SOC Applicant's Statement

Appeal Statement In Respect Of The Refusal Of 24/00770/B Conversion Of Barn To Ancillary (Non Habitable) Residential Accommodation, Moaney Woods Farm, Lonan Church Road, Laxey Im4 7Jx

Sarah Corlett Town Planning Consultancy Ltd Registered address: Ballachrink Croft, Ballacorey Road, Bride, Isle of Man IM7 4AW t: 07624 485517 e: [email protected] w: www.sarahcorlett.com Directors: Sarah Elizabeth Corlett Nicola Jane Corlett

Company Registration 134325C

1.0 Introduction
1.1 I am Sarah Corlett, Director of Sarah Corlett Town Planning Consultancy Ltd, established on the Isle of Man in 2021. I have been instructed by the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Keating, in respect of the appeal against the approval of 24/00770/B, to prepare a statement which sets out the planning policies and context for the appeal and reasons why the appeal should be allowed and the application should be permitted.
1.2 I was employed by the Isle of Man Government as a planning officer between 1990 and 2021, ultimately in the role of Principal Planner. My duties included the determination of planning applications, the preparation of reports on planning applications, presentation of applications to Planning Committee and representation of the Planning Committee at planning appeals and representing the Department in Court.
1.3 I hold a Bachelor of Science Degree in Town Planning from Heriot-Watt University and have been a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute since 1992.
1.4 Further information on me and my practice can be found on my website sarahcorlett.com.
1.5 This statement has been prepared having regard to the established principles of town planning and the relevant policies, legislation, guidance and regulations of the Isle of Man Government and represent my professional opinion in the matter of the proposed development. This should also be read in conjunction with the original information submitted with the application in July 2024.

Company Registration 134325C

2.0 THE SITE, THE APPLICATION AND APPEAL
2.1 The site is a farm holding which as shown on the submitted plans extends to approximately 12 acres, around 6 of which are open, agricultural land to the east of the existing building group and all situated to the north east of Lonan Church. The site is accessed by a lane which runs from Lonan Church Road some 300m to the north west to access the site and which then continues to Moaney Quill Road which links to the A2 at Fairy Cottage. This lane is also a Public Right of Way (418).
2.2 The site accommodates a range of existing buildings which were referred to in the original application.

C

D

A

B

E

Company Registration 134325C

2.3 This group includes building C - large timber clad building. This building was approved relatively recently, in 2007, for agricultural use and one of the conditions restricted the use of the building to agriculture. It has subsequently been altered and the use changed to ancillary residential use. Planning approval is being sought retrospectively for these changes and it is this which is the subject of this application and appeal.

Company Registration 134325C

A photograph of a wooden agricultural building undergoing conversion, featuring new large windows, scaffolding, and a concrete patio area in a rural setting.

The Application

2.4 The application was submitted on 4th July and validated the following week, on 11th July, 2024.
2.5 The two statutory consultees - the local authority, Garff Commissioners and the Highway Services Division of Department for Infrastructure raised no objection to the application.
2.6 The planning officer sought the views of the Agriculture Director of Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture who responded as follows:

I see that I commented on the application back in 2007! There appeared to be some practical agricultural benefits to the building but from the current planning information there appears to be 12acres associated with the property. The planning statement also 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. Whilst there appears to be little agricultural justification for use of the current building from the property currently for any alternative use, I would highlight that any commercially constructed building would likely be constructed to a different specification than an agricultural building.

2.7 The planning officer recommended that the application was refused and this was accepted by a senior officer and the application was refused by notice dated 29th November, 2024 for the following reasons:

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

Company Registration 134325C

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.

Company Registration 134325C

THE APPEAL 2.8 The applicant requested an appeal on 19th December, 2024 giving the following as the reasons for the appeal:

•We agree that there is no policy support for the conversion of the approved agricultural building to the uses now proposed - this was fully accepted in the supporting planning statement. However, there has been no demonstration of any actual harm from the proposal, those parts of the building which are publicly visible still largely retain the appearance of an agricultural building and all but the northern elevation are completely or mostly screened from public view by the existing hedging alongside the public footpath.
•The application description did not propose any extension or alteration of the residential curtilage to encompass the whole area owned by the applicant: whilst the proposed change of use involves some change in the residential curtilage, this could have been satisfactorily controlled and addressed through a request for a further plan or by a planning condition, neither of which was suggested by the planning officer.
•The application did not propose to sever the building from the rest of the land owned by the applicant, nor use it for commercial or "boutique" purposes and the planning officer should not have pre-judged any future application for such severance or change of use. We would challenge that the Department would not be capable of enforcing a planning condition, reflecting the wording of the application, which could control the use of this building to solely ancillary to the existing dwelling on site - a condition commonly used for other forms of ancillary use, particularly equestrian developments in the countryside.

