Officer Report

Application No.: 25/90743/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Antonella & Michael Butler Proposal: Erection of ancillary dwelling unit with additional tourist use Site Address: Close Chirrym St Judes Road Sulby Isle Of Man IM7 2ES Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 24.10.2025 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal - R 1. The proposal constitutes a new, self-contained dwelling on agricultural land located outside any defined settlement boundary, in direct conflict with General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1, Strategic Policy 2, and Spatial Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). The site is not allocated for development and fails to meet any of the exceptions under GP3, such as essential agricultural housing, conversion of redundant rural buildings of architectural or historic interest, or redevelopment of previously developed land. No overriding national need or demonstrable lack of alternative sites has been evidenced. Furthermore, the claimed ancillary status is not supported by land-use characteristics or any applicable policy framework. - R 2. The development would result in the permanent loss of Class 2 agricultural land, one of the Island's most versatile and productive soil categories, contrary to Environment Policy 14 and Section 7.13 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. No agricultural justification has been provided, no overriding need has been demonstrated, and no assessment has been made of the availability of lower-grade land. The removal of an existing shed does not mitigate this loss or contribute to agricultural productivity. - R 3. By introducing a flat-roofed, modular structure into an open agricultural field, the proposal fails to respect the rural vernacular and landscape character, contrary to Strategic Policies 4 and 5, General Policy 2(b, c), and Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. The design conflicts with Planning Circular 3/91, which discourages flat roofs and promotes integration with traditional rural forms, and it lacks any innovative or contextsensitive qualities. No landscape appraisal or mitigation measures have been submitted, and the cumulative impact of domestic ancillary structures, including decking, lighting, and other paraphernalia, would erode the openness and rural character of the site. - R 4. The introduction of a self-contained unit with dual-purpose use (ancillary residential and tourist) into agricultural land outside the lawful curtilage of Close Chirrym risks incremental domestication and disturbance, contrary to General Policy 2(g, h) and the Residential Design Guide (2021). The absence of curtilage containment and the potential for frequent visitor turnover during holiday periods heighten amenity concerns for nearby occupiers, undermining the policy objective of maintaining a quiet rural character. - R 5. The proposed tourist use does not satisfy Business Policies 11 and 14 or Strategic Policy 8, which require rural tourism development to reuse existing built fabric, integrate sensitively with the landscape, and demonstrate economic viability and sustainability. The scheme introduces new built form into undeveloped countryside, offers no visitor-enhancing features, and provides no evidence of economic contribution or compliance with the Visitor Economy Strategy (2022-2032). These deficiencies reinforce its conflict with the Strategic Plan's spatial and environmental protections. _________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: - o DOI Highway Services - No objection. - o Visit Isle of Man Agency (Department for Enterprise) - No formal comment. It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: - o 31 First Avenue, Douglas - No objection _________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site comprises an agricultural field situated immediately north of the residential curtilage of dwelling known as Close Chirrym. This field was previously denoted as a paddock in the location plan accompanying PA 23/00798/B for the site, but as an agricultural field on the submitted site plan. The curtilage is clearly separated from the field by an existing timber post-and-rail fence, which defines the northern extent of the domestic garden area. - 1.2 Historic aerial imagery from 2021 shows a mature tree line along this northern boundary, which visually demarcated the residential curtilage from the adjoining field. These trees have since been removed, leaving the post-and-rail fence as the sole physical boundary feature. The removal of this vegetation has resulted in an open aspect between the dwelling and the field. - 1.3 The agricultural field is generally level and laid to grass, presenting an open character that is visually exposed from adjoining agricultural land to the east. The field shares the existing vehicular access with Close Chirrym via a short driveway leading from St. Jude's Road. The site lies approximately 560 metres north of the junction between St. Jude's Road and the Main Road within Sulby village. - 1.4 In terms of wider context, the residential properties of Suffield, Alma Cottage, and ThieNy-Greiney are located to the north, west, and south-west respectively, while the eastern boundary of the field abuts a larger parcel of land in agricultural use. The openness of the field and its lack of enclosure mean it is visually prominent from the adjoining fields and farms. - 1.5 Close Chirrym is a substantial, modern-style bungalow which features hipped roofs finished with slate tiles, and elevations in white-painted render complemented by occasional

