Officers Report

Application No.: 25/90870/C Applicant: Mr & Mrs Stephen & Roxy Skillicorn Proposal: Conversion of existing outbuilding to ancillary accommodation (Class 3.3) Site Address: Ballamodha House Ballamodha Straight Ballamodha Ballasalla Isle Of Man IM9 3AY Planning Officer: Vanessa Porter Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 27.11.2025

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun either before the expiration of four years from the date of this approval or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters.

Reason: To comply with article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019

• C 2. The habitable accommodation within the proposed garage/store hereby permitted shall remain ancillary to the host dwelling "Ballamodha House" and shall not be used as a selfcontained independent residential unit.

Reason: In the interests of sustainable development and to safeguard the countryside for its own sake.

• C 3. Notwithstanding the details provided within this application, no permission is given to the use of the barn as tourist accommodation or as separate residential accommodation not ancillary to the main dwelling. Reason: The application has been assessed on the basis of ancillary accommodation only

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposal complies with Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 2 & 3 and Environment Policy 1 & 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This decision relates to the following plans and drawings, dated received on 29th September 2025;

• o Covering Letter
• o Drawing No. 01P
• o Drawing No. 02P

This decision also related to the following additional plans, dated received 25th November 2025;

• o Drawing No. 03P
• o Drawing No. 04 _________________________________________________________________

Right to Appeal

It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DOI Highway Services - No objection Malew Parish Commissioners - No objection

_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The application site is within the curtilage of Ballamodha House, Ballamodha Straight, Ballasalla which is a two storey dwelling situated to a corner plot, where the Ballamodha Straight meets The Bayrruyr road. The specific part of the site which is relevant to this application is a two storey barn situated to the North of the site. - 1.2 The site is accessed via a driveway of The Bayrruyr road. - 1.3 During the officers site visit, it could be seen that the barn had been re-pointed, with new windows, doors, internals and roof. There was also a flue situated to the Western side of the barn. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The current application seeks approval for the change of use of the existing two storey barn into ancillary living with a kitchen/ lounge area to ground floor and bedroom, en-suite to first floor. PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 There are several previous applications upon the site as a whole, whilst this is the case, none are relevant in the assessment of this application. PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as "Not for Development" on the Area Plan for the South. The property is not within a Conservation Area or a Flood Risk Zone.

- 4.2 STRATEGIC PLAN

• Strategic Policy 1 - development should be located to make best use of previously developed land, redundant and underused buildings and utilising existing infrastructure;

• Strategic Policy 2 - focuses new development in existing settlements unless complies with GP3;
• Strategic Policy 3 - to respect the character of our towns and villages Strategic Policy 5 - development must be well designed; Strategic Policy 10 - development should promote integrated journeys, minimise car use and facilitate other modes of travel;

• Spatial Policy 1 - priority to Douglas for development
• Spatial Policy 2 - identifying Service Centres for development
• Spatial Policy 3 - identifying service villages
• Spatial Policy 4 - remain villages
• Spatial Policy 5 - building in defined settlements or GP3 Spatial Policy 5 - new development will be in defined settlements only or in the countryside only in accordance with GP3;

• General Policy 2 - detailed 'development control' considerations;
• General Policy 3 - acceptable development in areas not zoned for development; Environment Policy 1 - the countryside must be protected for its own sake; Environment Policy 42 - new development should be designed to take into account the character and identity of the area; Community Policy 7 - designed to prevent criminal and antisocial behaviour; Community Policies 10 & 11 - implement best practice so as to reduce the outbreak and spread of fire; Housing Policy 4 - new housing will be located primarily within the existing towns and villages Housing Policy 11 - conversion of existing rural buildings list Transport Policy 1 - best located close to existing transport links Transport Policy 4 - safe and appropriate provisions for journeys; Transport Policy 7 - parking standards Infrastructure Policy 5 - methods for water conservation

- 4.3 DEFINITION OF CURTILAGE

• 4.3.1 Definition of curtilage is found within Appendix 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and states, "The area of land attached to and around a building, used with the building and within which the building is set (e.g. the garden and driveways of a house, the storage yard of a factory). Land used with a building but severed from it by, say, a highway or service land is not part of the curtilage of that building.

