Appellant - Statement of Case

APPEAL No AP25/0030 - APPEAL AGANST THE REFUSAL OF PA 25/90539/B - Single-storey extensions to east and south elevations; erection of porch; erection of detached storage building at Balnahow Farmhouse, Balnahow, Santon, Isle of Man IM4 1HN

• 1.0 INTRODUCTION

Whilst we appreciate every application is considered on its own merits, as evidenced in our design report and subsequent request for an appeal, there are several applications where stand-alone buildings have been approved within the vicinity of Balnahow that we believe to be relevant to the consideration of this application where relevant comments from planning officers report are attached as appendices with the summary of their relevance as set out below

21/01036/B - No.5 Balnahow Farm Cottage -–Erection of a detached shed/boathouse – APPROVED The overriding policies considered relevant here were: Strategic Policy 4 b (in part) b) - protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations. General Policy 3: (in part) - development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with exceptions. Environment Policy 1 - where the countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. In his assessment, the planning officer advised the flowing:

House stables boathouse

• 6.4 The erection of a detached timber framed building would sit adjacent to the existing stables building and would not be introducing a new element into this area that is not already present. Given this part of the site is bound by a Manx stone wall and is in close proximity to the dwelling house, the general principle of a structure here could be acceptable (and appropriately conditioned to prevent any material harm) so long as there is no detrimental visual impact in accordance with Environmental Policy 1 to ensure any development does not adversely affect the countryside. (ii) Impact of the proposal

• 6.5 Having considered the principle / the close proximity of the dwellinghouse to that of the existing barn and proposed location of the building, we turn to the siting of the building and its general appearance. The light weight design of the buildings utilising timber frame and timber cladding twinned with its low profile height and siting adjacent to the existing stables all helps to ensure any visual impact from distance views (if achievable) are mitigated.
• 6.6 Those aspects ensure the proposed building would not appear out of character in its setting and would be read in conjunction with the existing stables building and that of the wider Balnahowe buildings. This helps ensure the overall visual impact on the countryside is kept to a minimum thus limiting any visual impact. In this instance is not considered to have a detrimental impact which would adversely affect the character or quality of the landscape (and conditioned appropriately) to such an extent to warrant a refusal and would comply with the criteria of Environment Policy 1 in terms of no adverse impact.

• 7.0 CONCLUSION
• 7.1 The planning application has been designed to ensure its siting and appearance has no adverse impact on the character of this site and the wider countryside, which has been recommended for approval.

In the case of the stand-alone building proposed here, its design and position accords more fully with planning policy than the boat house does as:

• a) it sits within a residential curtilage
• b) its position is allied fully with the current hardstanding and associated buildings
• c) its lower height is more akin to stables than the boathouse is and its timber clad finish is fully in keeping with its rural setting

Proposed outbuilding

PA 16/01084/B – Hillcrest - Erection of agricultural barn in field adjacent to Hillcrest - APPROVED

Here the proposal was to erect an agricultural building at the northern end of the site, alongside and over the hedge from Hillcrest, overall size13m by 9m and 2.4m to the eaves and 3.2m to the ridge, finished in tanalised timber boarding with metal sheeting on the roof.

In her assessment the planning officer advised the following:

6.3 The siting is as close to the existing dwelling, the closest existing building, as is practicable which will limit its impact, as seen behind Hillcrest rather than as an isolated building in the countryside. The building is also modest in area and height which will assist in the reduction of its impact. The building will be visible from the right of way, but alongside an existing dwelling and of modest size and whose use is compatible with the expected management of the land.

6.5 The introduction of new buildings in the countryside should only be accepted where it is absolutely necessary and whilst it is of concern that this may be necessitated due to property being sold, in this case, the visual impact of the new building is limited due to its size and position and the circumstances around the proposal are considered to justify approval of the application. A condition should be attached which requires the removal of the building should it no longer be required or used for its intended purpose.

Proposed outbuilding

We believe these proposals here align much better with planning aspirations than the Hillcrest shed that received approval at the outset as:

• a) the siting here is as close as practically possible to the current house and hardstanding thus minimising its impact on the surroundings
• b) Its single storey height and overall footprint are much more modest in nature to the much larger footprint and two-storey nature of Balnahow, compared to the shed that is similar in size and height to Hillcrest.

