Inspector's Report

APPEAL: AP24/0054 PLANNING APPLICATION: 24/00770/B

Report on a Planning Appeal by the Written Procedure Site Visit: Monday 24 February 2025 __________________________________________________________ Appeal by: Mr & Mrs D & M Keating Against the decision of the planning authority to refuse an application for conversion of agricultural building to residential (non-habitable) accommodation ancillary to the occupation of Moaney Woods Farm at Moaney Woods Farm, Lonan, Church Road, Laxey, Isle of Man IM4 7JX. ___________________________________________________________ Introduction

• 1. This report provides brief descriptions of the appeal site and its surroundings; the proposal which is subject to the appeal; background information and relevant policy. The cases for the appeal parties are then summarised, fuller details being available for reference in the documents on the case file. My assessment, conclusions and recommendation follow.

Site and surroundings

• 2. The site is situated to the north of Lonan Church and is accessed by a lane (Public Right of Way) off Lonan Church Road. Sitting within open countryside the property consists of Moaney Woods Farm and Cottage, various buildings, open fields, hedgerows and trees. The building subject of the appeal is a large part-timber clad building to the north of the farmhouse and west of some garaging and workshops. The appeal building is the nearest to the Right of Way to the north.
• 3. At the time of my visit access was unavailable into the building but, given the large windows, I was able to see it had been converted to a modern gym/fitness space, reflecting the submitted plans and photographs. Large areas of hardstanding/gravel bring all the buildings together.

The retrospective proposal

1. The building has had external alterations with areas of glazing to the south and west elevations as depicted on the drawings. A concrete hardstanding has also been constructed on the southern side with a level access into the building. A log store to the west extends the length of the building.

Planning Policy The Area Plan for the East

• 5. The site is not within an area designated for development in the Area Plan for the East, meaning it is considered to be part of the countryside.

Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016) (IMSP).

• 6. The following policies of the IMSP are of relevance: Strategic Policy 2 (SP2)

• focuses new development in existing settlements unless there are exceptional circumstances; Spatial Policy 4 (SP4) requires development to maintain the existing settlement character; Spatial Policy 5 (SP5) requires new development to be located in define settlement unless in accordance with General Policy 3 (GP3) which sets out the exceptions; General Policy 2 (GP2) sets out the detailed 'development control' considerations; Environment Policy 1 (EP1) states that the countryside must be protected for its own sake; Environment Policy 16 (EP16) provides guidance for the use of existing rural buildings for new purposes.

Planning History

• 7. The site has an extensive planning history which is addressed at great length in the Planning Officer’s report and includes the following:

The planning authority refer to two applications PA 87/04546/B for Erection of goat handling/storage shed together with milking parlour and hay store and PA 88/01374/B for Erection of 'kit barn' for housing angora goats, Moaney Woods. It would appear they were not applications on the appeal site.

PA 07/01677/B for Erection of an agricultural building, Moaney Woods Farm. This was approved by Officer Delegation on 05.02.2008.

PA 84/01105/B for Construction of garage with Granny flat over, Moaney Woods (Approved by the Planning Committee on 09.11.1984

PA 87/04530/B for Conversion of outbuilding to living accommodation with living room extension, Moaney Woods (Approved by the Planning Committee on 11.03.1988).

PA 01/01224/C for Change of use of cottage to office, Moaney Woods Cottage (Approved by the Planning Committee on 09.11.2001).

• PA 94/00443/C for Provision of bed & breakfast accommodation, Moaney Woods Farm (Approved by the Planning Committee on 22.07.1994).
• PA 95/01113/B for Erection of conservatory, Moaney Woods (Approved by the Planning Committee on 22.11.1995).

• PA 10/01749/B for Alterations and erection of a first-floor extension to dwelling (approved).
• PA 11/01626/B Installation of solar panels on the main dwelling (approved).

PA 20/00754/C for Change of use from office use to residential (approved).

PA 24/00537/C for Change of use of existing ancillary accommodation and parts of the existing garden to a dwellinghouse and a self-contained tourist accommodation (Approved by the Planning Committee on 16.09.2024).

