Officer Report

Application No.: 24/00090/B Applicant: Gillian Banning Proposal: Erection of four shepherd huts with self-contained bathroom, living area and bedroom. Site Address: Vale House Main Road Greeba Isle Of Man IM4 2DX Principal Planning Officer: Belinda Fettis Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 26.03.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. By virtue of the addition of structures on the site in an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) the proposal would cause harm to the AHLV landscape and is therefore contrary to policy. No special circumstances are given and no measures to protect and or enhance the landscape. - R 2. The existing access onto the A1 does not meet the standards set out in Manual for Manx Roads therefore increased activity would be harmful to road users. - R 3. The proposal is contrary to Strategic Policy 1, 2, 3 and 4(b), General Policy 2(b)(g) and 3 and, Environmental Policy 1, 2 and 22.

_________________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

Ash Cottage Main Road Greeba Isle Of Man IM4 2DU as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status.

Officer’s Report

- 1. THE SITE

• 1.1. The application site, as delineated by the red line on the Location Plan, was, at the time of the site visit, viewed as an area of unmown grass where sheep were grazing. The area is located on the north-west side of the shared driveway from its junction with the A1. At its nearest point the field is about 220ft (67m) from the A1 and at its furthest point about 334ft (101m).
• 1.2. Adjacent the northern boundary is a collection of buildings which includes Vale House. There is a cluster of dwellinghouses, outbuildings, and agricultural buildings and fields associated with Cronkdhoo Farm, all of which share the access.
• 1.3. The access rises steeply from its junction with the A1 between Crosby and the A1 junction with the A3 at Tynwald Hill. The land either side is pastureland. The field between the application site and the A1 comprises protected trees along the boundary with the road; Registered Tree Area GM04 (RA1259 Kerrow ny Glough, 1982).
• 1.4. Opposite the site there are detached dwellinghouses of varying scale design and distance from the A1. Directly opposite the entrance are Meadowside Cottage and Ash Cottage. Slightly further away but close to the site are Glass Cottage, Ravenscroft to the east and Holly Holme to the west.

- 2. THE PROPOSAL

• 2.1. The application proposes the erection of four shepherd huts with self-contained bathroom, living area and bedroom. In support of the proposed development the following were submitted on 22nd of January 2024.

• o Location Plan
• o Images and measurements of proposed Shepherd Huts - Appendix A to E
• o Site Plan - Appendix G
• o Proposed Site Plan - Appendix H (shows location of septic tank and water and the four huts)
• o Proposed internal layout - Appendix I
• o Proposed Shepherd Hut scaled drawing of layout and dimensions:

• 2.2. The Shepherd Huts are approximately 8.63m long and 2.4m wide excluding the steps to each patio door. The height is approximately 3.26m.
• 2.3. The timber frame is finished with timber exterior walls and felt roof covering. Windows and doors to be double glazed timber.
• 2.4. Details of electrical, water, sewage connections are not shown.
• 2.5. Supporting Statement makes the following points.

• o Proximity of the site in Greeba to the Isle of Man TT races circuit and Grand Prix;
• o Shepherd Huts chosen for their sustainable construction materials
• o Energy source electricity - clean fuel
• o Provision of tourist accommodation that could support local economy

- 3. PLANNING POLICY

• 3.1. Site Specific

• 3.1.1. The application site is on land designated in the Isle of Man Development Plan South Map (1982) as an 'area of high landscape or coastal value and scenic significance'.

• 3.1.2. A new development plan is in progress and undergoing amendments following presentations at Tynwald. On the Draft Area Plan for the North and West, Landscape Assessment Area West Draft Map 2 the land is designated as Broad Lowland Valley (C1).
• 3.1.3. Because the Area Plan for the North and West has yet to be adopted the 1982 Development Plan remains the Plan upon which the assessment is made. It is however clear that the designation of landscape value excluding land for development is proposed, and likely accepted, as retained.
• 3.1.4. The site is not in a flood zone but there is an area within the site and north of the site that is recorded as being susceptible to surface water flooding; low risk. Surface water flooding is not recorded outside the entrance to the site but is recorded on the A1 about 60m south.
• 3.1.5. The site is not within a Conservation Area. The site is not within the setting of a Conservation Area or a Registered Building.