4.4 OTHER MATERIAL MATTERS

• 4.4.1 Planning Circular 3/91 - Guide to the residential development in the countryside.

• 4.4.2 Residential Design Guide (2021) - This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction.

4.5 HISTORIC UK CASE LAW

• 4.5.1 Dancey & Co v SoS & Lewes DC 1980: In Dancey & Co v SoS & Lewes DC 1980 the basic premise that curtilage definition is essentially a matter of fact and degree was established. In Methuen-Campbell v Walters 1979 a paddock attached to a garden was not considered to be within a curtilage as it was separated by a fence and not therefore intimately associated. The Methuen-Campbell case was quoted in James v SoS & Another 09/10/1990 where a tennis court had been erected some l00 metres distant from a house beyond an area of undergrowth and rough grass and a partial and indistinct line of trees and shrubs. It was held that an inspector had been correct in deciding that curtilages did not have precise limits and that each situation must be considered according to the facts of each particular case.

• 4.5.2 Gravesham B.C v SSE (1984) P. & C. R. 142: In an enforcement appeal the Secretary of State determined that a building was a dwellinghouse and that decision was upheld in the High Court. Mr Justice McCullough stated that the issue is one of fact. A distinctive characteristic of a

dwellinghouse was its ability to afford to those who use it the facilities required for day-to-day private domestic existence. He noted that the use to which a building is put may be relevant but is not conclusive. For example, a wooden shed consisting of an office, w.c. and washbasin could hardly be turned into a dwellinghouse because someone put furniture in it and lived there.

• 4.5.3 In Attorney-General ex.rel Sutcliffe, Rouse & Hughes v Calderdale BC 1983 the Court of Appeal accepted that three factors had to be taken in determining what constituted a curtilage a) the physical layout of the building and structure, b) ownership past and present, and c) use and function past and present.

• 4.5.4 In the Court of Appeal in Sumption v London Borough of Greenwich 08/04/2008. The court summarised from the authorities the three tests to be used to address the question of curtilage. First, a single ownership is neither necessary nor sufficient to make land a single curtilage. Two, co-occupation of the house and land is not sufficient. Third it is not necessary for the land to be useful, advantageous or necessary to the dwellinghouse for it to be regarded as part of the curtilage. The court also emphasised that it also essential a matter of fact and degree.

• 4.5.5 In Barnett v SoS & Another 23/03/2009 the Court of Appeal had to consider whether one or other of two planning permissions had defined a curtilage and, if so, its extent, as the submitted site plans were inconsistent with each other. Planning permission had been granted in 1995 for the erection of an estate manager's dwelling on agricultural land and in 1998 planning permission was granted for a single-storey extension and alterations to that dwelling. Subsequently, an area outside the site granted planning permission in 1995 but within a red line site plan accompanying the 1998 application was brought into garden use and leisure facilities constructed there. Refusal of retrospective planning permission and subsequent enforcement notices were appealed. The appeal court upheld the high court finding of a distinction between the situation where permission was granted for a new dwelling house, whose curtilage would normally be identified by the site as defined on the site plan, and the situation where permission was sought to alter or extend an existing dwelling which had an existing curtilage. Permission to construct a new dwelling on non-residential land in effect contained a built-in application for change of use to residential purposes and defined the extent of the land so covered. The court concluded that since there had been no application for a change of use as part of the 1998 application, the curtilage could not be extended merely by submitting or subsequently relying on a site plan covering a wider area. REPRESENTATIONS
• 5.1 The following representations can be found in full online, below is a short summary;

5.2 Highway Services have considered the proposal and state, "After reviewing this Application, Highways HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking providing the development remains ancillary to the existing building for the lifetime of the development via condition." (06.10.25) - 5.3 Malew Parish Commissioners have considered the proposal and state no objections. (07.11.25) - 5.4 Manx Utilities were consulted on the 21st October 2025 of which no consultation has been received at the time of writing this report.

PREAMBLE

6.1 It should be noted that as mentioned in part 1 of this report, a lot of works had been done to the barn which was seen during the officers site visit. The windows and doors were replaced under Class 38 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2025.