The Case for the appellant The material points are:

• 8. The original application was clear in that what is proposed does not comply with current planning policy insofar as the building is not of architectural or historic interest. It therefore fails to comply with those policies which allow for the conversion of existing rural buildings to other non-agricultural uses. However, the building exists and there is no condition that requires it to be removed in the event that it is no longer needed, or used for the approved purposes as is customary in applications submitted today for new agricultural or equestrian buildings.
• 9. There should be no preclusion of positive consideration of an alternative use for this building should it be no longer required. It is clear from recent applications elsewhere that the conversion of more modern buildings, which are not considered historically or architecturally interesting, can be acceptable despite not being supported by policy. New buildings for ancillary residential use can also be considered acceptable even where they are some distance from the associated main house.
• 10.Whilst examples elsewhere are not precedent in the planning sense of the word, as they differ in context, size and usage, they demonstrate that permission can be granted for the conversion of non-historic or architecturally interesting buildings to other ancillary uses, associated with an existing residential curtilage. Brand new ancillary buildings may be permissible in areas not designated for development and not immediately adjacent to the site. A lack of policy support on its own should not result in the application being refused. More detailed consideration is required, as follows.
• 11.Design & Harm - the physical alterations to the building principally concern the southern elevation which faces the existing house and cottage and where the approved large door opening has been glazed. The approved rendered walling at lower level has been clad with sheeting and this was as the building appeared when the property was purchased. The cladding was painted a darker more subtle colour.
• 12.These alterations are barely or not visible at all from the adjacent public footpath even when trees and hedgerow are not in full leaf. The physical changes to the building have no impact on the character of the surrounding countryside at all. The building is not required for agriculture and if not used, the building would fall into disrepair and those parts of the building, which are visible from the footpath, would be unsightly and could well be deleterious to the countryside.

• 13.Future use and residential curtilage - The building is used solely by the occupants of Moaney Woods Farmhouse. Simply because there is another access to the building, which exists, does not mean that the building will be used for other purposes. It is possible for a condition to be attached so that it would remain ancillary to the main dwelling; such conditions are commonplace and acceptable planning practice.
• 14.The condition for the cottage to be used as ancillary accommodation was recently removed. The reasons for that are significantly different to the current application in that the original conversions of that building were proposed as ancillary accommodation (office then residential).
• 15.The current building was originally permitted in relation to the then agricultural need relating to the holding. The current application seeks permission for its use in association with the dwellings on the site. To change the use so that others could use it would sever the building from the holding. It would need to be demonstrated that such a use would not be detrimental to the living conditions of those in the dwellings alongside or to the public footpath. As the largest area of glazing faces the dwellings, use by others might be considered to be unneighbourly, along with concerns about security and privacy.
• 16.Therefore, the application simply seeks permission for private use of this building by occupants of the adjacent dwellings only. No permission is sought for the commercial use of the building or by others and it is perfectly acceptable practice to attach a condition to restrict the use to this alone. Suspicions about alternative future uses are not an acceptable basis on which to refuse an application.
• 17.Agricultural Need Perhaps the most critical concern. The Government’s agricultural professionals, who are independent, have advised that “there appears to be little agricultural justification for use of the current building from the property currently for any alternative use”. The construction of the building and its suitability for alternative use is also considered, the appellants would suggest that the Agricultural Adviser is not best placed to comment or offer advice. Further, that consideration does not appear in the reasons for refusal.
• 18.The building was constructed for agricultural use and used for such purposes. It was converted as a gym and for ancillary accommodation which does not include sleeping. The mezzanine level was in situ; its presence does not prejudice any future use for agricultural purposes. The applicants have a range of other existing outbuildings which are used to accommodate the equipment they need to maintain the site and have no need to use this building for those purposes.
• 19.The associated agricultural land is managed by a farmer whose principal holding is across the valley. The application site is a very small part of that overall agricultural unit. At present the farmer cuts the field once a year in May, otherwise the field is left to wildlife. The appellants are reluctant to have grazing and large livestock close to the property but if it were to be