• 3.2. Strategic Plan Taking account of the above, within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the following policies are considered relevant in the determination of this application (the policies can be read in full online):

• o Strategic Policy 1: Development should make the best use of resources by (a)
• optimising developed land (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards, and (c) being located close to existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services
• o Strategic Policy 2: 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 the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3."
• o Strategic Policy 3 and Environment Policy 42 focus on the visual design of development and its impact upon the character and identity of its immediate locality.
• o Strategic Policy 4(b): Protect or enhance landscape quality and nature conservation value especially in respect to development in area of important designations (such as HLV)
• o Strategic Policy 5 - new development (including individual buildings) should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment (and in some cases a Design Statement will be required)
• o 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 accords with the criteria of the Policy. In this case the following criteria are considered relevant (b), (c), (d), (g), (h), (i), (j), (l), (n);

• (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;
• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;

• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
• (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
• (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
• (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.

• o 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 development comprising conversion of redundant rural buildings, essential agricultural workers housing or necessary for Island needs.
• o Environmental Policy 1: 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 and as such that land should be protected for what it is. Development that 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."

• Environmental Policy 2, Land classified as being an Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans, will be afforded the most protection unless the development can meet the exception criteria.

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

• o Environment Policy 22: Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of ground water or surface water pollution and others including noise and light pollution.
• o Infrastructure Policy 5 - Development proposals should incorporate methods for water conservation and management measures to conserve the Island's water resources..
• o Business Policy 14 states, "Tourism development may be permitted in rural areas provided that it complies with the policies in the Plan….[ ]but must comply with General Policy 3 and Business Policies 11 and 12. Other forms of quality accommodation in rural areas will be considered, including the provision of hostels and similar accommodation suitable for walkers but must comply with General Policy 3 and Business Policies 11 and 12."
• o Business Policy 11 states that tourism development must be in accordance with the sustainable development objectives of the Strategic Plan.
• o Business Policy 12 relates to tourism and the conversion of redundant buildings

- 4. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

• o Quality Standards - Campsites - Department for Enterprise - Visit the Isle of Man: Provides codes for campsites to adhere to including model and quality standards relating to facilities and amenity connections such as fresh water, sanitation, drainage, lighting and parking.
• o Planning Circular 1/93 Landscape Guidance Notes: Site separation; post and rail fencing is the most functional method of protection. Design; should account for the whole environment, the juxtaposition of building, open space, roads, surface treatment, circulation and plant groupings.
• o Our Island Our Future - Isle of Man Visitor Economy Strategy: The document provides aims and visions for future tourism, of note is section (3) Visitor accommodation transformation which aims to work with developers to provide good varied accommodation, including ecological and glamping sites.
• o Managing our Natural Wealth, The Isle of Man's First Biodiversity Strategy 2015-2025: By 2050 Manx biodiversity will be valued, conserved, restored and managed sustainably, able to adapt to unavoidable change, provide essential services and contribute to a high quality of life for all.

• o Manual for Manx Roads, Movement and Place Practitioner's Guide: Design principles including availability adequate parking and encouragement of all methods of travel including walking and cycling.
• o Draft Local Economy Strategy 2024-2034: The document sets out aims to encourage growth in the local economies of the Island encouraging new development in the towns and villages and protecting the open landscape.

- 5. PLANNING HISTORY

• 5.1. There are no planning applications specifically related to the area outlined in red. However the following applications are considered to have some material weight in consideration of the application because they relate to the area outlined in blue.

• o 12/00193/B Installation of access gates (retrospective) alterations and extensions to dwelling and demolition of redundant outbuildings and amenity block. Permitted.
• o 08/00226/R Use of land as a campsite for motor homes. Refused.
• o The proposed material change of use of the application site from agricultural use to a campsite for motor homes would represent an inappropriate use of the land that would be incongruous and visually damaging to the surrounding area recognised as being of High Landscape Value. As such the proposal would be in conflict with Strategic Policy 2, General Policy 3, Environmental Policy 1 and Environmental Policy 2 of the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
• o 07/00855/LAW Application for a certificate of existing lawful use of land as a campsite for motor homes. Certificate of Lawful Use Declined.
• o 05/01257/C - Change of use of area for a motor home parking site. Hardstanding Area Adjacent to Cronkdhoo Farm, Main Road, Greeba. Refused January 2006
• o 04/02377/R Retrospective application for the levelling of part of field 314939 to provide improved campsite facility. Permitted.
• o 93/01400/B Creation of new drive, Cronk Dhoo Farm, Main Road, Greeba, German.. Permitted.