Company Registration 134325C

3.0 ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE TO THE DECISION
3.1 No further information was requested by the planning officer, prior to their recommending refusal of the application either in respect of the agricultural need for the building nor the definition of the residential curtilage. We find this disappointing as additional information if sought and provided may have resulted in a different conclusion on one or both of these issues.
3.2 We are also struggling to see what harm arises from the proposal and find it a little contradictory that on the one hand the planning officer is expressing concern about future severance of the unit but at the same time is suggesting that another land owner could or should be using the building (for agricultural purposes).

Planning policy

3.3 We were clear in the original application that what is proposed does not comply with current planning policy insofar as the building is not of architectural or historic interest so fails to comply with those policies which allow for the conversion of existing rural buildings to other non agricultural uses (Environment Policy 16 and Housing Policy 11).
3.4 However, the building exists and there is no condition upon it which requires that in the event that it is no longer needed or used for the approved purposes it must be removed, as is customary in applications submitted today for new agricultural or equestrian buildings.
3.5 We would submit that simply not complying with that requirement of Housing Policy 11 or Environment Policy 16 should not preclude positive consideration of an alternative use for this building should it be demonstrated that the building is no longer required or not currently required for its original use. It is clear from recent applications - two of which are provided below - that the conversion of more modern buildings which are not considered historically or architecturally interesting buildings can be acceptable despite not being supported by policy. We would refer to 24/00211/C which proposed the conversion of this modern garage building to tourist accommodation:
3.6 The application was recommended for refusal by the planning officer on the basis of four reasons, one of which was as follows:

R 1. The existing building is not of any historic, social or architectural interest nor of any fabric of visual attraction, interest or quality to warrant its conversion

Company Registration 134325C

failing Environment Policy 16 (b), Housing Policy 11 (c), Strategic Policy 8 and Business Policies 11, 12 and 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

The image displays four architectural elevation drawings of an existing building, labeled as North, East, South, and West elevations at a 1:100 scale.

3.7 The Planning Committee, who considered the application, disagreed with the officer’s recommendation and permitted the application on the basis, inter alia, that it remains part of the main residential curtilage and associated with it.
3.8 Similarly, 24/91102/B proposed the conversion of a similar garage building to tourist accommodation. This was recommended for approval by the reporting officer, who states that:

6.1 The application seeks approval for the additional use of a residential outbuilding into tourist accommodation, policies offer support to such development so long as it does not compromise neighbouring amenity.

3.9 We are not aware of any planning policies which support the conversion of such a building to alternative, non residential uses although fully understand that there is wider Government support for promoting tourism development on the Island and that many applications are permitted whilst they are ostensibly contrary to current planning policy and appreciate the reasons why planning policy may be set aside in such cases.

Company Registration 134325C

3.10 it is also the case that completely new buildings for ancillary residential use can be considered acceptable even where they are some distance from the associated main house, for example, 18/01103/B for a studio at Mullinaragher House in Santon:
3.11 We fully accept that these examples are not precedent in the planning sense of the word, as they differ in context, size and proposed usage from what is proposed, but would submit that 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 and also that brand new ancillary buildings may be permissible in areas not designated for development and not immediately adjacent to the site. It is on this basis that we would wish this appeal to be determined - ie that a lack of policy support on its own should not result in the application being refused and that a more detailed

Company Registration 134325C

A site plan showing the red boundary line of a property, surrounding roads like Millbragher Road, and features such as ponds and drains.

scrutiny of the actual impact, alternative uses and the impact of non use should be considered before the application is rejected.