• grazed there would be no need for the farmer to use or need the existing barn.
• 20.There are other farmers and land holders nearby and the appellants have also considered sheep grazing. Again, that farmer has farm buildings of his own so would not need to use the existing barn. It is also notable that the principal access to the building for vehicles and/or livestock is facing the appellants’ house so any comings and goings by others who are not associated with the main property could be disruptive to the living conditions of those in the two residential units on the site.
• 21.The owner of Strenaby Farm which lies to the west has mainly horses and the appellants are not aware that they are in need of either additional land or buildings. Indeed, planning approval has recently been granted for the erection of new stables alongside the existing manège and the removal of some other existing buildings on site. The appellants have given consideration to the use of their land by others but would prefer that their land is retained simply as grassland and the resultant wildlife that occupies and uses the site as a result.
• 22.Should the land be used for the keeping of animals, there is no evidence that the barn would also be needed. The site is relatively small and would be a small proportion of any other farmer’s overall holding and would be remote from their own holding and buildings. It is highly unlikely therefore that they would incur the expense of renting a building when they had their own available.

Conclusion.

• 23. The building is an existing structure approved for agricultural purposes. There was no condition requiring the removal of the building should the lawful use of it cease or be no longer apparent. The northern and western elevations of the building are visible from the public footpath alongside and these elevations have not changed. Given that the building is visible, if it were not to be used, its maintenance is not guaranteed, and it could fall into disrepair.
• 24. The elevations which are subject to change are not publicly visible, the only changes which are capable of being seen, are the windows each side of the pedestrian door which do not significantly change the appearance of the building which remains agricultural in a group of buildings. There is no demonstrable harm. It is commonplace for new buildings in the countryside to incorporate contemporary elements including cladding and large areas of glazing. The proposal is therefore not contrary to policy.
• 25. The appellants have considered the use of their land for the keeping of livestock but would prefer that the land is retained as open space for the benefit of wildlife which they can appreciate from their dwelling. The use of the agricultural area by livestock belonging to others would not result in a need for the barn. Should there ever be a need for a further agricultural building on this land, the applicant would need to apply, and it would be taken into account that there was an agricultural building permitted. There is

• nothing to prevent the building being used for agricultural purposes should the need arise again.
• 26. The proposal will use a large, publicly visible building which exists, and which is redundant for its original purpose which was a rather esoteric use of the land which generated the need for the building. If the applicants were to apply for a free-standing gym building, not dissimilar to the studio referred to in the preceding sections, then it is likely that this would be considered positively, subject to it having a positive visual and environmental impact. The fact that the applicants are utilising an existing building rather than building a completely new one, we consider is a sensible, sustainable and practical option.
• 27. The reasons for refusal are unsound, the proposal would not result in any planning harm but would find a use for an existing building which is publicly visible, in the spirit of Environment Policies 1 and 2 which protect the countryside for its own sake and the Landscape Character Assessment.

The Case for the Planning Authority The material points are:

• 28.The key issues to consider are the principle of converting the agricultural building, ancillary use, and visual impact.
• 29.Principle - The application site is situated within a rural and protected part of the countryside where any development is strictly controlled. The site also sits outside of the settlement boundary of Baldrine, the closest settlement. The development would fail to comply with Strategic Policy 5 which requires new development to be located within the defined settlements, unless it can be demonstrated that the development complies with General Policy 3 (GP3).
• 30.In assessing compliance with GP3, it is first noted that the scheme as currently proposed is not location dependent in relation to the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services. Likewise, the proposal is not essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry nor is there an overriding national need, and the site is required for the interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage. Therefore, it is judged that the proposal fails parts (a), (d), (e), (f), (g) and h) of General Policy 3.
• 31.Moreover, part (c) excludes Land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings, as with the application site. The above then leaves part (b), which states that development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan, except for "(b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest.
• 32.Therefore, the most applicable policy will be Environment Policy 16 which deals with the use of existing rural buildings for new purposes and sets out seven conditions which should be met to allow for the use of an existing rural building for other uses, other than their original purpose. Part (a) requires