14/01412/B - Cregs Weld -– Erection of a replacement general storage building - APPROVED

Like the application currently under consideration, the propsal here was the replacement of the existing outbuilding with a new building to accommodate storage space for the applicant's tractor, trailers, domestic vehicles and stables.

The size and impact of the proposal were not considered unreasonable and as such was recommended for approval.

Whiles we appreciate the stand alone building proposed here is not replacing anything that exists, its use aligns fully with what was considered appropriate in terms of Cregs Weld, and its more in keeping stable like design, modest size, and position in close proximity to the existing house and hardstanding mean an approval here is equally valid.

With regard to the extension of the house, we believe the following application to be relevant in terms of which planning policies should be applied to this application:

PA 22/00550/B - Yn Rheash, Corlea Road, Ballasalla - Extension to garage annex Extract from the Inspectors Reports

• 2. The existing dwelling, Yn Rheash sits in a generous garden, on the northern side of the Corlea Road with Cringle Plantation sitting immediately to the north and west with the reservoir to the west of that. The property is partly traditional but has been extended and altered over time with a side annex built as a continuation of the original cottage. A garage lies behind the house with living accommodation included above.
• 3. The garage currently provides for parking for at least three cars and a large kitchen/utility area on the ground floor. The upper floor serves a bedroom, lounge and large bathroom. A track which serves the Cringle Impounding Reservoir and parts of the Cringle Plantation sits on the eastern boundary of the site, with a hedge forming the boundary marker with the track. The proposed development
• 4. The application sought approval for a side and single storey extension to the detached garage. The proposed works would include an extension to the side of the garage. The extension with accommodation at first floor, would create additional garage space for three additional cars, with a kitchen/dinner, store and entrance on the ground floor, while the upper floor would serve a new lounge, two bedrooms and a bathroom.

The following policies were considered to be relevant to the application:

• 7. The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South as not designated for a particular purpose and where there is a presumption against development as set out in General Policy 3 (GP3) of the IMSP. Environment Policy 1 (EP1) protects the countryside for its own sake.
• 8. The Area Plan includes a Landscape Character Appraisal which designates the land in which the site lies as on the cusp of an area of Incised Slopes and one of Southern Uplands. The accompanying advice for these areas in the Plan is to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the open and exposed character of the moorland, its uninterrupted skyline and panoramic views, its sense of tranquillity and remoteness and its wealth of cultural heritage features and key views.
• 9. The implications of the Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) include protecting and enhancing the identity of Ballasalla, protecting the tranquil, rural character of the area with its open views and locating new buildings sensitively.
• 10.Housing Policy 15 (HP15) sets out that the extension or alteration of existing traditionally styled properties in the countryside will normally only be approved where these respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. Only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions which measure more than 50% of the existing building in terms of floor space (measured externally).
• 11.Housing Policy 16 (HP16) states that the extension of non-traditional dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public.
• 12.Strategic Policy 2 (SP2) sets out that new development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in exceptional circumstances.

• 13.Spatial Policy 3 (SP3) identifies Ballasalla and other as service villages and Spatial Policy 5 (SP5) requires new development to be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3.
• 14.Housing Policy 4 (HP4) states that new housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages, where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in exceptional circumstances.
• 15.Environment Policy 1 (EP1) states that the countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative.
• 16.In addition to Policies of the IMSP, Planning Circular 3/91 (Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside) amongst other things, advises on extensions to existing buildings.

