Officer Report

Applicant: Mr Brian Kelly Proposal Erection of detached garage and garden store Site Address Starley Cottage Port Lewaigue Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 1AJ Case Officer : Vanessa Porter Site Visit: Expected Decision Level Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 28.03.2025

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. The garage/ garden store above hereby approved shall only be used only in association with the main dwelling house "Starley Cottage" and for purposes incidental to the use of main dwelling house "Starley Cottage" as a single dwelling and not for commercial purposes.

Reason: the dwelling is within a single residential plot within an area not designated for development and has only been considered acceptable for the reasons identified within the application. The application does not propose to create separate units within the site and has not been considered as such.

• C 3. The building shall be used only for the storage of private motor vehicles, bicycles and items associated with the maintenance and occupation of the site as a whole, including land in the occupants' ownership. Reason: to accord with the justification provided by the applicant for the building.
• C 4. If the use of the garage/ garden store hereby approved ceases for period exceeding 12 months, the building and any supporting base shall be removed and the ground restored to its former condition within 3 months of the date of the cessation, unless a time is otherwise approved in writing by the Department.

• Reason: The building has been exceptionally approved solely to meet a personal need and its subsequent retention would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside.
• C 5. Prior to being brought into use, the proposed workshop/garage shall be painted green and retained as such thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.
• C 6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2025 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no free standing structure can be erected in the residential curtilage.

Reason: To control the proliferation of freestanding structures, which will reduce the openness of the site into the additional residential curtilage approved under this application.

• C 7. The additional tree planting as shown in drawing No. 24 1845 02, dated Sept 24 must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which die or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species. The hard landscaping works (additional driveway) shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details prior to the first operation/occupation of the development thereby permitted and retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. Whilst the workshop/barn does not fit within General Policy 3, garages & garden stores are a common feature within residential curtilages. The garage/ garden store is larger than a 'normal' garage but on balance it is considered there will be a minimal impact on the overall streetscene. Several conditions are proposed to help mitigate any possible impact the workshop/garage could have on the neighbouring properties and with the possibility of severance from the main dwelling.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the following plans and drawings, date stamped received on 12th December 2024;

• o Drawing No. 24 1845 01
• o Drawing No. 24 1845 02
• o Drawing No. 24 1845 03
• o Drawing No. 24 1845 04
• o Drawing No. 01
• o Site Photographs _______________________________________________________________

Right to Appeal

It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DOI Highway Services - No objection Garff Commissioners - No objection DOI Highway Drainage - No objection

________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT RECOMMENDED FOR AN APPROVAL

THE APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The application site is within the curtilage of Starley Cottage, Port Lewaigue, Ramsey which is a large detached dwelling situated to the South of Port Lewaigue, opposite the entrance into The Colony cul-de-sac. - 1.2 The overall site consists of a large side garden/ paddock, an in and out driveway with parking area and a tholtan situated to the Western side of the site. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The current planning application seeks approval for the extension of the existing driveway to the East and the erection of a large storage unit to be used for the storage of vehicles and general garden storage. - 2.2 The proposed storage unit is to be constructed from a steel portal frame with the walls and roof clad in "Olive Green" powder coated steel box profile sheeting and is to measure 12m by 14m with an overall height of 4.275m. The proposal includes a garage door to the North East elevation measuring approximately 6m wide and a pedestrian door. - 2.3 The proposal includes the addition of three trees to the North East side of the enlarged driveway, which are to be medium sized. No details on the species of trees to be planted. PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 The following are applications upon the site as a whole;

• PA87/04545/A - Approval in principle to extensions and alterations - Refused
• PA88/00569/A - Approval in principle to extension to provide additional living accommodation, and garage - Permitted PA90/00785/B - Erection of dwelling and conversion of existing cottage to double garage Permitted PA92/00137/B - Construction of front porch - Permitted PA94/00592/A - Approval in principle for erection of dwelling - Refused at Appeal PA97/00570/B - Change of use of part field to garden and creation of highway access Permitted PA99/00318/B - Extension to dwelling including conservatory and garaging - Refused PA99/01624/B - Extension to dwelling - Permitted PA99/02230/A - Approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling - Refused PA03/00559/B - Extensions to dwelling including double garage - Permitted on Review