• that redundancy for the original use has to be established, and that the building should be substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation.
• 33.The current owners do not wish to have livestock and are managing the land through taking a grass cut off it but otherwise it is being left to nature. That indicates there is no direct requirement for the use of the building by the current owners for agriculture. However, the site is connected to an area of farmland which would benefit from the building, given that the other agricultural building on site is now used for non-agricultural use (garaging and workshop/storage). Similarly, there are active farms in the immediate locality which could benefit from acquiring or renting the building for agricultural use.
• 34.It is also important to note that a number of large farms on the island have acquired smaller holdings to increase their farm sizes, a situation acknowledged in Paragraph 7.13.4 of the Strategic Plan, where it was clearly stated that "smaller farms have been amalgamated into larger units to increase economic viability." Therefore, there is nothing within the application to suggest that there is no extant need for the building and adjoining fields for agricultural use. Besides, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the agricultural buildings on site (the goat handling/storage shed and application building), and the adjoining fields could in fact not be sold or rented out to other farmers seeking to increase their farm holding. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the building is redundant for its intended agricultural use.
• 35.In addition, the building is not a building of architectural, historic or social interest as indicated in paragraph (b). The alterations have significantly altered the appearance of the building such that it would be more akin to a commercial building or an industrial building, like no other in the immediate landscape or view. Whilst such buildings are not uncommon in the rural landscape, it would be at odds with the current agricultural context.
• 36.It is considered that alterations are adverse, making an agricultural building appear domestic, and its character as an agricultural building which sits well within the rural landscape has also been altered considerably by the alterations, which introduce large, glazed fenestrations which are not aligned with its approved agricultural use/character. The changes to the appearance of the building have led to the loss/reduction of the original character of the existing building in the countryside.
• 37.The Department does not have the means to monitor the use of the gym, should it become commercial. The history of the site shows that a number of developments have been carried out on site without the planning approval and/or developments have not been carried out as approved, and there is nothing that prevents the continuation of such practice as reflected in the site’s overall history.
• 38.There has been considerable redevelopment at the site; increased hardstanding areas to allow for significant levels of car parking on site, creation of other hardstanding areas around the building, and all these have not been carried out to support the agricultural use of the land, which is its

• statutory use. Therefore, these works are not judged to be in the environmental interest of the site as no agricultural justification exists for these developments on site which is still agricultural land. It is also not considered that the redevelopment of the site would be in the interest of the rural economy which is largely agricultural. Therefore, the alterations would not be in the interest of the rural agricultural economy.
• 39.Overall, the agricultural building is not traditional, but a modern timber building which is not of any historic, social or architectural interest. The proposal would fail the key tests of Environment Policy 16 and would be contrary to General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1, and Environment Policy 16 of the Strategic Plan.
• 40.Ancillary use and curtilage - It is not considered that the site sits within the residential curtilage of the dwelling 'Moaney Woods', and as such, the use of the building cannot be considered ancillary to the use of the dwelling. There is currently no specific policy within the Strategic Plan to address the definition of a residential curtilage, save for the definition of curtilage within Appendix 1 and reliance is placed on UK case law.
• 41.The approved use of the barn is for agriculture, reinforced by a restrictive condition on land which is within agricultural use. Furthermore, the building sits within an area of land outside the historic curtilage of Moaney Woods. It would be vital to note that for the use of the farm building to be ancillary to the dwelling at Moaney Woods, the accommodation it offers must be subordinate to the main dwelling, and its function must be supplementary to the use of the existing residence, and this is not the situation in the current case.
• 42.Moreover, the use of the building has to be subordinate to the lawful use of the main building to which it is ancillary. In this case the approved use of the building is agricultural, and it sits on agricultural land. As such, the building cannot be judged to be ancillary to a non-agricultural use. Whilst the applicants could argue that there is no clear separation between the farm site and the residential curtilage, such that the use of the building would be ancillary to the main dwelling, the site does not exist as part of the residential curtilage of the main dwelling.
• 43.Recent actions taken by the applicants have served to blur the boundaries between the residential curtilage and the farmyard via the removal of part of the existing hedging, boundary wall and trees. It is not considered that the agricultural barn could be used as an ancillary building to the main dwelling.
• 44.It must be noted that the works carried out to create an access link between the farmyard and residential curtilage should have required planning approval. As well as the creation of new areas of hardstanding and widening the access link between the farmyard and residential curtilage.
• 45.Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the works to domesticate these sections of the farmyard would be at variance with the provisions of Environment Policy 1 which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake. The works would also fail to align with GP 3, as it involves works to

