Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No.: 25/90463/B Applicant: Brickmann Ltd Proposal: Erection of new dwelling to replace existing derelict garage and outbuildings Site Address: Former Old Smithy Garage Mount Rule Road Strang Douglas Isle Of Man IM4 4QZ Senior Planning Officer: Jason Singleton Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 20.01.2026 _________________________________________________________________

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

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.

• C 2. The proposed building shall be built in accordance with the schedule of materials as annotated in drawing 1727-1 Rev 1 and those finishes and material shall be installed prior to occupation and retained in perpetuity. REASON: To ensure a high level of finish and appearance.
• C 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2025 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development shall be undertaken under the following classes of Schedule 1 of the Order at any time:

• Class 14 - Extension of dwellinghouse
• Class 15 - Garden sheds and summer-houses
• Class 16 - Fences, walls and gates
• Class 17 - Private garages and car ports

Class 21 - Decking Class 35 - Roof Lights

Reason: To control future development on the site

• C 4. The dwelling here by approved shall be built in accordance with the levels shown on drawing 1727-1 Rev 1.

Reason: To ensure the new dwelling is built to the required levels, and flood mitigation levels, as assessed by this applicaiton.

• C 5. Prior to occupation of the new dwellinghouse, the proposed hard and soft landscaping including boundary treatments shall be finished in full accordance with the submitted plans, or as otherwise approved in writting by the Deparmtnet. The three trees shown within the front garden area shall be planted with suitable native species and retained thereafter. REASON: In the interest of visual and neighbouring amenity .
• C 6. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the vehicle parking (and for Strang Stores) and turning areas have been provided in accordance with approved plans and the parking and turning areas shall thereafter be kept available for the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development. REASON: In the interests of highway safety.
• C 7. The proposed surface water drain for both parking areas shall be installed as per dwg 1727-2 prior to occupation of the dwellinghouse. REASON: To prevent any surface water entering the highway from the site.
• C 8. The existing rear walls of Stang Stores are to be made good as per drawing 1727-1 prior to occupation of dwelling hereby approved.

REASON: To ensure after demolition, the adjacent buildings elevations are finished and not left exposed to the elements.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposed dwelling has been designed to ensure it complies with Spatial Policy 4, Housing Policy 4 and General Policty 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan

Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the following information and drawings:

• o Location Plan
• o Location Plan Strang Stores Both date published online 06 May 2025.
• o Applicants response to consultations
• o Site photos Both date published online 17 Jul 2025.

• o DWG 1727 - 1 REV 1 - Site Plan, Elevations, Floor Plans and Section
• o DWG 1727 - 2 REV 1 - As existing and proposed including visibility splays and comparative elevation
• o Flood Risk Assessment Sep 25 All date published online 08 Oct 2025.

_________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal

It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:

• o Braddan Parish Commissioners - No Objection It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
• o DOI Highway Services - no objection subject to conditions which have been applied
• o DOI Flood Risk Management - no objection subject to conditions which have been applied

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given the Right to Appeal as they have submitted an objection that meets the specified criteria:

• o No, 1 Ballaoates Road, Strang, Isle of Man. IM4 4TE _________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 SITE - 1.1 The application site relates to an area directly behind Strang Stores, Strang where the remains of a previous single storey garage and workshop building sat also known as 'The Old Smithy'. The site fronts (south) onto Mount Rule Road and neighbours onto No.1 Ballaoates Road that sits to the east and Camlork Cottage to the west. - 1.2 The existing building is/was single storey in a stone construction that would have had a pitch tiled roof and is attached to the Strang Stores building on their west elevation. The building is currently partially demolished in that part of the roof structure has been removed but the walls are standing.

2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is the demolition of the existing structure on site and in its place the replacement of the remaining stone structures with a new single dwelling with off road parking and garden space. - 2.2 Proposed now, from amended plans is a one and half storey dwelling with first floor living space within the roof space. The front elevation comprises a lean-to porch and one contemporary styled dormer. At the rear is a single storey projection. The proposed dwelling will have an eaves level lower than Strang Stores and the central ridge will also be lower than the central ridge of Strang Stores. - 2.3 Off road parking is provided for two vehicles at the front as well as the creation of a one dedicated parking space for Strang Stores.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The site has not been subject to any previous planning applications considered materially relevant to the assessment of this application.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the East 2020 as 'residential' and within the settlement of Strang. The site is not recognised as being within any conservation area, nor are there any registered trees on site. There is some recognised surface water flood risk on recent flood mapping.