stone detailing. The internal layout is spacious and well-appointed, reflecting a high standard of residential accommodation. These features, together with the garden and driveway, form a curtilage measuring approximately 2,694.9 square metres, and does not extend into the application site.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Erection of ancillary dwelling unit with additional tourist use. The proposed unit would be a single-storey, flat-roofed structure with a rectangular footprint measuring 12m by 4m (48sqm). It would be sited within the agricultural field immediately north of the residential curtilage of Close Chirrym. - 2.2 The building would have the appearance of a portacabin, with a functional, prefabricated aesthetic. External finishes include horizontal cladding to all elevations, contributing to a low-profile, modular form. The south-east elevation would feature doubleglazed sliding doors opening onto a decked area, while the south-west elevation includes the main entrance and two windows. The north-east elevation contains a single small window, and the north-west elevation is blank. - 2.3 Internally, the proposed unit would contain a compact and self-contained layout, comprising a lounge area adjacent to the sliding doors and decking, two bedrooms, and a bathroom. - 2.4 It has been noted on the submitted plans that the existing shed which sits southwest of the field would be removed. The application form notes that the site has access to 7 parking spaces, whilst also indicating that surface water and foul sewage would be discharged into existing systems within the adjacent residential curtilage. - 2.5 The applicants have submitted a Planning Statement which outlines the following key points in support of the proposal:

• 1. The unit is a self-contained ancillary space to accommodate elderly family members requiring care, with occasional use as self-catered tourist accommodation.
• 2. The proposal is stated to align with Business Policies 13 and 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, which support the use of private residential properties for tourist accommodation where residential amenity is not compromised.
• 3. The applicants argue that the field is not actively farmed but is used for recreational purposes (e.g. picnics, sports) and should be considered an incidental extension of the domestic curtilage, not open countryside.
• 4. The existing 26 sqm garden shed will be removed to offset the land take of the proposed unit, which is presented as a compensatory measure to enhance agricultural potential elsewhere, in line with Environment Policy 14.
• 5. The unit would share the existing driveway, utilities, and garden/recreational space with the main dwelling, reinforcing its ancillary character.
• 6. The proposed unit would be located more than 25 metres from any neighbouring dwelling, with no anticipated impacts in terms of privacy, noise, overshadowing, or overlooking.
• 7. The proposal is said to avoid harm to surrounding trees and root protection areas, and the decked area would be fenced to maintain separation from the wider field.
• 8. The unit is described as having minimal visual impact, enhancing family living while remaining policy-compliant and sensitive to the site's character.

2.6 The application form shows the existing and proposed use of the site as residential which implies that the field exists as part of the residential curtilage. However, there is no evidence of approval being granted to extend the curtilage into the application field.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 Site Specific:

• 3.1.1 The application site is within an area recognised as land not zoned for development under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982, and the site is not within a Conservation Area. There are no registered trees within the site, it does not lie within or adjoin any designated tree protection area. The site does not lie within a flood prone area, although it sits within an area with Class 2 soil classification.

3.2 National: STRATEGIC PLAN (2016)

• 3.2.1 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of the planning application:

• 1. General Policy 3 - Exceptions to development in the countryside.
• 2. General Policy 2 - Development Criteria, ensuring developments are appropriate for their location, support sustainable economic and social outcomes, and do not harm the character of the area.
• 3. Environment Policy 1 - Protection of the countryside and inherent ecology.
• 4. Strategic Policy 2 - Priority for new development to identified towns and villages.
• 5. Strategic Policy 4 - development proposals must protect or enhance the nature conservation and landscape quality of urban as well as rural areas.
• 6. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact.
• 7. Strategic Policy 8 - Tourist development proposals will generally be permitted where they make use of existing built fabric of interest and quality, where they do not affect adversely environmental, agricultural, or highway interests and where they enable enjoyment of our natural and man-made attractions.
• 8. Spatial Policy 5 - new development will be in defined settlements only or in the countryside only in accordance with GP3.
• 9. Environment Policy 4 - Protects biodiversity (including protected species and designated sites).
• 10. Environment Policy 5 - Mitigation against damage to or loss of habitats.
• 11. Paragraphs in Section 7.13 - protection of agricultural land and real agricultural need must be demonstrated
• 12. Environment Policy 14 - no loss of high-quality agricultural land
• 13. Business Policy 1 - Supporting economic growth through business developments that benefit local employment and sustainability.
• 14. Business Policy 11 - Tourism development must be in accordance with the sustainable development objectives of this plan; policies and designations which seek to protect the countryside from development will be applied to tourist development with as much weight as they are to other types of development.
• 15. Business Policy 14 - Tourism development may be permitted in rural areas provided that it complies with the policies in the Plan.
• 16. Transport Policy 3: New development on or around existing and former rail routes should not compromise their attraction as a tourism and leisure facility or their potential as public transport routes, or cycle / leisure footpath routes.
• 17. Transport Policy 4 - Highway capacity and safety considerations.
• 18. Transport Policy 7 - Parking considerations/standards for development.
• 19. Community Policies 7 - provide guidance in respect of minimising criminal activity and antisocial behaviour.