• agricultural land not zoned for development, yet it does not meet any of the exceptions allowable under GP3.
• 46.Visual impact - The alterations to create areas of glazing at the southern and eastern side of the building are not directly apparent from the farm lane which abuts the site. Although there are views from the northern parts of the track to the glazing to the side, and this is not considered to be in the interest of the character of the surrounding countryside. The large amounts of glazing make the building particularly prominent at night when the lights are on, thus increasing its visual impact on the landscape.
• 47.The building sits isolated at the edge of open fields, the glazed areas give a domestic appearance to the agricultural building and there is limited screening provided its in an elevated position. Overall, while there is some planting directly south of the building it does little to decrease the adverse impacts of the scheme on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside. The scheme is, therefore, considered to fail the requirements of Environment Policy 1, General Policy 2, Strategic Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan.

Conclusion

• 48.The purpose of the planning system is to control the use and development of land in the public interest. That requires a consideration of what is most appropriate for the population of the island as a whole. The protection of the Manx countryside from development, and the presumption that new development should be directed to locations, is consistent with the principles of sustainable development. The development sought will endure long after the circumstances of the current applicant have ceased to exist.
• 49.The site is not designated for development, is not within any settlement boundary, and is not a building of historic, architectural or social interest warranting an exception to development in the countryside. The redevelopment has resulted in an increased impact on the environment and landscape and is not judged to benefit the rural agricultural economy. That is contrary to General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1, Environment Policy 16, Strategic Policy 2, and Spatial Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan.

Conditions without prejudice

• 50.In the event that the Minister chooses to grant approval, consideration should be given to the conditions appended to this report.

Other Representations

• 51.Highway Services have no objections. The Garff Commissioners have no concerns regarding over-development of the site. DEFA Head of Agriculture states that the land is not actively farmed by the owners, being cut or left for nature. It is likely that neighbouring farmers could find some use for the building, most likely storage of either hay/fodder or machinery, but this does not appear to be an option the current property owner wishes to pursue. It's

likely that that the building is constructed to an agricultural specification and not to commercial/industrial standards. There appears to be little agricultural justification for use of the current building from the property.

Assessment by the Inspector Main Issues

• 52.I consider the main issues to be:

•  The principle of the change of use in the countryside.
•  The effect on the character and appearance of the countryside location.

The principle of development

• 53.The appeal site is not zoned for development and is in a countryside location. Due to that location, there is no dispute that the development would not accord with Policy EP1 which states that ‘The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake’. Furthermore, this is clearly not a situation where the change of use addresses 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'.
• 54.Policy GP3 also prohibits any development within areas that are not zoned for development. However, the policy also sets out exceptions which include the conversion of redundant buildings of architectural, historic, or social value and interest. To that end, I see no reason to disagree with the parties that the building does not meet any of these exceptions. The change of use is also at odds with Policy GP3. Nevertheless, the appellants put forward a number of reasons why the building’s current use as a gymnasium/fitness is appropriate, to which I now turn.
• 55.I accept that alternative uses should be considered where buildings are redundant, and a lack of use may cause the building to fall into disrepair. I also accept that examples of applications elsewhere demonstrate that it may be possible to convert buildings to ancillary use. That may not be restricted to buildings close by, and new ancillary buildings may be some distance from the main house. Although, the cases put forward by the appellant are not comparable to this case in that they appear to concern land in residential use.
• 56.Moreover, regardless of what may or may not be considered to be an ancillary use, I see no reason to disagree with the planning authority in that for something to be ‘ancillary’ it needs to be functionally related to the primary use associated to the main use of the land. In this case, there is no dispute that the land upon which the building sits is in agricultural use. The current levels of hardstanding and lack of boundary features may give the appearance that the building is associated with the main dwelling house, but there is nothing before me to suggest it shares the same residential curtilage.
• 57.Whilst a resident may, for example, change the incidental use of their shed from storage to a gym without there necessarily being any material change of use of the land, in this case the use of the land is for agriculture and no