However, his assessment and conclusions read as follows:

• 40. The starting point in my deliberations must be what has been applied for and that is as set out above. Namely, an extension to the garage annex as set out in the application form. However, the reasons for refusal, officer’s report and subsequent appeal statement have considered the application to be tantamount to a separate dwelling within the countryside.
• 41. In that light the proposal has been considered by the planning authority, against the strict policies that seek rightly to protect the countryside for its own sake. If this was an application for a separate dwelling all of those arguments would be valid. Whilst I recognise concerns regarding the finished size of the accommodation, the history of the site and the potential for the use to not be ancillary, which I address below, it is clear that the proposal is to extend an existing residential property, within its accepted residential curtilage and policies concerning new dwellings in the countryside should not apply.
• 42. That is reflected by the planning permission nearby (ref:22/00969/B). I recognise each case must be decided upon its own merits and the development was different in that case however, what is applicable is that the area was, as in this case, zoned as “not for development” and that HP16 was key. Moreover, that there is a general presumption in favour of extensions or alterations to existing properties set out in the IMSP, where such works would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent properties or the surrounding area in general. I see no difference here. To that end EP1 and HP16 are germane.
• 43. In that light there is only one main issue; the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area. To which I now turn.
• 44. The extension would be situated to the rear of the existing property, and I recognise it would be a large addition increasing the built form in the locality. I also accept that the resulting garage could, in isolation, be viewed as tantamount to a dwelling. However, I must consider the effect of the built form on the character and appearance of the location which includes the existing dwelling and garage.

• 45. When approaching the appeal site from the east the road is banked either side and not until relatively close to the site does the roof, and some of the upper floor elevation, of Yn Reash, come into view. On foot that view is insignificant. When facing the property, the land rises toward the main dwellinghouse and development behind it is relatively unseen. When approaching from the west the property is screened by woodland. It is in that context that the extensions should be considered, and I recognise that there would be more built development seen from public vantage points.
• 46. However, given the topography of the land and the existing buildings, any effect would be minimal. The extensions would not draw the eye or appear out of sorts within the setting. I say that having considered views from the adjoining land but again the development would not look contrary to the house and garage that currently exists particularly given the extension will use materials to match. It would be an addition to the built form in the locality, but the existing built form is an established residential feature, within its own residential setting. Moreover, any views of it would have to be actively sought.
• 47. For these reasons, the development would not result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the locality. It would not be at odds with EP1 and HP16 which seek to protect the countryside and require developments to have an acceptable effect when viewed by the public.

In summary, the policies that were ultimately considered relevant to that application were limited to EP1 and HP16. As our application is to extend and add an outbuilding within the residential curtilage of a traditional style property in the countryside the corresponding policies that would apply here are EP1 and HP15

Turning again to this application, the design of the existing house is traditional in nature with the existing orangery being an established non-traditional form.

In 6.10 the planning officer advises “there is no particular Policy in IOM SP 16, relating to the provision of outbuildings and ancillary structures in the curtilage of a dwellings in the countryside. With this in mind it is considered the provision of Housing Policy 16 applies. This restricts the extension of nontraditional dwellings where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public – the site, whilst not readily visible from the main road network, is visible from the public road in the approach to Balnahowe from the south-west”

We have several comments to make in this respect. Firstly, we contend this is a traditional dwelling where HP 15 applies rather than the extension of a non-traditional dwelling where HP16 applies. Even if the building is considered non-traditional, the stand-alone building is not attached so cannot be considered an extension to the house. Regardless of both these comments, as can be seen from the photographs that follow, taken at sewage treatment areas where hedgerows otherwise preclude visibility, the site cannot be seen from the nearest public road that leads to Meary Veg. As such there can be no increase in the impact of the building as viewed by the public.

At 6.11 the planning officer then advises “that the provisions of HP15 apply regardless of appearance of the outbuilding which is here being viewed as an extension to the dwelling because it would sit approximately 10.0m from the house, and owing to the ancillary level of accommodation it proposes, and lawful uses which it could be put to”

As previously advised, this outbuilding is stand-alone where no lawful uses could apply.

• As a standalone building its floor area cannot be taken into account when calculating the increase in floor area of the existing house, the calculation of increase for which can be summarised as follows:

Single storey side extension (pantry) = 22.68m2 Single storey porch extension = 8.5m2 Single storey, Orangery extension = 30.62m2 Total increase proposed 61.8m2

The previous extensions of 74.08m2 and the extensions proposed now, 61.8m2, total 135.88m2. This is a net increase of circa 39% of the original house size of 348.23m2 and well within the 50% increase referred to in HP15.

