
The amended outbuilding scheme is considered acceptable, remaining visually subordinate to the main dwelling and its physical works falling in line with those principles of Housing Policy 11 and Environment Policy 16 relating to works to rural buildings, and having acceptable visual impact in terms of General Policy 2 (b, c, g) and on the wider countryside. The garage, while involving the removal of boundary trees and resulting in considerable change to the streetscene, remains visually acceptable due to its subordinate scale, lower siting, and subordinate relationship to the dwelling and taking into account the relationship of its siting with the main house so as to not result in significant harm to the countryside in line with Environment Policy 1. Surface water flood risk is accepted in this case and conditions to
prevent any sleeping in the garage are appropriate along with tree conditions to safeguard those trees to be retained trees and provision of a tree method statement. Use of proposed annexe is also to be restricted in connection with the main house only.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the following:
_________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
Officer’s Report THE SITE
1.1 The application site relates to Ballakewin Old Farm House. - 1.2 Adjacent to the main dwelling is an existing single storey outbuilding comprises two parts both with mono pitched roofs. When visiting the site the building was mostly being used
1.3 The property is accessed by a long drive which runs besides an existing tennis court area and with off road parking for a number of vehicles of the road. - 1.4 Running parallel to the western boundary is the main A3 road linking with the Ballamodha straight. A large number of trees bound this highway edge creating a buffer. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the conversion and extension of the existing outbuilding to provide a selfcontained unit of accommodation to be used by a family member of the main house, and the creation of a new detached double garage. - 2.2 The proposal includes the following works:
3.1 The main dwelling has been subject to a number of previous application for alterations and extension, relevant in this case are:
4.1 The site is not designated for any use or development and sits within the countryside. The site sits opposite the Silverdale Conservation Area and a group of registered trees sits to the north of the dwelling. Part of the site is recognised as being at high risk of surface water flooding.
4.2 AREA PLAN FOR THE SOUTH 2013 o none - 4.3 ISLE OF MAN STRATEGIC PLAN 2016
4.5 Reference any relevant PPS or NPD
REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 Malew Commissioners - no objection (05 Dec 2024)
6.2 DOI Highway Services - no interest (25 Nov 2024) 6.3 DEFA Ecosystems Policy - No objection (14 Feb 2025) Bat report now provided dated Jan 2025, is all in order. Shows low/negligible potential for bats and therefore the development can proceed without mitigation for bats being required, though the report contains recommendations on work timings and external lighting which we request are considered
6.4 DEFA Registered Buildings Officer - no objection (27 Aug 2025) Amended scheme now a significant improvement. The historic form of the existing outbuilding is still apparent, and details such as the brick arch lintels over the windows are shown to be retained. Scale and position to be such that the existing building is now respected.. Although the proposed use of timber cladding appears to be a departure from the site's current palette of materials, the finishes of the extension and garage would match those of the extension to the host dwelling approved under 23/01397/B. The consistent use of cedar or larch vertical boarding on all of the proposed extensions on the site, when set alongside the painted render/stone finish of the historic buildings, does clearly differentiate the old from the new and successfully breaking up the massing of the buildings across the site. Amended scheme considered to respect the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form and design of the buildings on the site in accordance with general policy 2. - 6.5 DEFA Forestry - Forestry, Amenity and Lands no objection (12 Sep 2025) There is a group of registered trees on the site within the red line but these appear to be largely unaffected by the current proposal. The AIS is interpretable but is not to the BS5837 standard as the trees for removal are not colour coded correctly. The trees proposed for removal are some cypress hedging and a diseased ash. Consequently we would have no objection to the proposal on the grounds of tree removal per se. The TPP is insufficiently detailed and would ask that conditions are applied to any future consent to prevent any removal of trees, shrubs or hedges shown to be retained on the approval plans and no works to commence until an arboricultural method statement provided.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The application comprises two key elements, i) works to an existing outbuilding to create an annex to be used by a family member of the main house, and ii) the erection of a detached double garage. As part of the assessment of both consideration will be given to the impact on the countryside, impact on the existing outbuilding and main house, impact on trees and impact on flood risk.
Physical Works
7.2 The existing building is clearly of a size, scale, design and arrangement that is clearly subordinate to the main house and has some features which indicate a small degree of historic interest. The building was mostly being used as storage when visiting the site and planning history indicates its use as a home office. The original scheme sought a significant amount of changes to the existing building which resulted in its appearance as an independent cottage with integrated stacks and an extension with a much taller pitched roof arrangement. This scheme was felt to be unacceptable and tokenistic having adverse impact on the existing
building as well as the main dwelling and challenging the subordinate arrangement as existing. These concerns were expressed to agent.