3.3 Area: AREA PLAN FOR THE NORTH AND WEST

• 3.3.1 It must be noted that at the time of writing, the Draft Area Plan for the North and West is not formally adopted and is only, at this stage, a broad direction of how planning policy is reviewing the areas. This means that the 1982 development plan remains the correct land use designation, and no material weight is given to the Draft Area Plan for the North and West.
• 4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 The Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy (2015 - 2025)

• 4.1.1 The Department's Biodiversity Strategy is capable of being a material consideration. It seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary.

4.2 Residential Design Guide (2021)

• 4.2.1 This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction.

4.3 Policy on the Development of Non-Serviced Accommodation 2019.

• 4.3.1 This document is an offshoot of the Isle of Man Non-Serviced Accommodation Futures Final Report (2017). It sets out governments priorities as it relates to tourism, provides a summary of the non-serviced study, whilst also outlining the current visitor economy strategy, in addition to articulating the Island Policy towards tourism development.

4.4 Isle of Man Visitor Economy Strategy 2022-2032

• 4.4.1 The Strategy's headline targets are to grow the annual visitor numbers to 500,000 by 2032 and increase the annual economic contribution of the Island's Visitor Economy to £520m. This will mean attracting an additional 170,500 visitors per year compared to 2019. The aim is to triple the holiday and short break market as well as grow all of the other visitor markets. Combined with an expected increase in average spending per visitor, driven by strong growth in longer staying and higher spending leisure markets, these visitor numbers should result in a more than doubling of annual visitor spending on the Island to £310m, which will support an increase in Visitor Economy jobs to 5,000 and generate an annual Exchequer benefit of £49m.

• 4.4.2 Programme 3: Visitor Accommodation Transformation A key aspiration is to widen our non-serviced accommodation supply with the introduction of the innovative offers that are finding a strong market in competitor destinations, such as backto-nature retreats, lifestyle and wellness resorts, sea cabins, treehouses, sky huts and luxury glamping sites.

4.5 Planning Policy Statement (PPS): Planning & the Economy (A Consultation Document February 2012)

• 4.5.1 "In applying the provisions of the Strategic and Area Plans, particularly General Policy 1 and General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan, the Department will seek proposals to be supported by evidence that demonstrates that the proposed development would secure sustainable, long term economic growth of Island wide benefit, which meets the wider objectives of sustainable development by weighing market and other economic matters alongside environmental and social costs and benefits."

- 5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 The most recent application at the site PA 23/00798/B sought permission to remove the asbestos roof covering and replace it with slate tiles and uPVC fascias and soffits. The scheme also proposed demolition of the single-skin garage and utility room, replacing them with a cavity-walled garage and utility space, and the creation of a new first floor living area. The application was approved on 12th October 2023.

• 5.1.1 The approved development provides for a substantial two-storey dwelling with an expanded internal layout. The first floor introduces two additional bedrooms, each with an ensuite, alongside a dedicated office and dressing area. The ground floor accommodates four bedrooms, two bathrooms, two lounges, a dining room, sunroom, gym, and an internally accessed garage, all connected by a central lobby. The arrangement reflects a spacious, multifunctional, and multi-generational design.

• 5.1.2 This represents a significant departure from the original single-storey bungalow, which contained four bedrooms and no upper floor. The new layout increases the total number of bedrooms to six.

5.2 Other Historic applications for the site include:

• 5.2.1 PA 28857 for Conversion of Stone Built outbuilding to 1 or 2 Dwellings. This was an approval in principle and was approved on 6 October 1971. The approved site plan only included the area currently occupied by the existing dwelling as residential curtilage. Field 702 which is the site of the current paddock remained as agricultural land.
• 5.2.2 PA 33791 for proposed Barn Conversion to Bungalow. Approved on 10 November 1972. The submitted site plan clearly showed the proposed bungalow and an existing building within the curtilage as it currently exists, with hedging forming a clear boundary between Field 702 to the north and the proposed dwelling. An entrance to the field to the north was located at the southwest end of the field.

