Loading document...
Application No.: 25/90110/B Applicant: Mrs Julie Walker Proposal: Replacement of portion of existing dwelling, conversion of integral swimming pool annex to ancillary accommodation, erection of detached garage and erection of 16 PV solar panels Site Address: Corlea Farm Corlea Road Ballasalla Isle Of Man IM9 3BA Senior Planning Officer: Jason Singleton Site Visit: 03.04.2025 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 20.05.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The proposed replacement dwelling, due to its size and scale, is not sympathetic to the rural character of the area and is considered over-development with an adverse visual impact that affects the character of the setting contrary to Housing Policy 14 and Environmental Policy - 1 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016. _________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DoI - Highways Services - No objection Malew Commissioners - No objection
_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Corlea Farm House, Corlea Road Ballasalla. The property sits to the south of the highway of Corlea Road (B39) and is set back by approx. 80m and a lower level than the highway. - 1.2 The existing dwellinghouse is characterised by a traditional Manx Stone dwellinghouse, at two stories in height with a pitch tiled roof with a large porch to the front and a sun lounge to the south. The orientation of the property places the traditional front elevation facing west. To the rear is a two story extension that is narrower than the width of the dwellinghouse and
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 This application proposes the demolition of the dwelling house and its later extensions and in its place the erection of a replacement dwelling house with a detached garage and conversion of swimming pool annex to ancillary accommodation. Also proposed is the installation of 16 No. ground mounted Solar Panels. - 2.2 The proposed dwelling would broadly measure a footprint of 12m wide x 30m long and 10m high. The property would be predominately two stories in height but appear three / four stories given the vertical massing and fenestration detailing and topography of the site. - 2.3 The proposed replacement dwelling would be finished with natural slate with contrasting ridge tiles, velux windows, aluminium guttering, down pipes in black, mixed natural stone walls and cement render, Aluminium windows and doors Stainless steel handrail and glass balustrade. - 2.4 The agent notes the proposals would offer the external sizes for the floors; 562 sqm ground floor (existing 472sqm) 304 sqm first floor (existing 215sqm) 67 sqm attic Total 933 sqm - 2.5 Also proposed is a detached garage (10m x 7m x 6.2m) with additional space above. The garage would sit to the north of the dwellinghouse and would feature a three bay parking arrangement with an open plan ground floor area for parking of vehicles and an open plan floor above in the eaves with an external staircase and four smaller dormer windows.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 In terms of area plan policy, the Area plan for the South application site is not identified within any defined settlement maps (Map 4- Ballasalla, Map 5 - Castletown, Map 6 - Colby & Ballabeg) but is shown on the wider Map 3 - Proposals as white land or land not zoned for development. - 3.2 Map 2 (landscape Assessment Areas) notes the site as being within and area defined as "Incised Inland Slopes" and a reference of D14 which is cross referenced to the written statement accompanying the Area Plans where it notes; - 3.3 D14 - (Ballamodha, Earystane and St Mark's) "The overall strategy is to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area, with its wooded valley bottoms, its strong geometric field pattern delineated by Manx
Spatial Policy; 5 Building in defined settlements or GP3 General Policy 2 General Development Considerations (a-n) 3 Exceptions to development in the countryside Environment Policy 1 Protection of the countryside and its Ecology Housing Policy 4 Location of new housing and exceptions 14 Replacement dwelling in the countryside Transport Policy 4 Highway safety 7 Parking provisions
3.8 Other Material Considerations The Residential Design Guidance (March 2021) which provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of any development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property. - 3.9 Planning Circular 3/91 - Guide to the design of residential development in the countryside.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 The application site benefits from the following historic approvals;
23/01022/B - Enlargement of horse riding arena and change of use of fields 435361 and 435344 from agricultural to equestrian. Approved.
21/01474/MCH - Minor Change application to PA 21/00420/B involving alterations to approved windows and roof windows. Approved.
21/00420/B - Conversion of existing farm buildings into 2 tourist accommodation units. Approved. 20/01398/B - Conversion of redundant farm buildings into 3 Tourist Accommodation Units. Refused. 13/00506/B - Creation of new vehicular access and driveway to farm
04/00219/B - Extension to dwelling to provide indoor pool, office and additional living accommodation and erection of an agricultural building to replace existing.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS (in brief, full reps can be read on line) - 5.1 Malew Commissioners (05/03/25) - No objection. - 5.2 DoI Highways Services (27/02/25) - "Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking providing all new living accommodation on the site remains ancillary." - 5.3 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team (27/02/25) - No objection but seek a condition for location and type of bird bricks suitable for starlings and no or only low level external lighting.
6.0 ASSESSMENT The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;
6.1 The starting point here is the land designation within the area plan which designates the site as not zoned for development or within the countryside setting. The location of the site has an existing dwelling and swimming pool complex that is habited by the applicant and is also immediately adjacent to another residential dwelling. The character of the area is sporadic dwellings located along Highway / Corlea Road, but this site is not identified as being within any service centres (Spatial Policy 2) or service villages (SP3) or remaining villages (SP4). - 6.2 However, Strategic policy 2 ensures development within existing towns and villages is broadly supported except in 'exceptional circumstances' development in the countryside is allowed as identified in paragraph 6.3 which directs us to GP3. In this instance, GP3(d) allows for replacement dwelling in the countryside and further supported through Housing Policy 4(c) and directs to housing policies 12,13,14. - 6.3 The application site benefits from extant approvals (noted in the planning history) for the existing built forms. These proposals for a replacement house that would overlap the existing footprint of Corlea Farm House and would be replaced on a one for one basis, albeit larger. - 6.4 The principle of the proposal could satisfy the criteria for a replacement dwelling on this site through Gp3(d) and echoed through HP 4(c) with an the emphasis is on HP 14 for its replacement and further assessment below to ensure the replacement does not have any visual impact and is appropriate for the countryside setting as echoed through EP1.