• PA03/00559/PART - Creation of vehicular access and driveway - Permitted
• PA04/02277/B - Amendments to approved extensions to dwelling (03/00559/B) - Permitted PA10/00976/A - Approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling - Refused PA15/00961/B - Alterations and erection of extensions to existing former tholtan to provide ancillary accommodation and vehicular access alterations to create a pedestrian access Permitted PA14/00171/B - Alterations and erection of extension to dwelling - Permitted

PLANNING POLICY

4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as "Not for Development" and an "Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance," on the 1982 Development Plan, North Map. The property is not within a Conservation Area or a Flood Risk Zone.

- 4.2 STRATEGIC PLAN

• Strategic Policy 1 - development should be located to make best use of previously developed land, redundant and underused buildings and utilising existing infrastructure;

• Strategic Policy 2 - focuses new development in existing settlements unless complies with GP3;
• Strategic Policy 3 - to respect the character of our towns and villages Strategic Policy 5 - development must be well designed; Strategic Policy 10 - development should promote integrated journeys, minimise car use and facilitate other modes of travel;

• Spatial Policy 1 - priority to Douglas for development
• Spatial Policy 2 - identifying Service Centres for development
• Spatial Policy 3 - identifying service villages
• Spatial Policy 4 - remain villages
• Spatial Policy 5 - building in defined settlements or GP3 Spatial Policy 5 - new development will be in defined settlements only or in the countryside only in accordance with GP3;

• General Policy 2 - detailed 'development control' considerations;
• General Policy 3 - acceptable development in areas not zoned for development; Environment Policy 1 - the countryside must be protected for its own sake; Environment Policy 42 - new development should be designed to take into account the character and identity of the area; Community Policy 7 - designed to prevent criminal and antisocial behaviour; Community Policies 10 & 11 - implement best practice so as to reduce the outbreak and spread of fire; Housing Policy 4 - new housing will be located primarily within the existing towns and villages Housing Policy 11 - conversion of existing rural buildings list Transport Policy 1 - best located close to existing transport links Transport Policy 4 - safe and appropriate provisions for journeys; Transport Policy 7 - parking standards Infrastructure Policy 5 - methods for water conservation

- 4.3 DEFINITION OF CURTILAGE

• 4.3.1 Definition of curtilage is found within Appendix 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and states, "The area of land attached to and around a building, used with the building and within which the building is set (e.g. the garden and driveways of a house, the storage yard of a factory). Land used with a building but severed from it by, say, a highway or service land is not part of the curtilage of that building.

4.4 OTHER MATERIAL MATTERS

• 4.4.1 Planning Circular 3/91 - Guide to the residential development in the countryside.

• 4.4.2 Residential Design Guide (2021) - 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.

4.5 HISTORIC UK CASE LAW

• 4.5.1 Dancey & Co v SoS & Lewes DC 1980: In Dancey & Co v SoS & Lewes DC 1980 the basic premise that curtilage definition is essentially a matter of fact and degree was established. In Methuen-Campbell v Walters 1979 a paddock attached to a garden was not considered to be within a curtilage as it was separated by a fence and not therefore intimately associated. The Methuen-Campbell case was quoted in James v SoS & Another 09/10/1990 where a tennis court had been erected some l00 metres distant from a house beyond an area of undergrowth and rough grass and a partial and indistinct line of trees and shrubs. It was held that an inspector had been correct in deciding that curtilages did not have precise limits and that each situation must be considered according to the facts of each particular case.

• 4.5.2 In Attorney-General ex.rel Sutcliffe, Rouse & Hughes v Calderdale BC 1983 the Court of Appeal accepted that three factors had to be taken in determining what constituted a curtilage

a) the physical layout of the building and structure, b) ownership past and present, and c) use and function past and present.

• 4.5.3 In the Court of Appeal in Sumption v London Borough of Greenwich 08/04/2008. The court summarised from the authorities the three tests to be used to address the question of curtilage. First, a single ownership is neither necessary nor sufficient to make land a single curtilage. Two, co-occupation of the house and land is not sufficient. Third it is not necessary for the land to be useful, advantageous or necessary to the dwellinghouse for it to be regarded as part of the curtilage. The court also emphasised that it also essential a matter of fact and degree.