• At 6.13 of his report, the panning officer advises “the storage building represent a large oversized structure which would be poorly related to its surroundings and as such it would be contrary to the provisions of GP 2b) and GP 3c)” leading him on to say “fail to accord with the provisions of ENV1”

However, as evidenced above, the outbuilding sits within a residential curtilage, it has been positioned as close as it reasonably can to the existing house and hardstanding, its size is modest when viewed in the context of the large three storey house, and its stable like design is very in keeping with its rural setting.

• In 6.14 the planning officer accepts the design of the pantry and porch extensions to be acceptable in the context of the dwelling as previously extended.
• In 6.15 the Orangery extension is considered to be out of scale and keeping with the dwelling on site sating “Its overall length/depth of approx. 6.3 when added to the approx. 5.09 of the existing orangery , overall depth of 11.39 overall depth would be out of scale and keeping with the dwelling on site” with its poor design being contrary to various policies.

As highlighted in our design report, the proposals were discussed at great length with the planning department. GP2 and HP15 requires the design to be in keeping with the current building. Whilst this was the starting point for the extension to the orangery, through extensive pre-panning consultation the design of the orangery was amended at the planning officer’s behest to reflect what he in consultation with his co-workers wanted to see as the orangery approved in 2016 was no longer considered an appropriate design solution. At no point was a more traditional solution suggested.

Whilst the single storey orangery design is non-traditional in nature, the increase of 30.62m2 of the non-traditional building compared to a final building floor area of circa 484m2 when complete is nominal in the context of the site, and its lack of visibility from anywhere bar from within the site means its impact on the surroundings is nominal.

• 2.0 COMMENTS IN RELATION TO THE REASON FOR REFUSAL

R1. The principle of development is unacceptable because it would result in the storage building and Orangery extension being out of scale and character with the countryside location. In this case, the close proximity of the storage and garage/workshop building to the dwelling, is read as an extension to the dwelling. Policy H15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, permits up to 50% increase in floor space for rural extensions. The combined floor-space of the new structures, together with those previously approved and implemented, would represent a total increase of 77.95% floor area, which demonstrably exceeds this floor-space limit. Therefore, the proposal would result in an excessive form of development in the open countryside, out of scale for the site and its rural surroundings, and would be contrary to the provisions of Strategic Policy ST2; Spatial Policy SP5; General Policy GP2 b) and c); General Policy GP3 a), b) and c); and Housing Policies H15 and H16 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016; and, Planning Circular 3/91.

As evidenced above, the starting point for this reason for refusal is incorrect. The storage building is clearly a stand-alone building sitting minimum 5.2m away from the current garage.

All elements of the proposals are single storey. The overall footprint of the house and outbuilding amount to 413m2 (278m2 extended house + outbuilding of 135m2) compared to a site area of 3950m2 which cannot be seen as “an excessive form of development in the open countryside, out of scale for the site and its rural surroundings”

Our comments in relation to each of the policies cited in this refusal are as follows:

Strategic Policy 2: New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3.

Spatial Policy 5: New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3.

All works are to be carried out within an accepted residential curtilage and policies concerning new development in the countryside should not apply. As evidenced above, this is borne out by a the Planning Inspector‘s report in relation to PA 22/00550/B where new development in the countryside policies were used to support the planning department’s refusal of an application for the extension of a garage annex within a residential curtilage where that site also sits within the countryside, were deemed not applicable - see quote below.

“40. The starting point in my deliberations must be what has been applied for and that is as set out above. Namely, an extension to the garage annex as set out in the application form. However, the reasons for refusal, officer’s report and subsequent appeal statement have considered the application to be tantamount to a separate dwelling within the countryside.

1. In that light the proposal has been considered by the planning authority, against the strict policies that seek rightly to protect the countryside for its own sake. If this was an application for a separate dwelling all of those arguments would be valid. Whilst I recognise concerns regarding the finished size of the accommodation, the history of the site and the potential for the use to not be ancillary, which I address below, it is clear that the proposal is to extend an existing residential property, within its accepted residential curtilage and policies concerning new dwellings in the countryside should not apply.”

As such we contend the relevant policies applicable to this application are limited to EP1 and HP15

General Policy 2: Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;

• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;

As highlighted in our design report, the proposals were discussed at great length with the planning department. The extension to the existing orangery that started off as a like for like addition was amended at the planning officer’s behest to reflect what he and his co-works wanted to see as the orangery approved in 2016 was no longer considered an appropriate design solution. At no point was a more traditional solution suggested.