6.5 The starting point here is the level to which the building has already been modified which has eroded much of its Manx stone farmhouse character (possibly pre-1920's) of traditional vernacular and introduced a full two story extensions to the east in an ad hoc sprawling manner over the years to reflect the needs of the occupants. The design statement highlights the conception and evolution from what was formerly approved and built on site, the redundancy of the swimming pool and general levels of costs associated running the building. - 6.6 The strategy of demolition and replacing the dwelling could be supported through HP14 and the second part of the policy allows for buildings that are innovative, modern design and of high quality rather than trying to follow a traditional method of design as noted in planning circular 3/91. - 6.7 Turning to the design, visually the proposed dwelling house would be considered larger in terms of volume taking into consideration the proposed height, massing and scale resulting in an increase of 26% of the current built form on site and considerably more than the original dwelling house but benefits from a number of approvals, including the existing pool house building (to be ancillary accommodation). The policy does allow for the increase 50% in exceptional circumstances where the replacement is of poor form but that is of the original building and the policy is clear the replacement should relate closely to the buildings they replace in terms of siting and size. - 6.8 However, the overall appearance here would be two stories with three pitched roofed gables and two separate chimney stacks. Arguably the dwelling house would naturally be the larger of built form (and highest) than the adjacent farm buildings. The use of larger glazing fenestration which would increase its presence on the landscape and the overall increase in height and scale would increase the massing in a fashion that is neither innovative nor traditional and would be read contrary to HP14. - 6.9 A concerns is also felt with the internal layout and its potential for the creation of two separate dwellings given the floor plans, albeit this is not being considered here. Equally concerns are raised with the ceiling heights and the creation of three floors of accommodation, with the use of double volume ceiling height to the upper reception and above the master bedroom. Technically at a later date these could have mezzanine floors added and further increasing the over internal area. This mean that at present the increase in floor area could technically complies with floor area requirements but in practical terms is much larger than the policy would allow for and is reflected in the built massing having an increase visual presence. - 6.10 Whilst this visual appearance is subjective, the particular design could not be seen to meet the criteria of HP14 (innovative/modern/high quality) and whilst the use of natural stone with slate roofs, it is its size, scale and the design would represent a missed opportunity on site to provide a replacement dwelling that would comply with the aforementioned wording from H14. As such the proposal would be contrary to Housing Policy 14.
6.11 From the site visit, it was noted where the public vantage points would be and how visible the site is that is to be developed. The existing collection of buildings cannot be seen readily from the Ballamodha straight to the east, when travelling in a northward direction. However, from the Corela road to the north of the site the upper proportions of the dwellinghouse, its extensions, the swimming pool complex and the aforementioned agricultural buildings would have glimpsing views from the highway over the top of the hedgerow where there are low spots or gaps and here the existing dwellinghouse is the highest built form with its prominent chimney stacks. - 6.12 When viewed from the highway, (approx. 80m away) those views would be of the collection of existing built development on site and the design of the proposed replacement dwelling would lean towards a design approach that would appear as three built forms with
6.14 When considering traditional properties in the countryside, the rationale is that they should ideally follow that of more traditional vernacular as noted in planning circular 3/91 to ensure any visual impact is appropriate for the countryside. This policy approach can offer greater protection in line with the planning policies that seek to prevent unwarranted development. - 6.15 The newly built neighbouring property to the west as approved under 14/01385/REM has a front elevation facing the highway that has some semblance of a traditional house with a symmetrical frontage with vertically proportioned windows either side of a projecting dormer and porch below. The rear elevation is more contemporary with striking timber detailing and significant areas of glass within the timber frames. It has to be noted that the neighbouring property and its boundary wall has a greater visual impact on the landscape. - 6.16 Part of the proposal is a detached garage (10m x 7m x 6.2m) which would exacerbate the overall built form on site and would not be considered to help this application. - 6.17 On balance, the overall visual impact here would be considered detrimental in this instance over and above the existing visual amenity given its setting in the landscape and the proposed design and scale of built development resulting in a greater visual impact on the countryside contrary to HP14 and EP1.
6.18 The relationship to the neighbouring property to the west, also within the applicant's ownership on the location plan would be approx. 100m apart and at a different level on the landscape. Nevertheless, the physical proportions of the proposed property would not be considered to have any material harm in terms of having an overbearing impact or any loss of light over and above the existing levels to the enjoyment of their dwellinghouse or their private amenity space given the properties orientation and the distances involved between the respective dwelling houses. As such this aspect would accord with RDG'21 and GP2g.
6.19 Highway Services have considered the merits of the existing entrance, the specific dimensions involved and access to and from the site from the highway noting visibility splays. As the transport professionals their comments are heavily relied upon and it is noted they do not object to this application. Having considered the highways safety aspect and the use of the existing entrance in a safe and appropriate manner with parking and manoeuvring within the site, it would not be considered to have any adverse impact on the existing highway or upon those users entering and exiting the site. As such the proposal would be considered to align with the principles of TP4 &7.
7.1 For the above reasons, it is concluded that the planning application would be contrary to Housing Policy 14 and Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the Residential Design Guide 2019 and 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:
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):
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: 11.06.2025 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