4.2 Relevant IOM Strategic Plan Policies 2016

• o Strategic Policy 1 - make best and efficient use of sites and utilising existing infrastructure
• o Strategic Policy 2 - new development directed to towns and villages
• o Strategic Policy 4(b) - Protection of built heritage and landscape conservation
• o Strategic Policy 5 - promotes good design
• o Strategic Policy 10 - sustainable transport
• o Spatial Policy 4 - Strang recognised as village where development should maintain existing settlement character and be of appropriate scale
• o General Policy 2 - general development standards including visual and amenity
• o Paragraph 7.3.4 - existing settlement character and identity to be conserved/enhanced
• o Environment Policies 10 and 13 - flood risk impact
• o Environment Policy 42 - Designed to take into account local character and identity
• o Environment Policy 43 - support proposals for run-down urban and rural sites
• o Housing Policy 4 - new housing within towns and villages
• o Community Policy 7 - designed to prevent criminal and antisocial behaviour;
• o Community Policies 10 & 11 - implement best practice so as to reduce the outbreak and spread of fire
• o Transport Policy 1 - best located close to existing transport links
• o Transport Policy 4 - Highway safety
• o Transport Policy 7 - Appendix 7 - parking standards
• o Infrastructure Policy 5 - methods for water conservation

4.3 Reference any relevant PPS or NPD o None

5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS - 5.1 Legislation o Section 68 of the Flood Risk Management Act (2013) indicates that any published Flood Risk Management Plan and the extent to which the proposed development creates an additional flood risk are material considerations. - 5.2 Policy/Strategy/Guidance

• o Manual for Manx Roads
• o Residential Design Guidance 2021

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only. - 6.1 DOI Highway Services - do not oppose subject to condition (09/10/2025) the site access, parking proposals and layout are still acceptable. The proposed parking for the proposed dwelling and existing building should be conditioned to be bound and consolidated and implemented before first occupation of the new dwelling and retained thereafter. - 6.2 Braddan Commissioners - Following the re-advertising of the application with the amended scheme the commissioners confirmed 'no objection' dated 07/11/2025. Their original objection (02/06/25) was based on the original scheme for the taller dwelling where they felt the building seemed somewhat overbearing. They also shared concerns about its development removing off street car parking and the potential impact on traffic by remove the parking exacerbating issues on Ballaoates Road which is used heavily by owners of large vehicles and lorries visiting the shop which restrict the width of the road leading to two hospital entrances and the Commissioners facility. - 6.3 DOI Flood Risk Management - Do not oppose subject to condition (15/10/2025) The proposed site lies within an area that has the potential to suffer from surface water flooding Please condition the mitigations - 300mm freeboard, more green field & drainage. - 6.4 DEFA Ecosystems Policy - no objection 27/05/2025 - 6.5 The following were consulted but no response received at the time of writing the report 13/01/2026:

• o Manx Utilities - electricity

• o Manx Utilities - drainage
• o Manx Utilities - water

6.6 The owners of No. 1 Ballaoates Road, Strang - objection (21/5/2025 and 14/11/2025).

• 6.6.1 Comments were received in respect of both schemes, the comments on the first scheme (21st May 2025) accepted that some form of redevelopment would be okay, but the submitted design was unacceptable sure to the following reasons:

• o the loss of light and overshadowing,
• o overbearing impact on outlook,
• o adverse visual impact on the surrounding area and impact on character of Strang as a hamlet
• o loss of parking and highway safety impacts as well as inadequate parking space sizes and visibility
• o inadequate cycle storage
• o flood risk

• 6.6.2 Following re-advertisement of the application with amended drawings, updated comments (17 November 2025) were received, and retained concerns as expressed in the earlier comments in regard to:

• o The proximity, size and height of the development and its overbearing impacts in relation to their dwelling
• o Whether the design is in keeping with the surroundings
• o Parking and highway safety issue remain an issue
• o Question whether the proposal will negatively affect flood risk in the area
• o Raise concern in the potential loss of privacy as a result of the proposed rear rooflight.

