DEC Officer Report

Applicant: Mrs Margaret Mary Dalziel Proposal Change of use of land from agricultural to residential gardens (retrospective) Site Address 1, 2, 3 & 4 Georges Close Andreas Isle Of Man IM7 4HZ Case Officer : Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken: 12.09.2023 Site Visit: 12.09.2023 Expected Decision Level Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 21.09.2023 Conditions of approval - 1. The existing boundary treatment on the border between the gardens and the adjacent agricultural field defined by post and wire fence shall be permanently retained and maintained as such. Any replacement fencing shall be post and wire fence (not solid fencing), and shall thereafter be permanently retained and maintained. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the curtilage is suitably defined, and to ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development. - 2. The existing boundary treatment on the border between the gardens and the adjacent agricultural field defined by post and wire fence shall be permanently retained and maintained as such. Any replacement fencing shall be post and wire fence (not solid fencing), and shall thereafter be permanently retained and maintained. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the curtilage is suitably defined, and to ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development. Reason for Approval: For the reason indicated within this report, it is considered the proposal would be acceptable, having no adverse impact upon the surrounding landscape, private or public amenities, and would broadly comply with Environment Policy 1, Strategic Policy 4, and Environment Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

Plans: This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawing all received on 3 August 2023. _______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons None ________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT PROPOSING TO INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL CURTILAGES INTO LAND NOT DESIGNATED FOR DEVELOPMENT, WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site represents part of Field 1211410 which currently serves as garden extensions of 1, 2, 3 & 4 Georges Close, Andreas, which is located on the western side of Andreas. The site is situated on the north-eastern boundary of the field and sit south-west of the dwellings within George's Close. - 1.2 The northwest, southwest and southeast boundaries of the adjoining agricultural field is defined by sodbanks, trees and shrubbery, while the northeast boundary is defined by a combination of post and wire fencing and post and rail timber fencing, which now exists as the extent of the residential gardens for the dwellings on Georges Close. - 1.3 The site is about 72m long and 12.2m wide, covering an area measuring about 851.9sqm. This site is split between four of the dwellings within the estate and bear the appearance of turfed gardens, with post and rail timber fencing separating each garden segment.

2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 Planning approval is sought for change of use of land from agricultural to residential gardens (retrospective). The proposed garden extension into the adjacent agricultural field would project 12.2m from the rear of the existing residential curtilages and span a length measuring 72m, although this would be subdivided among the dwellings with Plot 1 Georges Close having a garden extension measuring 225.7sqm, Plot 2 about 210.1sqm, Plot 3 approximately 208.1sqm, while the extension to Plot 4 would measure 167.8sqm.

- 3.0 PLANNING POLICIES

3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is an area not designated for development, although the curtilages to which they are attached are within an area recognised as being within predominantly residential use under the IOM Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area, prone to flood risks or within a registered tree area, and there are no registered trees on site. - 3.2 Due to the zoning of the site and the proposed works the following policies are relevant in the determination of the application: - 3.3 The Strategic Plan stipulates a general presumption against development in areas which are not designated for a particular purpose and where the protection of the countryside is of paramount importance (EP 1 and GP3). However given that the application site is linked with existing dwelling within a predominantly residential area, it would be relevant to consider the general development considerations articulated in General Policy 2. - 3.4 As currently proposed, the scheme does not pass any of the exemptions for development that would be allowed in the countryside, as the exemptions do not include domestic extensions onto agricultural land. - 3.5 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.
• 3.6 Environment Policy 14 opposes the permanent loss of high important and versatile agricultural land (Classes 1-2), except where there is an overriding need for the development, and land of a lower quality is not available and other policies in the Strategic Plan are complied with.
• 3.7 General Policy 2 states (In part): 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;
• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;

• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;

3.8 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. - 3.9 Strategic Policy 4 (In part): Proposals for development must:

• (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; and
• (c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance.

3.10 Strategic Policy 5: New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies.

- 4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025

• 4.1.1 The strategic aims (In part):

• o Managing biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats.
• o Maintaining, restoring and enhancing native biodiversity, where necessary.

• 4.1.2 Habitat loss actions "21. DEFA will continue to promote a policy of 'no net loss' for semi-natural Manx habitats and species and ensure that unavoidable loss is replaced or effectively compensated for."

- 5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application.

5.2 Planning approval was granted for the existing dwellings within George's Close under PA 02/02587/B for Erection of four detached dwellings, which was approved on 10 June 2003.

5.3 PA 13/00601/C for Change of use of land from agricultural to residential gardens, which sought to convert part of the adjacent agricultural field (the current application site) was refused on 7th November 2013.