• 5.3.3 PA 38691 for alteration and extension to the dwelling. This was approved on 25 October 1974. The scheme did not propose any changes to the curtilage as previously defined in earlier applications.

• 5.2.4 PA 39135 for alterations and extensions to the bungalow. Approved on 31 January

1. This application allowed for the creation of an integral garage on the north elevation of the dwelling. The site plan showed a clear demarcation between the residential curtilage and the adjoining field to the north, which included fencing and a cattle grid allowing access to the field, indicating continued agricultural use. An existing greenhouse within the field was shortened from the southern end to create additional clearance between the extended dwelling and the greenhouse.

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

6.1 Business Agency - Dept for Enterprise has confirmed that it has no comment to make on the application, noting that, according to its records, it has not been contacted by the applicant nor visited the site (3 September 2025).

6.2 DOI Highways have stated that the proposal has no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as the existing site access and proposed internal layout is acceptable for the proposals (18 August 2025).

6.3 Lezayre Parish Commissioners have not made any comments on the application although they were consulted on 11 August 2025.

6.4 The owners/occupiers of 31 First Avenue, Douglas, have stated that they have no objection but appreciate the appearance may change slightly to comply with 'means of escape' requirements (18 August 2025). - 7.0 ASSESSMENT

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

• 1. The principle of the proposed development (General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1, Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, Housing Policy 4, Business Policies 11, 13, 14; Strategic Policy 8);
• 2. Impact on agricultural land (Environment Policy 14, Section 7.13 of the Strategic Plan);
• 3. Landscape and visual impact (Strategic Policy 5, Strategic Policy 4, General Policy 2(b, c), Environment Policy 1, Residential Design Guide 2021, Planning Circular 3/91);

• 4. Impacts on neighbouring amenity (General Policy 2(b, g, h), Business Policy 13, Residential Design Guide 2021); and
• 5. Potential highway impacts/impacts on parking (Transport Policy 4, Transport Policy 7, GP2(f)).

- 7.2 THE PRINCIPLE

• 7.2.1 The application site lies in open countryside, outside any defined settlement boundary and on land not allocated for development. In such locations, the Strategic Plan imposes a strong presumption against new housing. Environment Policy 1 (EP1) protects the countryside for its own sake, permitting development only where there is an overriding national need and no reasonable alternative. This restrictive stance is reinforced by Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, and General Policy 3 (GP3), which collectively direct new housing to towns, villages, and planned urban extensions, limiting rural development to specific exceptions. Housing Policy

• 4 confirms that new housing in the countryside is only acceptable in exceptional cases, namely, essential agricultural dwellings, conversions of redundant rural buildings of architectural or historic interest, or replacement dwellings. The proposal meets none of these exceptions and must therefore be assessed under GP3's restrictive countryside framework.

• 7.2.2 The proposal does not satisfy any of GP3's exceptions. It is neither essential agricultural housing nor a replacement dwelling. It does not involve conversion of a redundant rural building of architectural, historic, or social interest, nor does it qualify as redevelopment of previously developed land (PDL). The site is an undeveloped agricultural field, and agricultural land is explicitly excluded from the definition of PDL, which applies only to land occupied by permanent structures and their curtilage. Consequently, GP3(c) cannot be engaged, and no policy route under GP3 supports a new dwelling on this site.

• 7.2.3 The site's physical and functional separation from the host dwelling is significant. The residential curtilage is clearly defined by a post-and-rail fence, and the proposed building lies beyond this boundary in agricultural land. No approval exists to extend the curtilage, and incidental domestic use does not alter the lawful use of agricultural land. This distinction is critical to both GP3's application and the claimed ancillary status. Under Section 6(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, 'development' includes any material change in the use of land. Extending the residential curtilage into agricultural land constitutes such a change and therefore requires formal planning permission. In the absence of such approval, the land must continue to be treated as agricultural in planning terms and cannot be lawfully regarded as part of the domestic curtilage.
• 7.2.4 The applicant describes the building as ancillary to the host dwelling; however, ancillary buildings are typically located within the residential curtilage and are subordinate to the main dwelling. The proposed siting in an agricultural field precludes curtilage development. Common ownership or shared access does not establish ancillary status. This aligns with the Inspector's findings in Moaney Woods (PA 24/00770/B), which held that ancillary status requires a functional relationship with the primary residential use and that incidental domestic use cannot apply to land lawfully designated as agricultural.
• 7.2.5 The internal layout, comprising a bathroom, living area, and two bedrooms, is capable of independent occupation, characteristic of a separate dwelling rather than an ancillary outbuilding. Reliance on tie conditions cannot overcome a fundamental policy conflict where a building is inherently capable of independent use. Furthermore, planning permission was recently granted for substantial alterations to the main dwelling, creating a six-bedroom layout with multiple ensuite bedrooms and ground-floor accommodation suitable for elderly family members. This undermines the claimed need for a separate ancillary unit, as the approved alterations, which remain capable of implementation, demonstrably support multi-generational living without requiring additional built form in the countryside. Moreover, the Planning Statement refers to future accommodation for elderly relatives, but no evidence has been provided to demonstrate a current care need. In this context, the justification appears