Design and harm

3.12 The reason for refusal states that “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.
3.13 It should be clear that 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: also there have been two windows installed either side of a pedestrian door on the eastern elevation. The approved rendered walling at lower level has been clad with sheeting and this was as the building appeared when the applicants

Company Registration 134325C

A photograph of a rural farm entrance featuring a wooden gate and stone wall. In the background, a large wooden agricultural building stands on a gravel driveway.

purchased the property: they have painted this cladding a darker more subtle colour than it was when they acquired it.

3.14 These alterations are barely or not visible at all from the adjacent public footpath as is demonstrated in the following photographs which were taken on 17.12.24 from the public lane alongside the site noting that the trees and hedgerow were not in full leaf:

Company Registration 134325C

Company Registration 134325C

3.15 As such, rather than, as the officer suggests - the proposal not taking into account a proper analysis of the context of the immediate locality, and having a deleterious impact on the surrounding countryside - we would submit that the officer has not taken into account at all the actual impact of the proposed works and it is our position that the physical changes to the building have no impact on the character of the surrounding countryside at all. There is no evidence in the officer’s report what this harm is or to whom.
3.16 It is our position that the building is not required for agriculture (see later) and if the building is not used, there would be less reason for the applicants to continue to spend money and time on its maintenance and if the building were to fall into disrepair then those parts of the building which are visible from the footpath, which are not altered by this proposal, would be unsightly and could well be deleterious to the countryside. This does not appear to have been taken into account by the officer in reaching his determination.

Future use, residential curtilage, severance and other future use of the building

3.17 The third reason for refusal states that as there is a separate access to the building, that it undermines the argument that it would be ancillary to Moaney Woods and the officer goes on to say that “It is also considered that the extant conditions on site would

Company Registration 134325C

facilitate the future severance of this property from 'Moaney Woods', should residential use of the building be allowed”.

3.18 The building exists as it appears at present and 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 purposes which are not proposed or currently happening. It is perfectly possible for a condition to be attached to the use of this building so that it would be ancillary to the main dwelling: such conditions are commonplace and acceptable planning practice.
3.19 The condition for the cottage to be used as ancillary accommodation was recently removed (24/00537/C) and it is perhaps to this that the officer refers when he states that ‘the extant conditions on site would facilitate the future severance of the property from Moaney Woods’. The reasons for this approval are significantly different to the current application in that the original conversions of that building were proposed as ancillary accommodation (office then residential) whereas the policies which applied at that time, which have not changed in substance since then, would not have required that the building was in any way associated with any part of the rest of the site. It was on this basis that the recent application was permitted.
3.20 The current application building was originally permitted, as the Director of Agriculture confirms, 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. Were the applicants to wish to change the use and sever the building from the holding, not only would that be the subject of planning control but that such an application would need to demonstrate 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 unassociated persons might be considered to be unneighbourly, along with concerns about security and privacy.
3.21 It is our position that the application 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. It is not understood why the planning officer did not consider this as a resolution to his concern about future use. We would submit that suspicions about alternative future uses are not an acceptable basis on which to refuse an application. If he

Company Registration 134325C

had concerns about the change of use of the wider area, which is not included in the description of the development and not proposed by the applicant, then he could have asked for an amended plan which confirms that the change of use to ancillary residential accommodation applies purely to the building.

Agricultural need

3.22 This is perhaps the most critical concern, along with any visual or environmental harm resulting from the proposal which we have demonstrated above are non existent.
3.23 The officer has sought advice from the Government’s agricultural professionals who are independent. They have advised that “there appears to be little agricultural justification for use of the current building from the property currently for any alternative use” - we take this to mean that there is little agricultural justification for the building. Perhaps this could be clarified? He then goes on to discuss the construction of the building and its suitability for alternative use and we would respectively query whether the Agricultural Adviser is best placed to comment or offer advice on this and whether this is actually a material planning consideration? It does not appear in the reasons for refusal so we conclude not. To be clear, the building was constructed for agricultural use by the previous owner and used for such purposes and was converted by the current owner who is perfectly happy with how it serves the proposed use as a gym and for ancillary accommodation which does not include sleeping.
3.24 The mezzanine level was in situ when the applicants purchased the site and such a facility can afford additional storage space for whatever purpose the building is used and 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.
3.25 The agricultural land is presently managed by a farmer whose principal holding is across the valley. The application site is a very small part of that overall agricultural unit and which has its own range of outbuildings. At present the farmer cuts the field once a year in May when the grass is at its highest quality and otherwise the field is left to wildlife. That farmer has offered to have his cattle graze on the land but the applicant is reluctant to have such large livestock so close to his property. If the cattle were to be grazed here, given the small size of the land, it would be on a seasonal basis and there would be no need for the farmer to use or need the existing barn as there are plenty of his own buildings on the main

Company Registration 134325C

holding, for this purpose. He would be highly unlikely to have any calving happen on Moaney Moar which is some distance from the main holding and farmhouse.