• 4.5.4 In Barnett v SoS & Another 23/03/2009 the Court of Appeal had to consider whether one or other of two planning permissions had defined a curtilage and, if so, its extent, as the submitted site plans were inconsistent with each other. Planning permission had been granted in 1995 for the erection of an estate manager's dwelling on agricultural land and in 1998 planning permission was granted for a single-storey extension and alterations to that dwelling. Subsequently, an area outside the site granted planning permission in 1995 but within a red line site plan accompanying the 1998 application was brought into garden use and leisure facilities constructed there. Refusal of retrospective planning permission and subsequent enforcement notices were appealed. The appeal court upheld the high court finding of a distinction between the situation where permission was granted for a new dwelling house, whose curtilage would normally be identified by the site as defined on the site plan, and the situation where permission was sought to alter or extend an existing dwelling which had an existing curtilage. Permission to construct a new dwelling on non-residential land in effect contained a built-in application for change of use to residential purposes and defined the extent of the land so covered. The court concluded that since there had been no application for a change of use as part of the 1998 application, the curtilage could not be extended merely by submitting or subsequently relying on a site plan covering a wider area. REPRESENTATIONS
• 5.1 The following representations can be found in full online, below is a short summery;

5.2 Highway Services have considered the application and have no highways interest. (09.12.24 & 17.12.24). - 5.3 Garff Commissioners have considered the application and state, "Members felt that there would be some visual impact from the new garage/store. The consensus, however, was that this would be minimised by the layout of the site and mature screening provided at the curtilage of the property. The Commission resolved not to object to the proposals." (27.01.25) - 5.4 The Ecosystem Policy Officer has written in to state they have no object subject to a condition regarding the removal of the large tree on site, and that they would like a secured for tree planting to be undertaken as per Drawing No.24 1845 03. (30.12.24) - 5.5 DOI Highway Drainage have written in to add the following comments, "Allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads. Recommendation: No details or plans attached and are required to determine any access onto the highway before we can comment!" (13.01.25)

ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are as follows;

• - principle
• - curtilage definition and acceptability of ancillary use of the building
• - design and visual impact
• - highway impact

• - other matters

- 6.2 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

• 6.2.1 In the first instance, the principle of the development needs to be addressed, "Starley Cottage" is situated on a site which is not allocated for development on the 1982 Development Plan and as such it is a site which lies within the countryside where development is restricted, in order to protect the countryside for its own sake.

• 6.2.2 Whilst there is nothing specific within the Strategic Plan which would allow for detached garages/ garden store, a number of proposals have been approved within the countryside where a garage would respect the site and surrounding area in terms of siting, layout, scale, form and design. There have also been specific applications previously approved for large storage units built within the residential curtilage of dwellings.
• 6.2.3 As such the overall principle of the garage is acceptable, whilst this is the case it is necessary to assess whether the garage on this site would be acceptable.

- 6.3 CURTILAGE DEFINITION

6.3.1 In most cases, the definition of a curtilage does not cause much controversy. This is because although ownership is not on its own a determining factor, the boundary of a private garden or the extent of the land surrounding business premises is normally defined on the ground by some physical features and by function as a matter of fact and degree.

• 6.3.2 When looking at the back history of "Starley Cottage" including the Government aerials, there is a defining difference in the residential curtilage of the site from when the replacement dwelling was approved and to the last approved application, which has shown a definite increase over time. The most recent increase in the curtilage would be under PA14/00171/B, of which the officer stated, "The application site (red line) is very large, extending a significant distance to the east and appears to include land outside the residential curtilage. An amended plan has been sought from the agent, which will better reflect the actual area of the planning unit and should avoid potential future confusion as to the extent of the residential curtilage. The recommendation of this report is subject to the receipt of a satisfactory amended site location plan."
• 6.3.3 There is no doubt that, part of the proposal is situated outside of the residential curtilage that was provided within the 2014 application, and that the red line within this application encompasses the site as a whole, with no separate residential curtilage provided.
• 6.3.4 This then brings into question whether the proposal is increasing the residential curtilage above and beyond what would be deemed acceptable for where the property is situated. The plot as a whole is large and is just slightly larger than its neighbouring property to the West. There are several properties in the immediate area which have large plots but they are approximately half the size or less than the plot in question.
• 6.3.5 With this in mind, the encompassing of the whole plot into the residential curtilage of the site would be acceptable, especially when noting that due to the size of the area left outside the residential curtilage, is too small to be used for agriculture.
• 6.3.6 Whilst the above is the case, the encroachment of residential paraphernalia into this part of the site would not be acceptable as the open space of this area is a part of the overall streetscene and as such, the permitted development rights for the site should be removed for freestanding structures (such as sheds, greenhouses, garages etc.) so any additional residential paraphernalia is assessed against its harm to the overall streetscene.

