Loading document...
Application No.: 25/90898/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Edwin Kinrade Proposal: Erection of porch to front elevation and alteration to boundary wall Site Address: Ballaquine Farmhouse Glen Roy Lonan Isle Of Man IM4 7QE Senior Planning Officer: Mrs Louise Phillips Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 25.11.2025 _________________________________________________________________
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: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding landscape.
The proposed new porch and wall would respect the proportions, form and style of the host property and would not cause detriment to its character and appearance. They would similarly cause no harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside. Consequently the proposed development would comply with the Development Plan and relevant guidance.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the following plans:
_________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the right to appeal: o Garff Commissioners - No objection.
_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 Ballaquine Farmhouse is part of a small, attractive farm complex on the north side of Baldhoon Road. The house is set well back from the road within a self-contained yard including a few stone barns. It is of a traditional style, although the windows are now of UPVC glazing. It is finished in white render, as is the existing garden wall proposed to be replaced. There is an open-fronted pillared/canopy feature around the front door.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The proposed development is an enclosed porch projecting around the front door to replace the open feature described above. It would measure approximately 3.7m wide x 2.8m deep x a maximum of 3m high. It would be made of rendered brick/concrete blockwork and have pillars beneath a precast lintel with a triangular top. The front elevation would include a large UPVC window, while the entrance door would be to the west side. - 2.2 The proposal also includes the partial replacement of the front garden wall and gate posts. The new wall would be constructed of concrete blockwork, finished in painted render, and measure approximately 1m high. The existing gate would be re-hung between the new posts.
3.1 The application site is not within a Conservation Area and there are no Registered Buildings, Registered Trees or Registered Tree Areas in the vicinity. The site is not at risk of flooding. Area Plan for the East 2020 - 3.2 The site is not zoned for any particular type of development and is therefore in the countryside for planning purposes. Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 - 3.3 General Policy 2 provides various criteria for managing the impact of development, including those below which are relevant to this proposal. The development should:
3.4 Environment Policy 1 protects the countryside and its ecology for its own sake.
3.5 Housing Policy 15 states that the alteration or extension of traditionally styled properties in the countryside will normally only be approved where they respect the proportion, form and appearance of the property and measure less than 50% of the existing floor space (measured externally).
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Circular 3/91: Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside
4.1 This acknowledges the importance of walls and gates to the character and appearance of the area. It further notes that porches are not common features and so, where they are required, their form and construction should be compatible with the vernacular style of rural buildings. Residential Design Guide 2021 - 4.2 Paragraph 4.5.2 advises that front extensions/porches should appear as if they were designed with the original building and not look out of place in the street scene.
5.1 22/01195/B: Replacement front porch. Permitted. - 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 Garff Commissioners, 06/11/25: "There were no objections or concerns raised with this application. The Commission thanks the Planning Authority for the opportunity to comment on this matter".
6.2 Highways Services was consulted on 9 October 2025 but, at the time of writing this report, no comments had been received. - 7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.1 The porch would be a small structure, falling well within the 50% floorspace limit for extensions set out in Housing Policy 15 of the Strategic Plan. Therefore, taking account of the matters above, the main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
7.2 With its pillared design and shaped lintel, the porch would have an attractive, traditional appearance which would be in keeping with the proportions, form and style of the host property. The lintel would be well-aligned with the window above and, being a small addition, the porch would neither dominate the existing building nor disturb its balance.
7.3 The realignment of the garden wall is necessary to enable the construction of the porch and the resulting front garden on the east side would be only a little larger than at present. The new wall and posts would be of a similar style and height to the ones to be replaced and the existing gate would be re-used. If painted to match the finish of the house, they would not detract from its present character and appearance. - 7.4 Overall, both the proposed new porch and wall are well-designed and could be accommodated without detriment to either the character and appearance of the host building or wider area. Thus the development would comply with General Policy 2 (b) and (c), Environment Policy 1 and Housing Policy 15 of the Strategic Plan. It would also be consistent with the advice set out in both Circular 3/91 and the Residential Design Guide. Other Issues
7.5 The proposed development would not affect any other residential properties and it would not give rise to issues of highway safety. - 7.6 The porch granted planning permission under 22/01195/B remains extant. This was smaller but in the same position as the current proposal and could not therefore be constructed in addition.
8.1 The proposed new porch and wall would respect the proportions, form and style of the host property and would not cause detriment to its character and appearance. They would similarly cause no harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside. Consequently the proposed development would comply with the Development Plan and relevant guidance and so it is recommended for approval accordingly. - 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):
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: 25.11.2025 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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