• 5.3.1 In reference to General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 14, the Inspector in assessing the application noted that: "6. None of this necessarily precludes garden extensions in any circumstances. I draw attention to two recent approvals by the Minister on my recommendations (PA 13/00151/C & 13/00019/C). The land take in this present case would be modest, in a secluded location and there is no suggestion that the soil is the best and most versatile for agricultural production. Even so, there would be some, intrinsically harmful, erosion of the countryside. Each of the 4 modern houses has just a few meters of land around it but they are not in any sense substandard.

1. The desire by the occupants for more land is entirely understandable but amounts to a preference rather than an essential need that could over-ride the harm, while Lariana Villa already stands on a well-proportioned curtilage. All the houses also benefit from reaching views across the field. I realise that my assessment and the recommendation that must flow from it will be a disappointment, but there are many homes across the island backing onto agricultural land where owners might wish to extend their gardens, which unless only exceptionally justified could cumulatively erode the precious assess of the Manx Countryside."

• 5.3.2 The application was refused for the following reason: "The garden extensions would harmfully erode an area of the Manx Countryside contrary to Generally Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 with insufficient justification having been demonstrated."

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.

6.1 The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division have indicated that the proposal raises no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues.

6.2 Andreas Commissioners have not made any comments on the application although they were consulted on 8 August 2023. - 6.3 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties.

- 7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of the current application are:

• i. The Principle (GP3, EP1, & SP5);
• ii. Impact on Landscape (EP1, SP4, & GP2);
• iii. Impact on Agricultural Soils (EP14); and
• iv. Impacts on Biodiversity (EP1, STP4, & GP2).

7.2 Principle of the Extension of the residential curtilage

• 7.2.1 The site falls outside of the defined settlement boundary of Andreas and within the open countryside, where it is not designated for residential development and out with the defined exceptions set out in General Policy 3. However, it must be acknowledged that the site sits as a congruent unit with the existing residential curtilages, where it could be argued that there is a seamless transition between the gardens and the adjoining field in terms of appearance and composition. Besides, there is provision within Strategic Policy 2 which guides development on land within the countryside that sits just outside of any defined villages or settlements, by

• allowing for development on land which could pass for sustainable urban extensions of existing towns and villages.
• 7.2.2 The definition of sustainable urban extensions involves the planned expansion of a city or town which can contribute to creating more sustainable patterns of development when located in the right place, with well-planned infrastructure including access to a range of facilities, and when developed at appropriate densities. As such, whilst the extension of the curtilages into the adjacent agricultural field is not planned (as the settlement boundary has not been re-defined), it would be difficult to argue that the development would not constitute a sustainable pattern of development, as the site could easily be connected with existing infrastructure and facilities, and the achieved density for the sites would be appropriate (as the proposed increase is proportionate to the existing dwellings), as such what is proposed is not unreasonable in this respect.
• 7.2.3 Whilst it is noted that a similar scheme was refused for the site in 2013 and that there has not been significant change in policy terms since the refusal, with there now been an increased emphasis on the need to ensure that developments do not result in net loss of biodiversity, it would be vital to consider the degree of harm the proposed scheme would have on the site and immediate locality, and this would be better evaluated in the assessment of landscape impacts, impacts on biodiversity, and the potential impacts on the potential loss of agricultural land.
• 7.2.4 Notwithstanding the above, the Draft Area Plan for the North and West has now been produced since the previous application was considered. The draft plan which currently has very little material planning weight; given that it is not yet an adopted policy document, designates this site and the adjoining land to the southwest of the application site as "Predominantly Residential", and delineates the site and adjoining field to be within the existing settlement boundary, a factor which points to the fact that the proposed use of the site would be compatible with the future use of the site, should this element of the Draft Plan remain unchanged. It must, however, be reinforced that the Draft Plan bears no weight as a Planning consideration presently.
• 7.2.5 Accordingly, it is considered that the main issue with the extension of the curtilage, is whether by undertaking such development, there would be adverse visual impact upon the countryside, and whether it would result in the loss of versatile agricultural land or detriment to site ecology. This will be considered latter in this report.