• incidental residential use can apply. I recognise the appellants may wish to use it solely for the occupants of the farmhouse and would be willing to accept a condition for it to remain ancillary. In addition, I agree that any future commercial use may have a negative effect on the living conditions of those living nearby. However, it is an agricultural building originally permitted in relation to the agricultural holding, a condition restricting the use as ancillary to the main dwelling could not apply in any event.
• 58.I have also considered the agricultural need for the building. Whilst it has been converted, the building could, including the mezzanine floor be used for agricultural purpose. Nevertheless, I accept that the appellants do not wish to have livestock near to their property and the current management regime does not require use of the barn. On its face, it appears the appellants have investigated other farms nearby and likely demand for the barn. Whilst I see no reason to question those views there is nothing to corroborate them.
• 59.Moreover, the Director of Agriculture and Food sets out that “it is likely that neighbouring farmers could find some use for the building, most likely storage of either hay/fodder or machinery, but this does not appear to be an option the current property owner wishes to pursue”. I see no reason to disagree and, without any robust evidence to the contrary, I am not convinced that there is no agricultural need for the barn. Furthermore, the fact that any agricultural use may involve use of the access to the farmhouse is not unusual in such situations.
• 60.For these reasons the principle of the development is at odds with Policies SP2, SP5, EP1, EP16, and GP3 of the IMSP.

Character and appearance

• 61.Turning to the second main issue. As set out above, the converted barn is situated south of a Right of Way, the northern elevation facing that direction is a gable end, the top half in timber and the bottom clad with dark grey galvanised sheeting. The opposite gable facing south has a glazed double door with large, glazed panels either side and above. The west elevation is an open sided log store with the east elevation having further glazed panels and access.
• 62. I accept views through from the Right of Way are limited and the view taken from the main access to the farmhouse does not draw the eye. From this position the building looks like many agricultural buildings in the countryside. Nevertheless, there are some views of the glazing in the eastern elevation from the Right of Way and through vegetation. Those views would though be reduced further when trees were in leaf. Nevertheless, those views exist, and I see no reason to disagree that the large areas of glazing become even more apparent at night and within the wider landscape.
• 63.In addition, just because development cannot be seen does not make it acceptable, if that were the case there would be many buildings inappropriate to their settings in countryside locations. Furthermore, given the amount of glazing, the adjacent hardstanding, and large areas of gravel, the building is now viewed in the context of the residential use and has to some degree

• extended the domestic appearance into the countryside. When viewed in context the barn does not stand alone, it now appears as part of the wider residential setting and that is at odds with the agricultural use of the land. Overall, the change of use has led to unacceptable harm to the countryside location albeit limited from a public vantage point.
• 64.I do not accept that if the current use ended that the barn would fall into disrepair as the appellants, or future occupiers of the farmhouse, would have the barn in their view and it would not be to their benefit for it to become unsightly. Finally, I agree that new buildings in the countryside will include contemporary elements including cladding and glazing. However, each case must be decided on its own merits and the example put forward (ref:22/00385/B) was for a large dwelling and is not comparable. In the same way a new application for a new ancillary building in a residential setting is not comparable.
• 65.For these reasons, the development is contrary to Polices EP1, EP16, GP2. GP3, SP4 and SP5 of the IMSP.

Other matters

• 66.As set out in the appellants’ statement of case “the application did not propose any extension or alteration of the residential curtilage to encompass the whole area owned by the applicant”. I have not therefore considered that as part of this appeal. Whilst the parties consider a condition to establish/agree an extended residential curtilage might resolve the matter should planning permission be given, I disagree.
• 67.Curtilage is not a use of land and, from the information before me, to establish a new boundary for the residential use of the property would require the change of use of agricultural land to residential use. Such a change of use would require consideration of the historic context and loss of agricultural land amongst other things. That is beyond the scope of the change of use that was applied for. A condition to secure a new residential curtilage would not therefore be relevant to the planning application submitted nor would it be reasonable.

Conclusion

• 68.Having considered all matters raised, I conclude the development would conflict with the aforementioned policies of the IMSP. The reasons put forward to justify the development either on their own, or in combination, are insufficient to outweigh the harm I have found, or to set aside the presumption against development.

Planning Conditions

• 69.I recognise planning conditions could secure, the internal layout, external lighting and restrict future development, including removing the new and separate access to the barn. However, there are no appropriate conditions that would justify a granting of approval for the development.