7.0 ASSESSMENT - 7.1 The fundamental tests to consider as part of remaining assessment are:

• i. Principle (STP1 and 2, SP 4 and Housing Policy 4)
• ii. Visual impact on site, streetscene and surrounding area (GP2, EP42, EP43),
• iii. Amenity Impact on neighbours (GP2)
• iv. Highway Impact (StgP10, GP2, TP's 4 and 7)
• v. Flood Risk Impact (EP's10 and 13)
• vi. Any other matters (CP's 7, 10, 11, and IP5)

PRINCIPLE

7.2 The existing site comprises the remains of an existing garage workshop building which sits within the defined settlement of Strang (SP4) and where the land is designated for 'residential' use as per TAPE. The proposal for the replacement of the existing structures with a new single dwelling would align with Strategic Policies 1 and 2, Spatial Policy 4 and Housing Policy 4 which seek to direct development to existing settlements and so in principle there are no objections. As such the principle of development on site would be acceptable. VISUAL IMPACT - 7.3 The existing building albeit partly collapsed is low level, single storey and finished in stone with predominantly slate roof materials. Its traditional form, proportion and material reinforce its secondary nature to those taller rendered buildings. - 7.4 The previous design was considered an unacceptable and ill-fitting pastiche and one which disrespected the height, form and arrangement of those traditional dwellings in the immediate area and was visually unacceptable. - 7.5 The proposal now follows from concerns raised in respect of the original scheme being too tall and having an overbearing and adverse impact on the immediate neighbours, as well as out of keeping appearance with the streetscene. - 7.6 A redesign has sought to lower the buildings height and modify its layout in trying to overcome any impact on neighbouring amenity (addressed in full below) and those visual concerns from the streetscene and wider area. - 7.7 As proposed the scheme is reduced to 1.5 storey with living space provided in the roof. The eaves sit approx. 700mm below the eaves of Strang Stores and its ridge height is proposed

• to be 400mm below the ridge of Strang Stores. The proposed dwelling is set back from Strang Stores and around 7m from the edge of the road. This set back position and reduced height both work towards reducing its visual prominence within the streetscene. The use of dark coloured palette of materials further help towards reducing prominence - just as the dark colours stone of the existing ruinous building.
• 7.8 The inclusion of windows across the frontage, as well as the dormer and domestication of the driveway and garden areas brings about a more domestic character and appearance to the site compared to the existing garage/workshop which will result in some visual change, however given the surrounding residential character is not considered to be so harmful as to warrant a concern or refusal in this case.
• 7.9 The proposal now has reduced the scale, its revised siting is no longer a gable fronting the highway, the layout and orientation is better suited to the plot size and its shape and the design now incorporates different materials where the front elevation is using vertical timber cladding to the walls and dormer to ensure a slight contemporary appearance, the windows and doors are finished in a grey colour helping to reduce its visual prominence.
• 7.10 It is acknowledged that within the character of the street scene this is not a design which is found within the area, however the are is not within a conservation area and it is not considered to be harmful in visual terms to result in a significant adverse impact to the streetscene or area.
• 7.11 On this basis of the above the proposals are now considered to accord with GP2, EP42, EP43 with conditions added to ensure the heights (roof ridge and eaves) and front elevation materials being dark grey are as per the drawing details, and landscaping provided in accordance with drawings provided too. AMENITY IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURS
• 7.12 The previous scheme was considered to have adverse overbearing, overshadowing and some potential perceived overlooking due to its proximity, height and its orientation particularly in relation to the neighbour at the rear No. 1 Ballaoates Road. The proposal now reduces the height to 1.5 storey and modifies the orientation and siting to mimic the building being replaced.
• 7.13 The proposal will be shorter in length than the existing garage/workshop, but at 1.5 storey will be taller than the existing building both in terms of eaves and central ridge height, and so the dwelling will have a massing greater than the building its to replace.
• 7.14 A section through the proposed building has been provided and a comparative outline from the roadside on drawing 1727-2. There are no comparative section or drawings shown through the road, proposed/existing building and No. 1 to demonstrate any 25 degree rule as referred in the Residential Design Guide.
• 7.15 However, there is some information available through site spot levels and proposed finished floor and ridge levels that can assist in assessment of impact. The proposal will have a ridge level 400mm lower than the ridge of Strang Stores and general eaves level 500mm below the eaves of Strang Stores. The proposal will have ridge 2.83m below the ridge of No. 1, and eaves 2.76m below the eaves of No. 1.
• 7.16 Views of the existing garage/workshop are achievable from the rear conservatory, parts of the side and rear garden and from first floor windows of No. 1. The proposal is taller than the existing structure and so will be more visible from the neighbours property. Given the height and design of the new dwelling being 1.5 storey and factoring in the existing boundary treatment, these views will likely be limited to eaves level and roof. The arrangement of the dwelling with the roof sloping away and the gap between the two-dwelling helping to reduce any significant overbearing impacts. The proposed dwelling sits south-west to No. 1, during summer there is likely to be limited or no loss of sunlight due to height of the sun, however during winter the low sun path level may result in reduced direct sunlight and some overshadowing to parts of the conservatory and garden later in the day, however the arrangement and orientation of the proposed dwelling and roof slopes, and the gaps between buildings here that the degree of reduced direct sunlight is not considered to be so harmful as to warrant a significant adverse impact on overall living conditions of No. 1. Currently No. 1 benefits from views over and beyond the existing garage/workshop roof, there is no right to a