3.26 There are other farmers and land holders nearby and the applicants have also considered having the land used by another adjacent farmer’s sheep. The applicants are a little cautious in renting the land out in order to avoid any claim on the use of the land and again, are reluctant to have someone else’e animals so close to their living accommodation. 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 applicants’ 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.
3.27 The owner of Strenaby Farm which lies to the west has mainly horses and the applicants 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 (21/01059/B) and the removal of some other existing buildings on site.
3.28 Given the above, it is clear that the applicants have given consideration to the use of their land by others for the keeping of livestock but would prefer that their land is retained simply as grassland and the resultant wildlife that occupies and uses the site as a result. Should the land be used for the keeping of animals, there is no evidence that the barn would also be needed, given the plentitude of agricultural buildings already in existence for those farmers who may wish to rent the land. 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 another farmer would want to go to the expense of renting a building when they had their own available for use and such a relatively small area, we would suggest, would not generally result in the need for another building in addition to whatever already exists on the main holding elsewhere.

Company Registration 134325C

4.0 CONCLUSION
4.1 The building is an existing structure approved for agricultural purposes and there was no condition requiring the removal of the building should the lawful use of it cease or be no longer apparent.
4.2 The northern and western elevations of the building are visible from the public footpath alongside and these elevations are not to change as a result of this application. Given that the building is visible, if it were not to be used, its maintenance is not guaranteed and if it were to fall into disrepair, it is considered that this would not be beneficial to the protection of the countryside.
4.3 The elevations which are subject to change as a result of this application are not publicly visible, the only changes which are capable of being seen, and even then, not in any way clearly, even in the middle of winter, are the windows each side of the pedestrian door which, we would submit do not significantly change or deleteriously affect the appearance of the building which remains an agricultural building in a group of buildings which appear as a farmyard, in the countryside.
4.4 There is no demonstrable harm from the proposal: the building would largely remain, visually from a public viewpoint, as it was originally approved. The proposal is therefore not contrary to either Environment Policy 1 or 2 nor, as the reason for refusal suggests, Strategic Policy 5 or General Policy 2 and there is no evidence that what is proposed fails to take account of its surroundings or context.
4.5 The physical changes to the building are not generally publicly visible but in any case are not considered harmful. It is commonplace for new buildings in the countryside to incorporate contemporary elements including cladding and large areas of glazing. Take, for example, 22/00385/B which was approved: this proposed the replacement of an existing Manx cottage with a much larger (612% increase in floor area), contemporary property which is shown below. This incorporates cladding and large areas of glazing in the gables and the reporting officer states in his report: “It is considered the resulting development would result in a well-designed and high quality development which should be supported and encouraged, especially as the visual impacts are not considered significant or adverse.” Whilst this was a dwelling rather than an outbuilding, the design approach there results in a contemporary building with many of the features of the current proposal: the rectilinear mass of the building components, the

Company Registration 134325C

pitched roof and use of cladding and the large areas of glazing in the gables. It is difficult to understand therefore, why such elements were considered acceptable, arguably “high quality” in that case and yet are being rejected for being unacceptable here. The glazing I this appeal case simply fills a pre-existing aperture.

4.6 The applicants have considered the use of their land for the keeping of livestock - both their own and animals belonging to others but would prefer that the land is retained as open space for the benefit of wildlife which they can appreciate from their dwelling. The site has a large area of open field and smaller pockets which are not agriculturally useful due to their size and shape, albeit outwith the formal residential curtilages of the buildings within the site. The use of the agricultural area by livestock belonging to others who have agricultural holdings in the vicinity would not result in a need for the barn to be available for or used by the animals as there are sufficient existing buildings for such purposes available on these farmers’ own land. The approval of stabling on the adjacent farmland, together with the distance from that and other adjacent farms’ main farmyards together with the relatively small area which would be used for livestock grazing demonstrate that it is highly unlikely that the barn would be needed should the agricultural area be rented to or otherwise used by others.

