Loading document...
Application No.: 17/01035/B Applicant: Ms Lyn Kermode Proposal: Additional use of existing ancillary garden building as self- catering tourist accommodation (retrospective) Site Address: Langtoft Ballagyr Lane Peel Isle Of Man IM5 2AD Senior Planning Officer: Jason Singleton Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 26.11.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The existing building is not of sufficient architectural, historic or social interest as to allow for the principle of conversion pursuant to the provisions of Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3, Housing Policies 4,11 and Environment Policy 16. As a consequence, there would be a material adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, contrary to GP2. - R 2. The proposed additional use of the existing rural building to a self-catering tourist use is of a nature which would not be supported in the countryside to the provisions set out under - Business Policy 11, 12, and 14 which set out the exceptional forms of development which could be allowed. - R 3. It has not been demonstrated that there is an overriding national need for the proposal and a site for which there are no reasonable and acceptable alternatives. Therefore the proposed development would result in an inappropriate development in the countryside contrary to Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan.
_________________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status None
_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site identified in red comprises the residential curtilage of a detached dwelling "Langtoft" located on Ballagyr Lane in German. The property is a two story detached dwelling house in generous gardens, within those gardens are some out buildings and the property is bounded by agricultural fields and mature tree planting on the boundaries. - 1.2 To the northern tip of the garden is a large timber cladded single storey building that measures approx. 15 x 6m which is internally subdivided to provide 4 bedrooms, two lounges , two galley kitchens, four shower rooms and a separate w/c and an outside decking area. - 1.3 No planning consent could be located for the timber garden building subject to this application. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the; "Additional use of existing ancillary garden building as self-catering tourist accommodation (retrospective)" - 2.2 The applicant notes in support of the application; "We forward a detailed planning application to cover in retrospect the use of the existing timber chalet for seasonal tourist use (April - September) up to 1 month in duration The facility provides budget accommodation that is in my opinion a step up from camping. Market research has proved that a demand exists for such accommodation which despite being unheated provides a comfortable alternative to living under canvas, which can be uncomfortable due to our summer climate.". PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 The application site benefits from the following approvals; 06/01485/B - Alterations and extensions to provide additional living accommodation 11/01028/B - Alterations and extensions to dwelling 11/01570/B - Extension and conversion of detached garage to provide ancillary / tourist accommodation DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES - 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the site is designated as "Woodland" under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982 and is located within a wider area of land that is classified as being of high landscape or coastal value and scenic significance. The site is not within a Conservation Area, nor within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
4.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains two policies which are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application;
Strategic Policy;
Spatial Policy; 5 Building in defined settlements or GP3
General Policies;
Environmental Polices; 1 Protection of the countryside
4.3 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.
Tourist policies;
4.4 IoM Visitor Economy Strategy 2022 which provides the strategic plan for growing the Island's Visitor Economy over the next 10 years through to 2032. - 4.5 IOM Govt Island economic strategy 2022, set out the direction on investment and economic security for the next 10 years and highlights the importance of year round tourism and growing part of our Island's proposition for both visitors and residents.
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 DoI Highways Services -commented 19/10/17- "The applicant is requested to provide a drawing to an appropriate scale that indicates the visibility that can be achieved over land within their control from a point 2.4m back from the edge of carriageway to the near side carriageway edge in both directions; and that the access is capable of permitting 2 vehicles to pass without obstructing the highway". - 6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are; Principle Tourist Development in the countryside Conversion to Tourist use Exceptional Circumstances Visual Impact Neighbouring Amenities Highway Safety PRINCIPLE
6.1 The starting point here is the land designation, it is clear from the 1982 Development Plan, the application site is within a rural and protected part of the countryside where any development is strictly controlled and the site is not allocated for development. It is further noted the structure is within the defined residential curtilage of "Langtoft Manor" (dwelling house). - 6.2 The existing structure is a relatively modern build (circa 2017), constructed out of modern timber frame and cladded with timber materials and a pitched roof. At the time of writing no such planning consent could be found that would allow for the construction of this building. Furthermore, it is of a size that exceeds the levels of permitted development for garden buildings. As such, no valid planning permission exists for the erection of this garden
Business Policy 12 it also applies to conversions to tourist uses, as is this case. Amongst the requirement of Housing Policy 11 is that redundancy for the original use can be established, as echoed in Environmental Policy 16.
6.11 To go further with the planning policy narrative, the supporting information with Housing Policy 11 states, "8.10.1 Throughout the countryside, there are examples of buildings which are no longer suitable or needed for their originally intended use, but which are of sufficient quality or interest to warrant retention and re-use."