6.2 It's also noted that the installation of the flue and the replacement roof are retrospective. ASSESSMENT - 7.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are as follows:

• - principle/ compliance with Housing Policy 11
• - curtilage definition and acceptability of ancillary use of the building
• - design and visual impact
• - neighbouring amenity
• - highway safety and parking provisions

- 7.2 PRINCIPLE / COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSING POLICY 11

• 7.2.1 The starting point for any application is the land designation, which for the application site is the 1982 Development Plan which make it clear that the site is situated within a rural and protected part of the countryside where any development is strictly controlled, with the site not being allocated specifically for any development.
• 7.2.2 The barn sits outside of any settlement boundary which is a requirement of Spatial Policy

5 in that new development should be located within defined settlements and if not development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3.

• 7.2.3 With the above in mind, General Policy 3 is the most relevant policy when assessing this application, given that the site sits within the open countryside, and outside any defined settlement boundary. In the first instance whilst the site has a structure on it, the proposal isn't for the rebuilding of the structure nor is it counted as a significant amount of building, the proposal isn't for the replacement of an existing rural dwelling as such the proposal fails parts c) and d) of General Policy 3.
• 7.2.4 The proposal is not location dependent nor in the relation to the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services, the proposal isn't essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry nor is there an overriding national need or the site is required for the interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage, as such the proposal fails parts e), f), g) and h) of General Policy 3.
• 7.2.5 This then leaves part b) of General Policy 3, which states, "(b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11). When looking at Housing Policy 11, the policy itself is directly related to the conversion of redundant buildings into dwellings, which is defined as a building occupied for residential purposes, as such the proposal to covert the existing barn into ancillary accommodation would fit within this.
• 7.2.6 When considering Housing Policy 11, in the case of this application, whilst not provided as part of the application, the applicant discussed that the barn was used for storage which was no longer needed during the officers site visit, as such it is accepted that the existing use of the building is redundant from use, and as such would comply with part a) of Housing Policy

1. The building is structurally intact as such, the proposal complies with part b) of Housing Policy 11.

• 7.2.7 The existing barn is constructed out of stonework and as such is of architectural interest, as such the proposal complies with part c) of Housing Policy 11. There are proposed no additional extensions to the property, with the drawings showing that the proposed barn can viably be turned into a one bedrooms property, with the foul sewerage going into the existing with the main dwelling. Overall the proposal is modest and would not adversely affect the charact or interest of the site, as such the proposal complies with part d) of Housing Policy 11.
• 7.2.8 The proposed ancillary use of the barn would not be at odds with the surrounding established uses, as such the proposal complies with part e) of Housing Policy 11 and the

existing connections are the same as the main dwelling, as such the proposal complies with part f) of Housing Policy 11.

- 7.3 CURTILAGE DEFINITION AND ACCEPTABILITY OF ANCILLARY USE OF THE BUILDING

• 7.3.1 In most cases, the definition of a curtilage does not cause much controversy. This is because although ownership is not on its own a determining factor, the boundary of a private garden or the extent of the land surrounding business premises is normally defined on the ground by some physical features and by function as a matter of fact and degree.
• 7.3.2 The barn is shown on the historic mapping and due to the lining could have been it's own separate planning unit at the time. Whilst this is the case, over time it can clearly be seen that the both the barn and main dwelling have been clumped together, with the close proximity of both being a major factor in the barn being within the residential curtilage.
• 7.3.3 This then brings forward the proposed ancillary use of the building, when looking at ancillary accommodation, it must be subordinate to the main dwelling with its function being supplementary to the use of the existing dwelling. Such additional accommodation should normally be attached to the existing property and internally accessible from it, which it can clearly be seen, is not part of this proposal.
• 7.3.4 In this regard, there is clear case law that has accepted that self-contained accommodation as being ancillary to the main dwelling, such cases include when the unit would be occupied by a dependant relative and who might pay the bills etc. However, in most cases the test of whether a development comprises as a separate planning unit rests upon its severability i.e. if the ancillary accommodation could practically and viably operate on its own were the primary use of the premises cease to be in the ownership of the same person.
• 7.3.5 With the above in mind, there are several tests which can be put forward to assess what the possibility of the severability of the site would be. The first test would be whether the proposal is subordinate to the main dwelling, it can clearly be seen that whilst the barn is two storey it is majority smaller that the main dwelling. The next is whether there is a clear link to the main dwelling, this one is harder is assess with the proposed ancillary accommodation being completely separate to the main dwelling. Whilst this is the case, the proposal is only 3m away from the main dwelling, which means that there is substantial overlooking between properties.
• 7.3.6 The next test would be whether the ancillary accommodation would share a common access and be within the residential curtilage of the main dwelling. As discussed above the proposed barn is situated within the residential curtilage. When looking at whether the proposal would share a common access, there is only one entry and exit from the site which is situated to the South of the site.
• 7.3.7 When looking at whether the proposal would have a functional connection with the main dwelling, the application form states that the connections are the same and the main dwelling. With the covering letter stating that the ancillary accommodation would be for elderly family members, and it is acknowledged that the overall site would be within the same ownership of the main dwelling. Due to the proposed ancillary nature of the site, this would be conditioned as such.
• 7.3.8 The last part on whether assessing whether the site would be ancillary from the main dwelling would be whether the ancillary accommodation could be encompassed within the main dwelling at a later date, that there is no boundary demarcation or sub division and whether the site would have the necessary facilities if separated.