- 6.4 CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE

• 6.4.1 When looking at the character and appearance of the garage/ garden store, is whether it would have a negative impact on the overall area. In the first instance the proposal is situated appoximately 28m away from the main dwelling and is of quite the size, both of which are features in making the proposal be seen as a separate entity to the main dwelling.

• 6.4.2 It can be seen that the proposal has been situated within this part of the site, due to the already existing mitigation which would be around the structure, whilst this is the case minimal views will be available from Jacks Lane.
• 6.4.3 Overall from a character and appearance point of view, the proposal is not residential in its appearance and is more akin to what you would expect in the countryside, whilst it is not the best architecturally for the plot it has been situated within, views into the site are minimal as such, from a harm point of view, the proposal does not impact the overall character and appearance of the streetscene.
• 6.4.4 It should be noted that the proposal has shown additional mitigation, which should be conditioned to make sure every mitigation that can be taken is taken to protect the overall streetscene and the countryside setting of the site, this would also comply with the condition in which the Ecosystems Policy Team would like to attach to the application.
• 6.5 HIGHWAY IMPACT

6.5.1 When looking at the possible Highway impact from the proposed works, it is noted that Highway Services have commented twice on the application that they have No Highways Interest, as such they have deemed the entrance, exit and the possible increase in movements to and from the site to be acceptable. As the professionals in change of Highway Services, their comments have been taken on board and it is deemed there is no highways impact from the proposal.

- 6.6 OTHER MATTERS

• 6.6.1 It is relevant to note that due to the existing in and out driveway that the property has and the fact that the proposal is situated away from the main dwelling, the garage/ garden store could very easily, without any impacts to the main dwelling, be severed and used as a separate entity. The harm with this would be that the proposal would not be connected to the main dwelling and might in turn have more movements to and from the site, which have not been assessed from a Highway Services point of view or due to the change in ownership, depending on what is provided with the change of ownership, the appearance of the overall site could alter above and beyond what is currently in place.

• 6.6.2 To help mitigate this, conditions should be attached to state that the property can only be used by the current applicants and that in the event that it is no longer required the garage/ garden store is removed. CONCLUSION
• 7.1 Whilst the workshop/barn does not fit within General Policy 3, garages & garden stores are a common feature within residential curtilages. The garage/ garden store is larger than a 'normal' garage but on balance it is considered there will be a minimal impact on the overall streetscene. Several conditions are proposed to help mitigate any possible impact the workshop/garage could have on the neighbouring properties and with the possibility of severance from the main dwelling.

7.2 For the above reasons, on balance, the proposal is considered acceptable. RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE - 8.1 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).

8.2 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.

8.3 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. - 8.4 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.

8.5 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given the Right to Appeal.

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 : …Permitted……….... Committee Meeting Date:…14.04.2025 Signed : V PORTER 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 14.04.2025

Application No. : 24/91292/B Applicant : Mr Brian Kelly Proposal : Erection of detached garage and garden store

Site Address : Starley Cottage Port Lewaigue Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 1AJ Planning Officer : Vanessa Porter Presenting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Planning Committee considered the application at its meeting on 14th April 2025, and agreed with the recommendation to approve the application subject to a revised condition 7, which included a timescale for planting.

Revised Condition 7 The additional tree planting as shown in drawing No. 24 1845 02, dated Sept 24 must be carried out in the first planting following the completion of the development or the occupation of the development, whichever is the sooner.

Any trees or plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with other trees or plants of a species and size to be first approved in writing by the Department.

The hard landscaping works (additional driveway) shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details prior to the first operation/occupation of the development thereby permitted and retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.