• 5.2. This application is considered relevant to establish and ensure that the proposal would not impede in any way the agricultural activity.

• 96/00898/B Erection of an agricultural building and holding pen, Cronk Dhoo Farm, Main Road, Greeba, German. Permitted.

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

• o Local authority German Commissioners - although consulted on the 22.01.2024, has not commented on this application at the time of drafting this report, and so it is assumed that there are no objections to the application.
• o Statutory Bodies
• o Dept. for Enterprise Business Agency - although consulted on the 22.01.2024, has not commented on this application at the time of drafting this report, and so it is assumed that there are no objections to the application.

• o Highway Services - (26.01.2024): The applicant should reassess the proposal to deal with the following comments;

• (a) Show on a plan where visitors using the huts can park vehicles within the site.
• (b) Demonstrate vehicular access splays achievable onto th eA1 at a set back distance of 2.4m and 2m using the method outlined in the Manual for Manx Roads document.
• (c) Can visibility splays be improved by cutting back hedge/tree vegetation adjacent the A1? The applicant should consider this to improve visibility where the access does not meet Manx Roads standards.

Neighbour

• 6.1. Ash Cottage Main Road Greeba Isle Of Man IM4 2DU - (22.01.2024) commented that as submitted the proposal would likely have a detrimental impact on the amenity of Ash Cottage for the following reasons.

• (a) Intrusive lighting; Excessive illumination of entrance already exists and this would increase with the proposed use.
• (b) Lack of site screening; Disagrees with the applicant and suggests that more planting is required.
• (c) Drainage problems; Concerns that the existing septic tank has capacity and states there are already issues regarding the existing septic tank and surface water drainage which at times of excess rainfall has entered the public road (A1).

- 7. ASSESSMENT

• 7.1. The key considerations in the determination of the application are considered to be as follows.

• (7.2) Principle of development
• (7.3) Impact upon the landscape
• (7.4) Impact on traffic
• (7.5) Impact upon the neighbouring dwellings
• (7.6) Planning balance

• 7.2. Principle

• 7.2.1. The land upon which the proposal relates does not have a land designation permitting development and it is in an Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV). Therefore the proposal does not meet the strategic criteria for development. Aforementioned Policies support the principle of new tourism provided the proposal meets set criteria or is proposed with exceptional circumstances.
• 7.2.2. The supporting statement makes a case for why the proposal should be supported.

• o Under the heading 'Tourism boost' it is stated that the site is in close proximity to the TT Races circuit and so would provide an alternative sustainable accommodation.
• o Under the heading, 'Economic Benefits' it is stated that the proposal was anticipated to yield significant benefits for Greeba and create new jobs. However no specific details are provided as to how many staff or how the proposal would provide economic benefit to Greeba.

• 7.2.3. Whilst the above statements are not disputed there is nothing within the submission to demonstrate the statements. There are no details of need, numbers of employees or how the business is sustainable. As such no exceptional circumstances are found.
• 7.2.4. Taking account of the Isle of Man Visitor Economy Strategy the following points are discussed for reference should another application be submitted in the future.

• 7.3. Impact on landscape

• 7.3.1. To assess the impact it is necessary to first look at the design of the Shepherd Huts and the existing landscape.