No concerns re the garage/storage building were expressed other than the applicant should keep it as low as possible, which it is, and keep it within the existing residential curtilage, which it is.

The location of the stand-alone building, which is set forward and to the side of the main house, makes best use of the existing hardstanding, its design is rural in nature and as evidenced earlier, less impactful than others recently approved in the area.

The scale of all elements of the proposals fully accord with the size of the site where once extended the footprint of building occupies just over 10% of the site (416m2 compared to an overall site area of 3950m2)

All elements of the proposals are single storey meaning the overall impact on massing is nominal, and being located on the south side of the house with the garage set as low as possible the effect on the amenity of neighbours is also nominal.

• As evidenced earlier and in our appeal request submission, the site cannot be seen from public roads in the area. Taking all the above into account, including the planning departments pre-planning guidance, we contend the proposals accord with the ethos of GP2

General Policy 3: Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:

• (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10);
• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11);
• (c) previously developed land(1) which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment;

• At 6.13 of his report, the planning officer advises the storage building represents a large, oversized structure which would be poorly related to its surroundings and as such it would be contrary to the provisions of GP 2b) and GP 3c)

However, this is not a redundant use site where redevelopment is proposed. All works are to be carried out within a residential curtilage where policies concerning new development in the countryside should not apply.

Housing Policy 15: The extension or alteration of existing traditionally styled properties in the countryside will normally only be approved where these respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. Only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions which measure more than 50% of the existing building in terms of floor space (measured externally).

As evidenced at the start of our comments in relation to R1, the increase in floor area is within the 50% that would normally be considered acceptable under HP15 and taking into account all matters covered under GP2 including the planning department’s pre-submission advice, we contend the design accords with the ethos of HP15

Housing Policy 16: The extension of non-traditional dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public.

Given the house is deemed to be of traditional form where HP15 applies, we contend this policy cannot apply as well. Regarding Planning circular 3/91, whilst the house is predominantly of traditional design, the orangery that was approved in 2016 is not. As highlighted in or design report submitted with the application extensive pre-planning consultations took place and the planning departments guidance followed. At no point was the applicant advised to follow a more traditional route.

R2. The proposed extension to the 'Orangery' is unacceptable because it would be out of scale and keeping with the dwelling on site. Its poor design would result in it appearing as a visually intrusive, and incongruous addition to the traditional Manx farmhouse appearance of the host dwelling. Whilst views of the site and surroundings are limited it would represent a large, oversized structure which would be poorly related to its rural surroundings and as such it would be contrary to the provisions of Policies GEN2 b) and c); GEN3 c) H15; ENV1 and ENV2 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and, Planning Circular 3/91.

As evidenced above, the design of the extension to the orangery evolved through extensive pre-planning consultations, primarily in order to address the planning officer’s concerns with the style of the orangery that was approved in 2016.

Our response in respect of GP2 remain as follows: The proposals were discussed at great length with the planning department. The extension to the existing orangery that started off as a like for like addition was amended at the planning officer’s behest to reflect what he and his co-works wanted to see as the orangery approved in 2016 was no longer considered an appropriate design solution. At no point was a more traditional solution suggested. No concerns re the garage/storage building were expressed other than the applicant should keep it as low as possible, which it is, and keep it within the existing residential curtilage, which it is. The location of the stand-alone building, which is set forward and to the side of the main house, makes best use of the existing hardstanding, its design is rural in nature and as evidenced earlier, less impactful than others recently approved in the area.

The scale of all elements of the proposals fully accord with the size of the site where once extended the footprint of building occupies just over 10% of the site (416m2 compared to an overall site area of 3950m2)

All elements of the proposals are single storey meaning the overall impact on massing is nominal, and being located on the south side of the house with the garage set as low as possible the effect on the amenity of neighbours is also nominal.

