24 April 2006 · Director of Planning and Building Control (M. I. McCauley) - Delegated under Article 3(13) of the Town and Country (Development Procedure) Order 2005
Ballachrink, Richmond Hill, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM4 1jg
The proposal involved demolishing unattractive existing outbuildings (part single, part two-storey, footprint 116m²) and replacing them with a new two-storey building (illustrative footprint ~125m², larger than the main house) for ancillary living accommodation linked to the existing farmhouse at Upper Ballachrink in a…
Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.
See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.
The officer concluded the proposal fundamentally conflicted with the long-established presumption against new build residential development in the countryside, articulated in three ways: the site is n…
Policy 5.8 of Planning Circular 6/91
Policy lists circulars (including 1/88 Revised) detailing restrictions on countryside residential development, to be respected. Officer assessed proposal as contrary, as it seeks new build housing not serving agriculture, in unzoned area.
Planning Circular 1/88 Residential Housing in the Country
Sets presumption against new countryside housing except for viable agricultural holdings; land allocated only in town/village extensions to protect fragile rural areas. Officer/parish/appeal all applied strictly; no special circumstances outweighed policy despite unattractive existing buildings.
Recommend approval despite policy conflict, as no detrimental impacts; existing building derelict; suggest conditions for design per Planning Circular 3/91 and ancillary use.
No objection; existing outbuildings 'awful'; tie use to dwelling by condition; precedent set elsewhere (c/f 05/1239).
No comment on merits; request informative note for water connection if approved.
Braddan Parish Commissioners recommended approval subject to conditions ensuring compliance with countryside design policies and ancillarity; IoMWA requested a standard water connection condition; SPMC&E stated no objection if firmly tied to the existing dwelling.
Key concern: proposed development could be defined as being contrary to existing planning policy
Braddan Parish Commissioners
Conditional No Objectionwhilst accepting the proposed development could be defined as being contrary to existing planning policy, the Commissioners were satisfied that there would be no detrimental impacts occurring as a result of the proposed development in particular as the proposed development was replacing an existing building which had become derelict; recommend approval of the application in principle
Conditions requested: proposed dwelling to be constructed in accordance with Planning Circular 3/91 policies 2-8 inclusive – Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside; proposed development must be ancillary to the existing development
IoMWA
Conditional No ObjectionFor single connections to a water main (i.e. a single dwelling) the applicant should contact IoMWA Customer Services, tel. 69 59 49
Conditions requested: condition of planning be that the applicant must contact the Authority to ensure that a connection is obtained for water supply purposes, or an amendment to the existing supply under the terms of the Water Supply Byelaws
SPMC&E
No ObjectionThe outbuildings are awful!; If firmly tied by Condition (or, better still, a legal agreement) to the existing dwelling, it would seem to follow precedents set elsewhere. C/f 05/1239; The Society will not object.
Conditions requested: firmly tied by Condition (or, better still, a legal agreement) to the existing dwelling
The original application to demolish outbuildings and erect a two-storey building as ancillary accommodation to the existing dwelling was refused by the Planning Committee for being contrary to Braddan Parish District Local Plan zoning, Policy 5.8 of Planning Circular 6/91, and the presumption against new residential development in countryside under Circular 1/88. Appellants argued it was a variation of a prior approval, would replace unattractive outbuildings with a sympathetic barn-style design, met family needs, and was supported by parish and conservation society. The inspector found the proposal would create a separate dwelling larger than the main house, causing significant harm to the countryside character contrary to Circular 1/88, rejected ancillary status and precedent claims, and noted policy protection outweighs family needs. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the refusal.
Precedent Value
Demonstrates strict application of Circular 1/88 presumption against countryside housing; ancillary claims fail if scale suggests separate dwelling; prior approvals only persuasive if directly comparable in scale and character. Future applicants must demonstrate genuinely subordinate scale or agricultural need.
Inspector: David G Hollis