• 7.3.2. At the time of the site visit the land was being used to graze sheep. Due to the topography, from the road the field at present goes relatively unnoticed largely due to the focus upon driving. However as a passenger the field is better observed. From the public road the land is seen as pastureland separated by a driveway with post and wire fencing. Overall the site and its setting are open, separated from the road by wall and trees.
• 7.3.3. In the supporting statement under the heading 'Eco-Friendly Shepherd Huts' it is stated that the Shepherd Huts on wheels have been chosen because of their sustainably sourced materials and they can be moved around the site.
• 7.3.4. In the supporting statement under the heading, 'Community Friendly Aesthetics' it is stated that the proposal would blend seamlessly with the rural landscape and because the huts are moveable / non-permanent this business choice shows the applicants commitment to sustainable tourism.
• 7.3.5. In the supporting statement under the heading 'Low Environmental Impact' it is stated that the huts cause minimal disturbance to the landscape [because they are on wheels] and the use of electricity results in a clean sustainable energy source, and that management strategies will be utilized to minimise the environmental impact of the glamping site.
• 7.3.6. The submitted elevation and floor plan shows an internal layout incorporating a shower, toilet, mini kitchen, sofa and bed. Externally the materials are timber, felt covered roof and timber double glazed windows (3) and patio doors (2)..
• 7.3.7. Whilst the timber design appears acceptable at present there are no buildings on the site therefore the development would introduce buildings into the landscape.
• 7.3.8. Notwithstanding this fact, the proposal does not include measures to improve the screening of the buildings proposed; whether moved or static, Paragraph 4.3.11 of the Strategic Plan states, "Merely arguing that a new building cannot be seen in public views is not a justification for the relaxation of other policies relating to the location of new development".
• 7.3.9. In addition, although it is stated that the Shepherd Huts would be moved around the site the internal layout suggests otherwise given the necessary connections to provide fresh water and sewage facilities for the cooking area and toilet. The management strategy to minimise the environmental impact of the glamping site has not been submitted and no other details to clarify the position and operation of the huts. Therefore in reality, the departments opinion is that in reality, it is unlikely that the Shepherd Huts would be moved once brought into use and there is nothing submitted to demonstrate otherwise.
• 7.3.10. No details are submitted regarding signing to advertise the holiday accommodation, assuming there would be an advertisement, the scale and design would need to compliment the screening.
• 7.3.11. In summary, from the information submitted it is considered that the proposal would cause harm to the landscape by virtue of the introduction of buildings where presently none exist and there are no special circumstances and no enhancements proposed. The proposal would not protect or enhance the landscape therefore the proposal does not accord with the Strategic Plan Policies S4(b), G2(b)(g), E1 and E2.

• 7.4. Impact on traffic

• 7.4.1. By virtue of the nature of the proposed business, tourist accommodation, the proposal would generate additional traffic through the shared access and along the A1.
• 7.4.2. In respect of traffic along the A1, it is considered that the scale of the proposal would not adversely impact traffic on the A1.

• 7.4.3. In respect of the use of the shared access, the increased activity would likely cause some harm to existing users of the access. However the applicant has not provided details of parking for the Shepherd Huts or details of the other activities, such as the agricultural element, therefore the level of harm has not been considered in full on this issue.
• 7.4.4. In respect of the visibility splays of the shared access, Highways have highlighted concerns that the existing access does not meet Manx Road Standards. In their response they suggest that the applicant explores ways to improve visibility and or demonstrate visibility in accordance with Manx Road Standards.
• 7.4.5. The suggestion to cut the vegetation is problematic because of the Registered Tree Area (GM04) on the boundary with A1 east of the access junction with the A1.
• 7.4.6. The applicant has not responded to the Highways comment and the lack of detail has not been raised with the applicant because the proposal is unacceptable for other reasons.
• 7.4.7. During the site visit it was noted that when entering the A1 visibility is poor. Most notably visibility of oncoming traffic from the direction of Peel is close to none existent. Having considered how the visibility splays could be created to meet Manx Road Standards and meet the concerns of highways, it is considered that it would not be possible without removal of trees and extensive land engineering.
• 7.4.8. Therefore on the basis of the site visit, assessment from highways and from the details submitted, it is considered that the proposal could not provide adequate visibility splays. Therefore, although in use, increased activity at the junction would be harmful to other road users.

• 7.5. Impact on neighbours

• 7.5.1. The neighbours are considered to be those sharing the access and neighbours across the road and within close proximity to the entrance of the site.