As evidenced earlier and in our appeal request submission, the site cannot be seen from public roads in the area. Taking all the above into account, including the planning departments pre-planning guidance, we contend the proposals accord with the ethos of GP2 In terms of GP3 as stated in our response to R1 this is not a redundant use site where redevelopment is proposed. All works are to be carried out within a residential curtilage where policies concerning new development in the countryside should not apply. Regarding HP15, as evidence in our response to R1 the increase in floor area is within the 50% that would normally be considered acceptable; and taking into account all matters covered under GP2 including the planning department’s pre-submission advice, we contend the proposals accord with the ethos of HP15 In respect of the other policies referred to in this refusal we would advise the following:

• Environment Policy 1: The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative.
• Environment Policy 2: The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV’s) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:

• (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or
• (b) the location for the development is essential.

As previously stated, all works are to be carried out within an accepted residential curtilage and policies concerning new development in the countryside should not apply.

This applies equally to Panning Circular 3/91 that specifically deals with development in the countryside rather than within an existing residential curtilage.

R3. The proposed erection of the detached storage building is unacceptable because it would result in a large scale, single storey structure in a visually prominent part of the site within this open rural landscape which would be out of scale, character and keeping with this countryside location and its surroundings. As such, it would be contrary to the provisions of Policies GEN2 b) and c); GEN3 c), H15; and, Planning Circular 3/91. Furthermore, this element of the proposals would be contrary to the provisions of Environment Policy ENV1 which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake; and Environment Policy ENV 2 which indicates that such development will only be permitted where:

a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential." In this case, neither of these criteria in Policy ENV2 are met.

As per our response to R1 and R2 our comments in respect of GP2 remain as follows: The proposals were discussed at great length with the planning department. The extension to the existing orangery that started off as a like for like addition was amended at the planning officer’s behest to reflect what he and his co-works wanted to see as the orangery approved in 2016 was no longer considered an appropriate design solution. At no point was a more traditional solution suggested. No concerns re the garage/storage building were expressed other than the applicant should keep it as low as possible, which it is, and keep it within the existing residential curtilage, which it is. The location of the stand-alone building, which is set forward and to the side of the main house, makes best use of the existing hardstanding, its design is rural in nature and as evidenced earlier, less impactful than others recently approved in the area. The scale of all elements of the proposals fully accord with the size of the site where once extended the footprint of building occupies just over 10% of the site (416m2 compared to an overall site area of 3950m2) All elements of the proposals are single storey meaning the overall impact on massing is nominal, and being located on the south side of the house with the garage set as low as possible the effect on the amenity of neighbours is also nominal. As evidenced earlier and in our appeal request submission, the site cannot be seen from public roads in the area. Taking all the above into account, including the planning departments pre-planning guidance, we contend the proposals accord with the ethos of GP2 In terms of GP3 as stated in our response to R1 and R2 this is not a redundant use site where redevelopment is proposed. All works are to be carried out within a residential curtilage where policies concerning new development in the countryside should not apply.

Regarding HP15, as evidence earlier and in our response to R1 and R2 the increase in floor area is within the 50% that would normally be considered acceptable; and taking into account all matters covered under GP2 including the planning department’s pre-submission advice, we contend the proposals accord with the ethos of HP15.

Re planning circular 3/91, as previously stated under R1 and R2, all works are to be carried out within an accepted residential curtilage and policies concerning new development in the countryside should not apply.

Aso as stated under R2 in terms of EV1 and EV2 all works are to be carried out within an accepted residential curtilage and policies concerning new development in the countryside should not apply.

• 3.0 SUMMARY & CONCLUSION

All development is proposed within an accepted residential curtilage meaning all policies associated with new development in the countryside should not apply.

As such we contend the relevant policies are primarily General Policy 2 and HP15 The overall increase if floor area of the house is well within the 50% increase considered acceptable under HP15. Whilst the extension to the orangery is more contemporary, the orangery to which it is being attached is non-traditional with extensive pre-planning advice influencing the design of the extension to the Orangery The stable like design of the stand-alone building is in keeping with its rural location with its position making best use of existing infrastructure. No public views of the site are adversely affected, and, due to the location of the extensions and stand-alone building, the proposals have no adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours. As such, we believe the proposals fully accord with all relevant policies associated with of IOM SP 2016

Architecture in Mann September 2025