7.3 Impact on the Landscape and Setting

• 7.3.1 In considering the impact of the extension of the curtilage on the surrounding countryside, it is noted that the works would be completely confined to the rear of the dwelling, enclosed by a thick cluster of matures sodbanks, shrubbery and scattered trees along the field boundary, and as such there would be no views from the main thoroughfare and surrounding countryside. Thus from a visual point of view, the works would be unnoticeable from public views and are behind the existing property and surroundings field boundary treatments.
• 7.3.2 A critical test set out in Environment Policies 1 for assessing such proposals is whether there would be any adverse impact on the countryside. In this case, there would be no mature plantings or trees lost, and site would exist mainly as gardens where their appearance would not be considerably at variance with the appearance of the adjacent field. It is also vital to consider the style of boundary treatment along these garden boundaries which are (The post and wire fence) are considered suitable, being more reflective of common boundary treatments along field boundaries. It is also felt that this area is proportionately acceptable as to suitably accommodate the existing gardens without significant detriment to the wider rural landscape and countryside. A condition would, however, be imposed to ensure that the fencing used on the existing garden boundaries are retained in their current form to ensure that the seamless

• transition between the agricultural field and the gardens is not truncated by the installation of standard domestic fences.
• 7.3.3 Equally, it would be appropriate to attach a condition which suspends the provisions of the Permitted Development Order in so far as it applies to walls, fences, extensions or new structures; which would ensure that the intended use the site as gardens is not impacted by future developments on the site, which may seek to erect structures that would erode the existing relationship between the gardens and the adjacent field.
• 7.3.4 Overall, the proposal would not be of an excessive scale relative to the site context, and would not harm the character and appearance of the site or the surrounding landscape when viewed from surrounding countryside. The proposal is, therefore, considered to broadly accord with and Environment Policies 1 and Strategic Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.

7.4 Impact on Agricultural Soils

• 7.4.1 Environment Policy 14 allows for development on agricultural land provided that they do not result in the loss of high quality agricultural land. High quality agricultural land is defined as being Class 1/2, Class 2/3 and Class 3/2 as annotated on the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map. The proposal site is shown as being within Class 3/4 and as such falls outside the defined land protected by EP14.
• 7.4.2 Whilst the class of agricultural soils on the site (Class 3) does not imply that the soils should not be managed appropriately as the Strategic plan does not in any way imply that Class
• 3 soils should be poorly managed or used unsustainably as majority of the agricultural soils on the Island (80.26%) fall within Class 3 soils, the nature and scale of the development is such that the agricultural potential of the adjoining fields would not be compromised. As such, it is considered that the requirements of Environment Policy 14 are met in this regard.

7.5 Impacts on Biodiversity (EP 4 and EP1)

• 7.5.1 In terms of impacts on biodiversity, it is considered that the site in its natural state could offer a wealth of bio-diversity and ecology benefits to the area, with domestication resulting undue pressure on the natural habitat. Notwithstanding the factors highlighted above, the adjoining field to which the application site is attached is currently being cultivated for fodder, which would greatly diminish its potential to serve as habitat for biota. Therefore, it is not considered that the use of the site as gardens would cause or lead to unacceptable environmental disturbance, with significant detrimental impacts on biodiversity.

7.6 OTHER MATTERS

• 7.6.1 The applicants have sought to justify the development by referring to legal documents and contents within deeds and covenants, as well as sale documents form the Department of Infrastructure. However, these matters lie outside the scope of the planning application given that land ownership is a civil matter and would hold no weight in the assessment of a planning application. Any determination under the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 can neither create nor detract from land ownerships, any right of way, or other civil legal rights and obligations as may exist between the parties. Considering these bear no weight in a planning decision, the application has been assessed with respect to the aforementioned Strategic Plan policies which set the benchmark for assessing proposed developments, with no reference made to the stated deeds and covenants, or any weight granted these.

- 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 In summary, the proposal is considered to accord with Environment Policies 1, Strategic Policy 4, and Environment Policy 14. No unacceptable adverse impact has been identified as likely with respect of the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape, public amenity or the residential amenity of the neighbours. - 9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material. 9.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : …Refused……….... Committee Meeting Date:…02.10.2023

Signed :………P VISIGAH…………………………….. Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 02.10.2023

Application No

23/00884/C

Applicant Mrs Margaret Mary Dalziel Proposal Change of use of land from agricultural to residential gardens (retrospective) Site Address 1, 2, 3 & 4 Georges Close Andreas Isle Of Man IM7 4HZ Planning Officer Mr Paul Visigah Presenting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer Report

The Committee at its meeting held on 2nd October 2023, overturned the recommendation of the case officer to approve the application and recommended refusal.

Reason for refusal:

R1. Due to the site location within an area not zoned for development on the 1982 Development Plan, it is considered that the garden extensions would harmfully erode an area of Manx countryside contrary to General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, with insufficient over-riding justification having been demonstrated.