• 7.5.2. The dwellings opposite the site are most likely to be impacted upon by the arrival and departure of campsite users. This would generate additional noise and potentially vehicle headlights outside daylight hours. However the comings and goings of the site could increase at any time from the existing users and therefore this is not considered a reason for refusal. Furthermore the separation distance and topography are considered sufficient to not result in a reason for refusal. That said the comments received are addressed individually below.
• 7.5.3. Although no professional assessment of the trees has been submitted by the applicant or the member of the public, concerns have been raised regarding the health of the existing boundary trees, stating that their existence cannot be taken for granted in perpetuity; A general lack of screening would cause harm to residential amenity. The concerns regarding screening have already been outlined under the Landscape heading. Had the proposal been acceptable all landscaping would have been addressed alongside highways comments relating to visibility concerns.
• 7.5.4. In respect of loss of privacy, at this time, due to the proposed location and separation distance, it is unlikely that overlooking would occur.
• 7.5.5. In respect of lighting at the entrance; A night time site visit has not been made however, from the photographs submitted by the neighbour it is clear that the lights at the entrance are bright enough to illuminate the side of the dwelling opposite therefore the light probably enters rooms in the dwelling. Illumination of the entrance off the main road could be achieved using downward facing lights or lower level lighting. Therefore the lighting is not

• considered a reason for refusal. Had the proposal been considered acceptable in principle, the lighting would be assessed for the area of camping and the entrance to achieve improvements.
• 7.5.6. In respect of drainage; Although the neighbours photographs appear to show that there is an issue with surface water entering the highway from the field, surface water flooding has not been recorded in that location. Had the proposal been deemed acceptable in principle the applicant would have been have had to submit details of surface water management. Such details would include how surface water generated by the Shepherd Huts and any additional parking or access materials would be managed and contained within the site. There appears to be sufficient land within the ownership of the applicant to provide surface water management, therefore this detail could be achieved is not reason for refusal.
• 7.5.7. In respect of sewage, had the proposal been deemed acceptable the health and capacity of the existing septic tank would have been queried, and details requested. The neighbour suggests consideration of a 'mini' sewage package treatment plant in line with modern non-mains sewage treatment. This proposal or similar would be considered appropriate subject to assessment. There appears to be sufficient land within the ownership of the applicant to provide a proportionate sewage package treatment plant, therefore this detail could be achieved is not reason for refusal.

7.6. Planning Balance 7.6.1. Generally tourism development is supported therefore although the principle of the proposal is contrary to policy other guidance in support of tourism has some weight; Isle of Man Visitor Economy Strategy.

• 7.6.2. It might be the case that the applicant can justify the need and because other elements such as drainage and lighting could be addressed. However the proposal as submitted provides insufficient detail to assess the proposal beyond the principle of development. The application has not been progressed further because to request all the information would render a new application.
• 7.6.3. The entrance does not appear capable of achieving the visibility splays and no measures to protect and enhance the landscape are proposed.
• 7.6.4. Having considered the planning balance no details are observed that would outweigh allowing the development which is in principle contrary to policy.

- 8. CONCLUSION

• 8.1. By virtue of the addition of structures on the site in an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) the proposal would cause harm to the AHLV landscape and is therefore contrary to policy. In addition, the proposal does not include measures to protect and or enhance the landscape setting. There are no special circumstances.

• 8.1.1. The increased activity on the access junction would cause harm to existing and future users by virtue of the fact that existing visibility is poor and therefore the risk of accident would be increased and no measures are proposed to improve the access.

• 8.2. The proposal is contrary to Strategic Policy 1, 2, 3 and 4(b), General Policy 2(b)(g) and

3 and, Environmental Policy 1, 2 and 22.

• 8.2.1. For the above reasons the proposal is recommended for refusal.
• 9. REASON FOR REFUSAL

• 9.1. By virtue of the addition of structures on the site in an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) the proposal would cause harm to the AHLV

landscape and is therefore contrary to policy. No special circumstances are given and no measures to protect and or enhance the landscape.

• 9.2. In addition the existing access onto the A1 does not meet the standards set out in Manual for Manx Roads therefore increased activity would be harmful to road users.

• 9.3. The proposal is contrary to Strategic Policy 1, 2, 3 and 4(b), General Policy 2(b)(g) and 3 and, Environmental Policy 1, 2 and 22. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

- 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:

--- whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and

-- 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 Head of Development Management 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 : 27.03.2025 Determining Officer

Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management

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.