17 October 2025
Balladhoo Croft, Clanna Road, Braaid, Isle Of Man, IM4 2hw
Appeal against the refusal for the erection of two storey extension with integral garages
Erection of two storey extension with integral garages
Extension to dwelling
Erection of dwelling and detached garage, Site B, Balladhoo Croft, Nr Stuggadhoo, Clannagh Road, Santon.
Approval in principle for, (A) Demolition and rebuilding of existing cottage and, (B) rebuilding of existing outhouse as dwelling, Balladhoo Croft, Clannagh Road, Santon.
Installation of 1140 litre LPG tank, Balladhoo Croft, Clanagh, Braaid, Santon.
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.
DEFA Planning Officer provided a detailed Statement of Case opposing the appeal against refusal of a two-storey extension with integral garages, citing non-compliance with countryside and housing policies due to excessive mass, poor form, and harm to character.
Key concern: excessive mass and poor form harming character of existing house and countryside
DEFA Planning Officer
ObjectionThe proposed extensions harm the character of the existing house and the character of the countryside with its excessive mass and poor form.; Extension to a house should almost always: appearing subordinate to the existing house; be easily distinguishable from the existing house; and maintaining good legibility after the proposal.; For the front elevation, there is approximately a 110% increase in area compared to the existing one. For the south elevation, there is approximately a 220% increase in area.
Conditions requested: four-year expiration condition if approved; revised site plan with reduced red line boundary defining residential curtilage, or condition that residential curtilage is to be agreed with the Department
The original application for a two-storey side and rear extension at Balladhoo Croft was refused for harming the character of the house and countryside, conflicting with GP2, GP3, EP1, HP15, HP16 and C3/91. The appellant argued the house is non-traditional, the extension improves efficiency and sustainability, and precedents exist for larger extensions. The council defended the refusal emphasizing the extension's excessive size, poor proportions and dominance over the traditional-styled house. The inspector found the L-shaped extension excessive in mass, failing to subordinate to the existing house, harming character and public views contrary to HP15, HP16, GP2, EP1 and GP3. The appeal was dismissed on 16 October 2025.
Precedent Value
Demonstrates strict enforcement of HP15/16 subordination and 50% guidelines for rural extensions; even screened, energy-efficient designs fail if mass dominates original form. Future applicants must prioritise visual hierarchy and proportionality over functionality.
Inspector: Brian J Sims