6.12 Further consideration was given to whether an exception could be found under GP3(c) where consideration could be given for previously developed land (as noted in para 3.4 above) and also referred to in Strategic Policy 1(a) to optimise the use of such land. For an exception to be made through GP3c there needs to be a significant amount of buildings; and; their continued use is redundant; and; where development would reduce the impact of the current situation of the landscape or wider environment; and where development would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment. CONVERSION TO TOURIST USE - 6.13 Despite the retrospective nature of the building, given its formed from using modern construction and materials, ensures there are no parts of the proposed structure which would be deemed to be of "sufficient quality or interest to warrant retention and re-use. It would not seek to continue to positively contribute to the Islands built heritage through any conversion or adaption. Neither can it be proposed to be "architectural, historic or social value and interest," as such, the proposal does not comply with any part of GP3(b) and is deemed not to be acceptable. - 6.14 Also, it would not constitute a significant amount of buildings on site to be replaced and it would not necessarily be compliant in these terms with the definition or would adhere to that of GP3(c) for previous developed land. As such the proposal cannot be considered to comply with GP3c. - 6.15 This proposal has introduced a new building on site with habitable accommodation for tourist use with a number of bedrooms. The timber garden building sits in an isolated location within the countryside and whilst it is within the residential curtilage, it sits at a distance from the dwellinghouse where they are not read within the same context. The size and scale of the proposals and its internal subdivision to allow for habitable accommodation and welfare, could be seen by default to allow for the creation of a new dwelling in the countryside on land that is not zoned for development. - 6.16 To summarise the policy narrative and assessment of the proposals against those aforementioned planning policies, as identified earlier within the planning policy section of this report, this presumption against is set out in four different ways; the application site is not zoned for residential development under the 1982 Development Plan; Secondly, General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic plan, states that in such areas new dwellings (albeit tourist use is applied for - above further examines the link to residential) will generally not be permitted; Thirdly, the site is not identified in an Area Plan being a town, village, or within a sustainable urban extension and there for contrary to the exceptions indicated in Housing Policy 4; Fourthly, The site is zoned within an area of countryside which seeks to prevent development, unless the development is for an overriding national need where there is no alternative and would not adversely affect the countryside (visual impact assessed below). - 6.17 The test is whether the proposal for what would be tantamount to a new dwelling here on site, would be an improvement on the landscape and wider environment and whether an overriding exception can be found under Ep1 to offset development in the countryside as an over -riding national need in land use terms where there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative. This concludes the application is to be assessed for the creation of a new residential/ tourist building in the countryside. - 6.18 The attempts to have any additional use of existing ancillary garden building as selfcatering tourist accommodation on this site would fail on both counts and therefor a refusal can also legitimately be made on that basis in contravention of the established policy presumption against development in the countryside.
6.19 As the proposal fails to meet the exception for development in the countryside at GP3b, Gp3c it would intern also be considered contrary to Housing Policy 11, Environmental Policy 16, Business Policy 11, 12 and 14, Strategic Policy 1a. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES - 6.20 In terms of planning policy there is a long established presumption against new habitable accommodation in the countryside as noted above. General Policy 3, and Housing Policy 4 both identify potential exceptions for development within such areas. More specifically, both General Policy 3 (paragraphs a & d) and Housing Policy 4 identifies three potential circumstances where residential (tourist use would be applicable in this instance) development may be allowed. Firstly, if there is an essential need for an agricultural workers dwelling (agricultural condition attached requiring the property to be used only by full time agricultural workers only, which is proven to be justified); second, conversion of existing rural properties (i.e. traditional Manx stone barn); and thirdly the replacement of an existing dwelling with a new dwelling. Nevertheless, turning to the suitability of the site and the land use designation, on balance, it is not considered for there to be an exception to be made in this application to create a new unit of accommodation in the countryside and would be contrary to Gp3a,d and HP4. - 6.21 Given there is no valid planning consent for the erection of the building or its use, the above assessment identifies the proposals are contrary to those planning policies for development in the countryside. However, noting the length of time since the application was submitted (2017) and its determination, the applicants have the option to regularise in planning terms the building and its use by the applying for a certificate of lawfulness. This would be at the discretion of the applicant and the burden of proof required to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt the erection of the garden building and its use has been in continuous use for more than 4 years. VISUAL IMPACT - 6.22 The proposal would be introducing an element of built development on site where at present there should be none. Given the retrospective nature of the proposals, when visiting the area it is not as visible from the adjoining highway as the dwelling house and garage is. Although, this is not an automatic assumption, just because it is not in full view of a public vantage point does not automatically give a reason for it to be acceptable as noted in the supporting text from the strategic plan at para 4.3.11. - 6.23 Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan provides that, in the absence of an overriding national need, development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted. There is no avoiding the fact that the proposal in terms of its siting, scale, massing, height and finishes could be visible from the highway but could also be read as a residential feature on the landscape. - 6.24 In this case, the proposal would not be supported and would be contrary to aims of STP5 and GP2b&C where the proposal would be overdevelopment for the site and have a detrimental visual impact through its design and use of this part of the site. The proposal could be considered to have an adverse visual impact upon the rural aspect of the countryside for which EP1 seeks to protect. NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES - 6.25 Turning to whether there would be any adverse impact (overlooking, loss of light; over bearing impact, and loss of privacy) upon those nearest neighbouring properties. Given the isolated location and the nearest residential dwelling is that of the applicants (opposite) and the intervening distances and landscaping between the two properties, it is considered there to be no detrimental impact on either the application site or that of the dwelling opposite and these aspects could be considered to be in accordance with GP2(g).
7.1 On balance it is judged, the proposal is contrary to those aforementioned Policies of the Strategic Plan and does not meet the tests for exceptional development within the countryside, furthermore the proposals would have an adverse impact upon the countryside.
7.2 It is therefore concluded that the planning application is recommended for refusal. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
Interested Person Status.
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: 28.11.2025 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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