• speculative and weakens the ancillary claim. If a genuine and immediate care need existed, the proposed dual-purpose use for tourism would be unnecessary and inconsistent with the stated domestic function.
• 7.2.6 The proposal is explicitly described as a self-contained ancillary unit with additional tourist use. As such, it must be assessed not only under the Strategic Plan's housing policies but also against its tourism policies. Business Policy 11 requires all tourism development to meet the same sustainability and policy tests as other countryside proposals, including compliance with GP3 and EP1. Business Policy 14 permits tourism development in rural areas only where it aligns with the wider Strategic Plan framework and demonstrates compatibility with environmental, agricultural, and landscape objectives. These assessments build directly on the earlier findings, which establish that the site lies outside the residential curtilage, on agricultural land, and does not meet any of the exceptions for new dwellings under GP3. The speculative nature of the care justification further undermines the claimed ancillary status and weakens the basis for tourism-related policy support.
• 7.2.7 The proposal does not reuse existing built fabric, nor is it linked to an established tourism enterprise. Strategic Policy 8 supports tourism development only where it utilises existing buildings of interest and quality, and avoids harm to environmental, agricultural, or highway interests. Introducing a new residential-type structure into an undeveloped agricultural field, with potential to include domestic features such as lighting, hardstanding, and decking, fails to meet these criteria. While the site may be visually screened from the highway, the cumulative impact of introducing residential-type structures into the countryside is material. Even modest developments can incrementally erode rural character, particularly where domestic elements extend residential influence. The Strategic Plan's protective framework is designed to prevent such incremental domestication, especially where no overriding justification exists.
• 7.2.8 Further to the preceding assessment under GP3, EP1, and Strategic Policy 8, the proposal must also be considered against the Policy on the Development of Non-Serviced Accommodation (2019) and the Visitor Economy Strategy (2022-2032). These documents support diversification of the visitor offer, but only where proposals meet defined criteria that reinforce the Strategic Plan's spatial and environmental protections. Specifically, they require sensitive integration with the landscape, avoidance of harm to rural character, and demonstration of sustainable design. They also expect reuse of existing built fabric, inclusion of visitor-enhancing features such as leisure facilities or accessibility adaptations, and submission of evidence demonstrating economic viability and contribution to the visitor economy. The absence of such features or supporting evidence in this case is notable.
• 7.2.9 The current proposal fails to meet these thresholds. It introduces a new structure into an undeveloped agricultural field, outside the residential curtilage, and does not reuse any existing building. It lacks leisure provision and meaningful accessibility features, as the internal layout does not support inclusive access despite the presence of external double doors. It offers no economic or viability assessment and does not demonstrate landscape integration or sustainability beyond basic construction standards. These deficiencies reinforce the earlier conclusion that the scheme conflicts with GP3 and EP1 and extend that conflict into the domain of tourism policy. It is also worth noting that while the 2019 Policy and Visitor Economy Strategy are material considerations, they explicitly require compliance with the Strategic Plan, which the proposal does not achieve.
• 7.2.10 This conflict is further deepened by the Planning Policy Statement (2012 Draft), which sets an additional threshold for development outside settlement boundaries. It requires proposals to demonstrate sustainable, long-term economic growth of Island-wide benefit, an expectation that complements the Strategic Plan's presumption against countryside development and aligns with the viability criteria embedded in the tourism policies. The application provides no economic case, no viability evidence, and no sustainability assessment.