• 7.3.9 As stated previously, the amenities for the site such as foul sewerage, electric etc. are all going to be shared with the main dwelling, as such from this point of view it would be very hard to separate the site from the main dwelling without substantial infrastructure to do so.
• 7.3.10 From the officers site visit it was clear it would be hard to separate the barn from the main dwelling, with there only being one entrance in and out, and also when noting the close proximity of the barn to the main dwelling, which has substantial overlooking impacts.

- 7.4 DESIGN AND VISUAL IMPACT

• 7.4.1 When looking at the design and visual impact from the proposal, the barn has had minimal works to bring the barn up to a modern standard, all of which would be expected and are deemed to comply with General Policy 2 (b) & (c), and Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan.
• 7.4.2 Turning towards the proposed flue, whilst the flue is highly noticeable due to it's location upon the barn, generally due to the overall site being situated in a skutch of dwellings, the proposed flue is unlikely to impact the character of the area, especially when noting that flues are becoming an increasingly popular item within residential properties.

- 7.5 NEIGHBOURING AMENITY

• 7.5.1 Turning towards whether the proposal would have an impact on neighbouring amenity above and beyond what is currently in place, especially when noting that the barn is almost directly adjacent to the ancillary accommodation at "Willow Ash Cottage," that is situated to the North of the site.
• 7.5.2 Whilst there would be a difference in the site being used as ancillary accommodation than being used as a site for the storage of household items, it's unlikely that the increase would be above and beyond what would be expected of such a site. It's also noted that there are no windows within the North elevation and as such, there would be no impact with regarding to overlooking or overbearing impact.

- 7.6 HIGHWAY SAFETY AND PARKING PROVISIONS

• 7.6.1 The proposed property will be access from the main The Bayrruyr road, of which Highway Services have not raised any objections. With regards to parking, there are several available places for parking within the red lined area, as such the proposed two spaces required as per Transport Policy 7 is deemed complied with. CONCLUSION
• 8.1 Overall, the purpose of the planning system is to control the use and development of land in the public interest. That requires a consideration of what is most appropriate for the population of the island as a whole. The protection of the Manx countryside from development and the presumption that new housing should be directed to locations consistent with the principles of sustainable development are two of the most important themes running through the Strategic Plan, the purpose of which is to establish a consistent framework within which the public interest can be served by the planning system. When making a planning decision that has permanent consequences (such as the erection of a dwelling as is proposed here) it is also essential to bear in mind that the development sought will endure long after the circumstances of the current applicant have ceased to exist.

8.2 Ultimately the proposed alterations to the existing barn are deemed to be acceptable with conditions regarding the ancillary use, as the proposal is deemed to be of an appropriate form, mass and design, which would not be a detriment to the character of the wider locality and as such complies with Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 2 & 3 and Environment Policy 1 & 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, with conditions to clearly state that the proposal is ancillary to the main dwelling and can only be used this way.

• 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.

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: 28.11.2025 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.