Loading document...
Application No.: 25/91010/B Applicant: Mr Dominic McGreevy Proposal: Replacement of existing outbuildings with detached garage and gym to west of curtilage Site Address: Riversdale Strang Road Union Mills Isle Of Man IM4 4NP Planning Officer: Russell Williams Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 22.01.2026 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The application proposes the demolition of a traditionally constructed building of historical significance that makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area and street scene. The application fails to justify the demolition of the building and the design and appearance of the replacement building, whilst not objectionable in its own right, would not give rise to an acceptable change to the character or appearance of the area and street scene. The proposed development therefore fails to comply with Strategic Policies 3 (b) and 5, General Policy 2 (b) and (c) and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan. _________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal None
_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site relates to a two-storey stone outbuilding set within the curtilage of Riversdale, Strang Road; a two-storey detached dwellinghouse located on the southern side of the highway within the built-up area of Union Mills. - 1.2 The building to be demolished is of a traditional stone construction beneath slate roof, with window and door openings to the east elevation. The building has chimney stacks to the north and southern ends of the roof.
1.3 The property's rear garden extends southward up to the northern bank of the River Dhoo, and includes a series of mature trees along its southern boundary.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing stone building and the erection of a new detached building housing a garage and home gym. - 2.2 The proposals include a new retaining wall with glass balustrade above, to the side of the new building. - 2.3 The new building will be finished in smooth cast render painted off white, with slate roof and white uPVC fenestration, all to match the main house. The retained stone boundary wall to the west will be repointed with lime based mortar and made good.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The site lies within an area zoned as 'predominantly residential' in the Area Plan for the East and within the settlement boundary of Union Mills. The site is not located within a Conservation Area or identified within an area at risk of flooding. - 3.2 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application: Strategic Policy - 3 To respect the character of our towns and villages 5 Design and visual impact
Spatial Policy
3 Development in Service Villages General Policy 2 General Development Considerations Environment Policy 4 Development required to safeguard biodiversity 42 Designed to respect the character and identity of the locality
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS - 4.1 The Residential Design Guide is a material consideration.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 5.1 13/00376/B Conversion of existing out building into a dwelling - Permitted - Appeal withdrawn - 5.2 18/00573/B Alterations, erection of a two-storey extension and alterations to vehicular access - Permitted - 5.3 23/00042/B Conversion and extension of existing outbuilding to provide guest accommodation/garage/home gym - Permitted (application amended to convert existing building and to omit its demolition).
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 6.1 The following Statutory Consultees have been consulted, and their responses can be summarised as follows: Bradda Commissioners - No comment received. DOI Highway Services - No comment received. DOI Flood Management - No comment received.
Senior Registered Building Officer - Objection: This application proposes to demolish a historic building and replace it with a single storey pitched roof building that would accommodate a garage and gym. Planning application
23/00042/B on this site approved the conversion of the existing outbuilding to provide similar ancillary accommodation.
No justification has been provided for the demolition of the existing historic building, and given that the building was judged suitable for conversion in 2023, it is unclear as to why the building is now not suitable for this purpose.
I consider the existing building to be one of historic interest and to make a positive contribution to the character of the streetscene. The loss of this building and replacement in the manner proposed would, in my view, harm the character and appearance of the locality.
6.2 No representations have been received from members of the public.
7.0 ASSESSMENT - 7.1 The key considerations in the determination of the application are:
7.2 The proposals relate to the demolition of a domestic outbuilding and its replacement with a modern, single storey garage and home gym, partly providing ancillary habitable accommodation to the main dwelling. - 7.3 The principal of ancillary accommodation and domestic garaging within the curtilage, within an area zoned as 'predominantly residential' within Union Mills is acceptable in accordance with Spatial Policy 3. HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT - 7.4 Having regard to the demolition of the two-storey stone building, it is important to consider the loss of the building upon the historic environment, as once demolished, it cannot be replaced. - 7.5 The existing building to be demolished is of a traditional vernacular and has a positive impact upon the character and appearance of the area. The building is constructed of stone walls and slate roof with chimney stacks at either end. Together with the fenestration arrangement, this creates the appearance of a former dwelling, though this cannot be confirmed. Notwithstanding, it is an attractive historic building that should, as far as possible, be retained. The application does not include any justification for the demolition of the building, and this was raised under application 23/00042/B as an issue, with the Registered Building Officer objecting to the demolition. - 7.6 Comments of the Senior Registered Building Officer have been sought and they have stated that the building is of historic interest and its demolition would harm the character of the area and street scene. Permission has been granted twice previously for the conversion of the building to residential use, most recently in 2023, and such demonstrates to Officer's that the building is suitable and capable of being retained for a viable alternative use. - 7.7 Having regard to the above and the lack of justification for demolishing the building, it is considered that the development as proposed would result in the loss of a historic, traditional building, resulting in harm to the character and appearance of the area and the historic environment. The replacement building would not be of a satisfactory design or appearance to justify the loss of the building and the proposals are therefore considered to conflict with Strategic Policies 3 (b) and 5, General Policy 2 (b) and (c) and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan. ECOLOGY - 7.8 The proposal involves the demolition of a two-storey building in an area where bats and birds could be present and the application is not supported by any ecological appraisal assessing the likely impact of the development upon protected species.
7.9 A bat and bird survey report was submitted with application 23/00042/B, which confirmed that bats were not present in the building, but that demolition would impact upon nesting bords. Since that assessment in 2023, it is unlikely that any significant change in circumstance will have occurred and so a precautionary approach to any demolition, were permission to be granted, would be reasonable and proportionate in this instance. - 7.10 To this end, the likely impact of any demolition upon bats and birds can be mitigated through a pre-commencement condition requiring a survey of the building to be completed, with any necessary mitigation agreed and provided thereafter. - 7.11 Having regard to the above, it is considered that the development will have a limited impact upon bats and that subject to compliance with the recommended conditions, any impact upon bats can be suitably mitigated in order to maintain a favourable conservation status within the site. This approach will ensure the development complies with Environment Policy 4 and General Policy 2 (d) OTHER MATTERS - 7.12 The design, scale and siting of the proposed replacement building is such that there would not be any adverse impact upon the amenity of neighbouring properties. Similarly, the design has taken into account surface water flows in the area and will not exacerbate any preexisting situation outside of the property.
8.0 CONCLUSION - 8.1 The application proposes the demolition of a traditionally constructed building of historical significance that makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area and street scene. The application fails to justify the demolition and the design and appearance of the replacement building, whilst not objectionable in its own right, would not give rise to an acceptable change to the character or appearance of the area and street scene. - 8.2 The proposed development therefore fails to comply with Strategic Policies 3 (b) and 5, General Policy 2 (b) and (c) and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan. It is therefore recommended that planning permission is refused.
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 : Refused Date: 27.01.2026 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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