• At best, it offers limited short-term flexibility for family or tourist use, which falls significantly short of the PPS requirement for strategic economic contribution.
• 7.2.11 Taken as a whole, the proposal fails to establish a credible planning justification. It seeks to introduce a new building into an undeveloped agricultural field, without policy support under either housing or tourism frameworks. The site lies beyond the established residential boundary, and the development does not meet any of the recognised exceptions for countryside housing. Assertions of ancillary use are undermined by the building's design, location, and capacity for independent occupation, while the tourism element lacks the necessary evidence of viability, sustainability, or strategic benefit. The cumulative policy conflicts across housing, environmental, spatial, and business policies, leave no route for support within the Strategic Plan. Accordingly, the proposal fails to align with Housing Policies 4, and conflicts with EP1, GP3, SP2, Spatial Policy 5, Strategic Policy 8, and Business Policies 11 and 14. It is therefore unacceptable in principle.

- 7.3 IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL SOILS

• 7.3.1 The application site comprises an undeveloped field identified as Class 2 agricultural land on the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map of the Isle of Man. According to the Agricultural Soils of the Isle of Man (2001) study, referenced in Section 7.13 of the Strategic Plan, Class 2 land is among the most versatile and productive soils on the Island, representing only 4.87% of total agricultural land. The Strategic Plan applies the highest level of protection to Class 1 and 2 soils, with a general presumption against their release for development. This protection is reinforced by Environment Policy 14, which states that development resulting in the permanent loss of Class 1 or 2 land will not be permitted unless there is an overriding need, no lower-quality land is available, and all other relevant policies are complied with.
• 7.3.2 No agricultural justification has been provided to support the development of this land. The proposal does not relate to agricultural operations, nor does it demonstrate any overriding national or local need. The applicant's Planning Statement asserts that the field is not actively farmed and is used for recreational purposes; however, this does not alter its lawful designation as agricultural land. The absence of active farming does not diminish the land's inherent quality or its strategic value, particularly given its Class 2 classification.
• 7.3.3 The proposed development would result in the permanent loss of a portion of highquality agricultural land, with no evidence that land of lower quality has been considered or is unavailable. This directly conflicts with Environment Policy 14, which requires both an overriding need and the unavailability of lower-grade land before Class 1 or 2 soils can be released for development. The removal of the existing shed is presented as a compensatory measure, but this does not mitigate the loss of agricultural land, nor does it enhance agricultural productivity. The shed's removal is not linked to any agricultural improvement scheme and does not offset the introduction of a new residential-type structure.
• 7.3.4 In addition, Section 7.13.2 of the Strategic Plan sets out a presumption against new uses in the countryside that would materially affect rural character, require new buildings, or lack local need. The proposal meets all three of these criteria: it introduces a new building, alters the open character of the field, and is not supported by any demonstrated local need. The development would also contribute to the incremental domestication of the landscape, contrary to the stewardship principles outlined in Section 7.13.1, which emphasise the importance of preserving openness, hedgerows, and field boundaries.
• 7.3.5 In conclusion, the proposal would result in the unjustified loss of Class 2 agricultural land, contrary to Environment Policy 14 and the protective framework set out in Section 7.13 of the Strategic Plan. No agricultural need has been demonstrated, no lower-grade land has been considered, and the development would materially harm the rural character and strategic agricultural resource base of the Island.