• 70.If my recommendation is not accepted, and the Minister is minded to approve the development, the conditions set out in the schedule below are suggested. The conditions are those suggested by the planning authority save for those seeking to establish an extended curtilage and restrict the use of the adjacent goat shed. Such conditions would not be reasonable, as the application did not explicitly seek a change of use of the land to residential and the goat shed did not form part of the application.

Recommendation

• 71.I recommend that the appeal against the refusal of planning approval for the conversion of agricultural building to residential (non-habitable) accommodation ancillary to the occupation of Moaney Woods Farm at Moaney Woods Farm, Lonan, Church Road, Laxey Isle of Man, be dismissed and that the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse approval be upheld. For the reasons1 set out in the decision dated 29 November 2024.
• 72.If, however, the Minister takes the opposite view and decides that the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application should not be upheld, I recommend that approval be given subject to the conditions set out below.

RJ Perrins

R J Perrins MA Independent Inspector 25 March 2025

1 For ease of reference - those reasons are reproduced at the end of this decision.

Schedule of Suggested Conditions to be applied if the Minister decides to grant Planning Approval

• 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.

• 2. The internal layout of the building shall remain as shown on the submitted drawing No. 24 1841/02 received 4th July 2024. No kitchen or bathroom facilities shall be installed in the building and no internal walls shall be erected to subdivide the internal space of the building.

Reason: To ensure proper control of the development and to avoid any future undesirable fragmentation of the site.

• 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no fences, gates, walls or other means of enclosure, no shed, greenhouse or any other building shall be erected without the prior written approval of the Department.

Reason: In the interest of landscape character to ensure the proposals comply with General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1.

• 4. No external lighting to be installed unless a sensitive low level lighting plan, following best practice as detailed in the Bat Conservation Trust and Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidance Note 8/23 on Bats and Artificial Lighting (2023), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Thereafter, any such lighting scheme shall be permanently retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: In the interests of protecting and enhancing the biodiversity of the environment.

• 5. Within three months of the approval becoming final, the existing field access which serves the application building shall be closed up with new boundary features constructed to prevent further use of the access. Access to the site shall only be taken via the existing access to the dwelling at Moaney Woods Farm, which sits west of the field access.

Reason: To ensure proper control of the development and to avoid any future undesirable fragmentation of the site.

The reasons for the original refusal were:

• 1. The proposed development is unacceptable as the principle of the conversion from the existing agricultural building to a residential (non-habitable) accommodation is not accepted as the site lies within a rural and protected part of the countryside, where any development is strictly controlled, with the site not being allocated specifically for any development. The site is also not within any settlement boundary, and is not a building of historic, architectural or social interest warranting its conversion as an exception to development in the countryside. No personal circumstances have been put forward by the applicant to be considered to warrant a departure from the policies set out within the Strategic Plan (Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, Environment Policy 1, General Policy 3, and Environment Policy 16 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016).
• 2. The proposed development, by virtue of its design and use of large areas of glazing, would fail to relate positively and appropriately to the character of the surrounding countryside as it does not take into account a proper analysis of the context of the immediate locality, and would have a deleterious impact on the surrounding countryside, and this conflicts with Environment Policy 16 (c), General Policy 2(b) and Strategic Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, which all require that the proposal takes take into account the landscape context and the impact on the amenities of the area in which it is sited.
• 3. The fact that the building has an independent access, sits outside the historic curtilage of 'Moaney Woods, is an agricultural building with restrictive agricultural conditions within agricultural land undermines the argument that the building would be ancillary to 'Moaney Woods'. It is also considered that no approval has been granted to allow the extension of the residential curtilage of 'Moaney Woods' into this site, with the historic applications showing that there has been no change to the residential curtilage. It is also considered that the extant conditions on site would facilitate the future severance of this property from 'Moaney Woods', should residential use of the building be allowed. Therefore, the application will be at variance with the character of the area and contrary to General Policy 3, and Environment Policy 1 of the strategic Plan.
• 4. The extension of the residential curtilage to include the agricultural buildings and agricultural field, with insufficient over-riding justification having been demonstrated represents an unwarranted domestic intrusion into the open countryside beyond the existing residential curtilage of 'Moaney Woods'. As such, the proposal is contrary to General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1, and Spatial Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and the Area Pan for the East.