• view however the current outlook is somewhat open. The development of the new dwelling will reduce this view by introducing a taller structure, however its ridge height being below Strang Stores and its eaves lower too, it's not considered to result in such a detrimental impact beyond existing buildings or to overall outlook as to significantly harm the amenities or living conditions of No. 1.
• 7.17 In terms of privacy, the change from a garage/workshop to a new dwelling will bring about a more permanent residential nature of occupation. There are no rear elevation windows and only one rear roof light serving a bathroom and as such there is no privacy or direct overlooking expected from the proposed dwelling into No. 1. There are a number of end gable windows looking into the rear garden, those at ground floor will have intervening boundary treatment limiting any overlooking and privacy, and the angle and outlook from those at first floor are not expected to result in such a level of overlooking or privacy impact due to the distance and angles between properties, and recognising that one at first floor serves a bathroom too.
• 7.18 The proposed dwelling will be taller and more noticeable from the neighbours perspective when compared to the old smithy, particularly from the rear garden and conservatory of No. 1. However the design and the approach taken to this, noting the 1.5 storey design, its roof arrangement sloping away from No. 1 and lower ridge/eaves levels, the distance from boundary and the window arrangement all helps to result in a proposal that is considered to not have an adverse impact as to harm the general living conditions of the neighbours to an unacceptable degree.
• 7.19 To ensure what is proposed on the plans, happens on site when the property is built, it would be prudent given the neighbouring concerns to add a number of conditions in respect of building heights (roof ridge and eaves), along with revoking PD rights for any further roof lights, dormers or any further extensions or garage/car port structures. This aspect would be considered compliant with those sections of General Policy 2(g). HIGHWAY SAFETY
• 7.20 There is an existing open forecourt to the front of the existing garage which has been unrestricted and so likely utilised as outlined in the original comments made by the local authority. There are two off road car parking spaces provided and this meets with the minimum standards set out in the IOM Strategic Plan.
• 7.21 The proposal also results in the creation of a dedicated car parking space between the dwelling and the rear of Strang Stores which is to be allocated for Strang Stores. Existing deliveries for the store are to remain via the access off Ballaoates Road. While some vehicles may have benefitted from the unrestricted private forecourt most reasonable car owners would remain on the legal highway. The land owners are entitled to remove this unrestricted use, and so the proposal is not expected to result in any increased or adverse impacts on the local highways beyond the existing lawful situation. A condition for the car parking to be provided prior to occupation shall be added to any approval.
• 7.22 The comments from Highway Services are noted and as the transport professionals, they have considered the merits of the proposals, access to and from the site from the highway, as well as parking and manoeuvrability within the site. As such they don't object and consider the proposals would have no adverse impact upon highway safety for users of the site.
• 7.23 From a planning perspective and having considered the highways safety aspect and the use of the proposed accesses in a safe and appropriate manner, it would not be considered to have any adverse impact on the wider existing highway or upon those users entering, parking and exiting the site. As such the proposal would be considered to align with the principles of Gp2 h&I and the relevant design guides (MfMR) and best practice guidance. FLOOD RISK IMPACT
• 7.24 Information has been provided that indicates the applicants awareness of potential surface water flood risk. DOI FRM have indicated no objection subject to conditions seeking the mitigation outlined in the FRA which will be applied.

• ANY OTHER MATTERS
• 7.25 The application is on a one for one basis with the previous garage workshop, the proposal is not expected to result in any new or increase fire risk or fire spread, and being located within the existing settlement and surrounded by existing development is not expected to result in any new or increased antisocial behaviour. There are not expected to be any water conservation issues beyond the existing situation and noting the one for one replacement. CONCLUSION

8.0 For the above reasons, it is concluded that the planning application would be an acceptable form of development within a defined area for residential use that has been designed to ensure that it would not harm the character of the area in terms of visual appearance and would not harm the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties which would further comply with aforementioned planning policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and is recommended for approval. - 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:

• 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.

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):

• 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.

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: 21.01.2026 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.