7.3 Re-design was discussed via the RB Officer and judged to present an improvement compared to the original submission. The scheme as amended now seeks to retain part of the existing building and its mono pitch arrangement, albeit the rear ridge increased slightly and omitting the two chimney stacks. The proposed extension remains linked by a smaller flat roof and its asymmetrical pitched roof now flipped to run away from the original outbuilding and its height is reduced and window arrangement changed. The extension is not subordinate in footprint, but its siting at right angle to the main outbuilding helps to mitigate this to some level particularly from the views along the main road. - 7.4 The existing dwelling is large and so capable of accommodating some works within its immediate curtilage without resulting in any adverse visual impact, and the containment of the works within the existing building groups helps to ensure no adverse spread of development into the countryside or surrounding fields. The physical works to the existing outbuilding are considered within the bounds of acceptability of those principles set out in HP11 and EP16, and to accord with the general standards set out in GP2 (b, c, g). Use
7.4 The existing building was used in association with the main house as a home office and storage. The proposed outbuilding works are now to facilitate the creation of a small one bedroom self-contained annex for use by the applicants' daughter as extended living accommodation to the main house. The building sits immediately alongside the main house and shares the same access, driveway and immediate amenity space. The selection of finished materials for its extension also helps to create visual association with the main house. Appropriate conditions to ensure the outbuilding remain as part of the main dwelling are necessary to ensure its use remains connected and no subdivision or separation of the site into two planning units.
ii) works in the creation of new double garage.
7.5 A similar detached garage was approved under 23/01937/B albeit this was positioned within the existing driveway area and did not require the removal of any trees. The case officer for that application stated that the garage would be screened from view by being set down at a lower level compared to the house and tennis court and "would be unseen from public views from the A3" and that its presence on site would acceptable in terms of its design, scale and visual impact. - 7.6 The principle of having a garage remains acceptable and would not be an uncommon structure found within the curtilage of an existing dwelling (the Permitted Development allows for some degree of garage works within existing residential curtilages.). The agent has failed to provide any finished floor levels for this structure, but plans indicate its ridge being 1.9m below the eaves of the closest part of the main house, and its eaves being 4m below the main dwelling eaves, this siting remains at a lower level as concluded by the previous case officer and acceptable. - 7.7 However, the proposal now pushes the garage closer to the main road, includes the creation of additional driveway parking and proposes the removal of around 21m worth of cypress trees and one ash tree. The combination of such will result in a significant opening up of the site and considerably increasing public views. The removal of the boundary trees and vegetation will also eradicate the existing noise buffer from the main road, so noise from passing traffic will likely increase for the applicants although this is their own choice.
7.8 The issue lies in whether the loss of canopy cover and trees with no replacement is acceptable and whether the subsequent increased visual impact of the site is so adverse as to warrant a reason for refusal in this case. - 7.9 DEFA Forestry have commented accepting the loss of the trees and canopy cover without replanting and it would be unreasonable to reach any other conclusion in this case. Forestry have recommended conditions to ensure those trees indicated to be retained are suitably retained, and that a arboricultural method statement is provided before works commence on site and these two conditions are to be considered as part of any approval. - 7.10 From a planning perspective, the loss of the trees would significantly open up the site and making it noticeable more prominent from the main road and considerably less private. Given that the dwelling already exists and with some views from the road, the subsequent opening up as a result of the loss of the 21m of trees would not be considered to result in such an unacceptable adverse impact in this case given the overall site will be read as one with and in connection with the main dwelling. Yes it would create a change to the streetscene and possibly draw more attention and views from passers-by, but any loss of privacy is one the applicants will have to accept as a result of their proposed works. Flood Risk - 7.11 The proposed outbuilding extension and the garage both within areas recognised to be
8.1 The amended outbuilding scheme is considered acceptable, remaining visually subordinate to the main dwelling and its physical works falling in line with those principles of Housing Policy 11 and Environment Policy 16 relating to works to rural buildings, and having acceptable visual impact in terms of General Policy 2 (b, c, g) and on the wider countryside. The garage, while involving the removal of boundary trees and resulting in considerable change to the streetscene, remains visually acceptable due to its subordinate scale, lower siting, and subordinate relationship to the dwelling and taking into account the relationship of its siting with the main house so as to not result in significant harm to the countryside in line with Environment Policy 1. Surface water flood risk is accepted in this case and conditions to prevent any sleeping in the garage are appropriate along with tree conditions to safeguard those trees to be retained trees and provision of a tree method statement. Use of proposed annexe is also to be restricted in connection with the main house only. - 9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE
9.1 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). - 9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:
9.3 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. - 9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):
9.5 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: 23.09.2025 Determining Officer
Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer 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