- 7.4 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT

• 7.4.1 The application site comprises an open agricultural field with minimal built form, limited to a small garden shed proposed for removal. There is tree cover to the west, northwest and south, but the east of the site is visually exposed from adjoining agricultural land to the east. The removal of the historic tree line that previously separated the field from the curtilage has further increased its visibility and openness. The proposed unit would introduce a new building into this largely undeveloped landscape, altering its character from agricultural to domestic. This change would be particularly noticeable given the site's proximity to other agricultural parcels.
• 7.4.2 The proposed structure is a single-storey, flat-roofed unit with horizontal cladding and a modular, prefabricated appearance. Its design lacks architectural reference to traditional rural buildings and does not reflect the vernacular forms expected under Planning Circular 3/91, which discourages flat roofs and promotes simple, rectangular forms reflective of traditional farmhouses. The design fails to incorporate features such as deep window reveals, symmetrical fenestration, or traditional materials, which are central to the Island's rural architectural identity. This divergence from established design principles contributes to a perception of "anywhere architecture," contrary to Strategic Policy 5's aim to raise the quality of the built environment. Moreover, the proposal does not exhibit the qualities of contemporary rural architecture, nor does it demonstrate innovation in form, materiality, or landscape integration. It lacks the contextual responsiveness, sustainability features, or design distinctiveness that might otherwise justify a departure from vernacular norms.
• 7.4.3 The proposed building is sited within an open agricultural field, physically detached from the existing dwelling at Close Chirrym. This siting fails to meet the integration principles set out in Strategic Policy 5 and Circular 3/91 Policy 2, which require new development to respect landscape character and avoid prominent or isolated locations. The introduction of domestic features, such as fencing, lighting, and potentially decking, into a previously undeveloped field would contribute to incremental domestication of the rural landscape. This conflicts with Strategic Policy 4, which seeks to protect and enhance landscape quality, and with Environment Policy 1, which protects the countryside for its own sake. The absence of tree cover or hedgerow planting along the eastern boundary exacerbates the site's visual exposure, and no landscape proposals have been submitted to mitigate this impact, as required under Circular 3/91 Policy 2.
• 7.4.4 The applicant asserts that the unit would have minimal visual impact, but no landscape appraisal or visual impact assessment has been submitted to support this claim. The absence of such evidence is notable given the site's openness and the lack of natural screening when viewed from the surrounding fields and neighbouring farms to the east of the site. The proposal does not demonstrate how the building would be visually contained, nor does it propose any meaningful mitigation measures such as planting or bunding. This omission is particularly significant in light of Strategic Policy 4(b), which emphasises the need to protect landscape quality in rural areas, especially where development is adjacent to sensitive designations or exposed sites.
• 7.4.5 In summary, the proposal would materially alter the character of the site and its visual relationship with the surrounding countryside. The building's design lacks reference to either traditional or contemporary rural architecture, and its detached, exposed siting within an open field fails to integrate with the landscape. The cumulative effect of domestic features, such as lighting, decking, and fencing, would erode the agricultural character of the area. The scheme does not demonstrate innovation or contextual sensitivity, nor does it contribute positively to the Island's built environment. It falls short of the design expectations set out in Planning Circular 3/91 (Policies 2, 3, and 4) and the Residential Design Guide (2021). As such, the proposal conflicts with Strategic Policies 4 and 5, General Policy 2(b, c), Environment Policy 1, and is unacceptable in landscape and visual terms.

- 7.5 IMPACTS ON NEIGHBOURING AMENITY

• 7.5.1 In assessing the impacts of the proposed development on neighbouring amenity, it is considered that the spatial relationship between the proposed unit and nearby dwellings is shaped not only by separation distances but by the degree of physical containment and boundary definition. The western edge is enclosed by a mature tree belt, which provides a clear buffer between the site and Suffield and Alma Cottage, while the northwest boundary is similarly enclosed by vegetation that offers separation from Kela Veg. These features help maintain a sense of privacy and reduce the potential for domestic activity within the field to encroach upon the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. In contrast, the eastern boundary remains open and unenclosed, though it adjoins agricultural land only and does not face any residential properties. As such, while the site is not fully enclosed, the absence of dwellings to the east limits the scope for direct amenity impacts in that direction.
• 7.5.2 While the proposed unit would be located at a sufficient distance from neighbouring dwellings to avoid direct impacts such as overlooking or overshadowing, the change in land use from agricultural to domestic introduces a new pattern of activity into the area. The Residential Design Guide (2021) recognises that amenity impacts can arise from shifts in how land is used, particularly where new domestic or recreational functions are introduced adjacent to established residential properties. In this case, the presence of decking, outdoor seating, and the potential for regular domestic use within the field may affect the sense of privacy and quiet enjoyment currently experienced by neighbouring occupiers.
• 7.5.3 The proposed dual-purpose use, serving both as ancillary accommodation and occasional tourist lodging, further complicates the amenity context. While occupancy restrictions could be imposed via condition, such controls would not fully address the broader concerns arising from the nature and location of the use. The introduction of a new domestic and visitor-oriented function into a previously undeveloped field raises legitimate concerns about increased comings and goings, visitor turnover, and outdoor activity, particularly during holiday periods. These activities have the potential to disrupt the quiet enjoyment of nearby properties, especially for residents of Suffield and Alma Cottage, whose dwellings lie closest to the site. General Policy 2(h) cautions against developments that may result in unacceptable disturbance, and in this case, the countryside setting and lack of curtilage containment heighten the risk of amenity conflict.
• 7.5.4 The proposal also raises questions about its alignment with Business Policy 13, which supports the use of private residential properties for tourist accommodation where neighbouring amenity is not compromised. This support is conditional on the accommodation being located within an established residential curtilage, where domestic use is lawful and the property is recognised as residential in planning terms. In this case, the proposed unit would be introduced into agricultural land outside the lawful curtilage of Close Chirrym, and no formal change of use has been granted. While the field sits adjacent to the dwelling, it remains designated as countryside, and the unit would not form part of the existing residential property. As such, the proposal does not fall within the scope of Business Policy 13 and must instead be considered in the context of wider amenity and countryside protections.
• 7.5.5 This distinction is significant in amenity terms. Even if occupancy and use were to be controlled by condition, it remains difficult to anticipate the extent of change that could result once the use becomes established. Residential-type development in the countryside often gives rise to incremental domestication, through garden structures, lighting, hardstanding, and recreational activity, that gradually alters the amenity context. These changes tend to accumulate over time and may not be apparent at the point of decision. In this case, the proposal risks introducing a level of domestic and recreational activity that is inconsistent with the quiet, low-intensity character of neighbouring properties, undermining the policy objective of maintaining residential amenity in rural settings.

• 7.5.6 Taken together, the spatial characteristics of the site, the nature of the proposed use, and the absence of curtilage containment point to a material change in the amenity relationship between the field and neighbouring dwellings. While the western and northern boundaries offer some degree of physical screening, they do not mitigate the broader amenity concerns arising from the introduction of domestic and visitor-oriented activity into a previously undeveloped rural field. The proposal does not demonstrate how the quiet, low-intensity character of the surrounding area would be preserved, nor does it provide adequate safeguards to prevent incremental domestication or disturbance over time. In this context, the scheme fails to satisfy the requirements of General Policy 2(b, g, h), which seek to protect residential amenity and prevent unacceptable impacts, and does not align with the principles set out in the Residential Design Guide (2021). The development is therefore considered unacceptable in amenity terms.

- 7.6 POTENTIAL HIGHWAY IMPACTS / IMPACTS ON PARKING

• 7.6.1 The proposed unit would utilise the existing vehicular access serving Close Chirrym, which connects to St. Jude's Road via a short driveway. This arrangement is established and currently functions without constraint. No alterations are proposed to the access point, and the development does not introduce new junctions or turning areas. Based on the scale of the unit and its stated ancillary and occasional tourist use, the proposal does not raise immediate concerns in terms of highway safety or network capacity.
• 7.6.2 However, the dual-purpose nature of the proposal introduces a degree of variability in use, particularly during peak visitor periods. While the current configuration may accommodate anticipated traffic levels, no operational details have been provided to clarify occupancy patterns, visitor frequency, or management arrangements. In the absence of such detail, it is difficult to fully assess the long-term implications for access intensity and vehicle movements. This uncertainty does not amount to a policy conflict at present, but it warrants caution should the use evolve or intensify over time.
• 7.6.3 Parking provision is stated to be seven spaces, which appears proportionate to the combined needs of the host dwelling and the proposed unit. This level of provision avoids reliance on on-street parking and satisfies the expectations of Transport Policy 7. However, no breakdown has been provided to distinguish between residential and visitor use, and no layout plan has been submitted to confirm adequacy of turning and manoeuvring space. These omissions limit the ability to fully assess operational efficiency, though no overspill risk is currently identified.
• 7.6.4 On balance, the proposal does not give rise to any identifiable conflict with General Policy 2(f), Transport Policy 4, or Transport Policy 7.

- 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 The proposal offers potential benefits in terms of flexible family accommodation and limited tourist use, with no significant highway or direct privacy impacts. However, these positives are outweighed by fundamental policy conflicts: the site lies on Class 2 agricultural land outside any defined settlement, contrary to GP3, EP1, SP2, and Environment Policy 14; it introduces a visually intrusive, flat-roofed structure into an open field, eroding rural character and failing Strategic Policies 4 and 5. The design does not reflect rural vernacular, breaches Planning Circular 3/91 by incorporating a flat roof and modular form, and lacks any innovative or context-sensitive qualities. Combined with risks of incremental domestication, amenity disturbance, and absence of overriding need, economic justification, or landscape mitigation, the scheme conflicts with Business Policies 11 and 14. As such, the application is recommended for refusal. - 9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE

9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal

(i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).

9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:

• o applicant (in all cases).
• o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and
• o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.

9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10. - 9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):

• o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant);
• o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure, and the local authority for the area;
• o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and
• o in the case of a petition, a single representative.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner 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: 28.10.2025 Determining Officer

Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner

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.