Company Registration 134325C

A modern, multi-level building with wood and stone cladding situated on a grassy hillside under a blue sky.

4.7 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 and that an alternative use was permitted on the basis that the building was redundant for its original purpose. There is nothing to prevent the building being used for agricultural purposes should the need arise again: internally the floor could easily be removed and if the large areas of glazing were not conducive to agricultural use, either the glazing could be clad over or removed - a relatively simple reversal of the works which have been undertaken.
4.8 The proposal will find a use for 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.
4.9 We are happy to provide a further plan which shows clearly the residential curtilage of the property which omits the agricultural area, and would have done this had we been asked prior to the application being determined.
4.10 We believe that we have demonstrated that the reasons for refusal are unsound and have shown that 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, and would request that the appeal is allowed and the application is approved.

Sarah Corlett 23.01.25

Company Registration 134325C

APPENDIX ONE

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER APPRAISAL

D2 LAXEY Key Characteristics

• Strongly sloping topography.
• Encompasses the wooded lower course of Laxey Glen.
• Small, traditional Manx settlement village of Laxey with its woodland backdrop.
• Small-scale, relatively regular field pattern is apparent to the north of Laxey.
• Distinctive red and white appearance of ‘Lady Isabella Water Wheel’ (Laxey Wheel) provides an instantly recognisable landmark, on approaches to the area. • Quaint character of the tramlines and the instantly recognisable hoot of the tram horn (Manx Electric Railway), contribute to a unique character and sense of place.
• Settlement pattern consists of series of isolated farmsteads scattered throughout the area.
• Strong sense of enclosure within Laxey, provided by the steep wooded sides of the glen and valley.
• Dramatic views to an Upland backdrop to the north and west.
• Visual dominance of the sea, which contrasts with the coastal landform.

Overall Character Description Situated at the eastern edge of the Island, this character area encompasses a strongly undulating and sloping topography, underlain by geology from the Snaefell formation. The steeply sided Laxey Glen flows into the area from the north-west. To the east, where it meets the sea at Laxey Bay, with its small old harbour. The relatively small, traditional Manx settlement of Laxey has developed along the floor of this steep sided valley/ glen. The northern and southern slopes of the glen surrounding Laxey exhibit a strongly wooded character, interspersed with patches of rough grassland. Further to the north of Laxey, a small-scale, relatively regular field pattern is apparent, exhibiting predominantly pasture fields, delineated by an interconnected network of hedgerows. The character area is crossed by the A2 main road, which runs to the north and south following the course of the coastline, and leads visitors and travellers through the heart of Laxey village. Connected to this, a minor road to the west of Laxey provides access to the intricate courses of Glen Mooar and Glen Agneash to the north, and provides access to the landmark Great Laxey Wheel. The distinctive red and white appearance of the ‘Lady Isabella Water Wheel’ (Laxey Wheel) provides an instantly recognisable landmark, on approaches to the area. The wheel

Company Registration 134325C

(reputed to be the largest in the world) was designed by a local engineer and constructed in 1854 to pump water from nearby flooding mines. (During the 19th Century, the mines were the leading producer of zinc ore in the British Isles). The path of the Manx Electric Railway forms a strongly recognisable key characteristic of the area (with two lines converging within Laxey). The quaint character of the tramlines and associated traditional stations and halls and the instantly recognisable hoot of the tram horn, contribute to a somewhat unique character and sense of place. Buildings in Laxey are typically of traditional Manx stone and are often white-washed. Outside Laxey and the smaller settlements of Ballaragh, Ballaconnell and Ballacollister, the settlement pattern consists of series of isolated farmsteads scattered throughout the area. There is a strong sense of enclosure within Laxey, provided by the steep wooded sides of the glen. Outside Laxey, further distant sense of enclosure is provided by dramatic views to an Upland backdrop to the north and west.

Key Views

• Dramatic views to an Upland backdrop to the north and west
• Channelled views east and west along the corridor of Laxey Glen
• Views to the instantly recognisable Lady Isabella water wheel as a landmark within views to the area
• Panoramic views eastwards across the sea from areas of higher land within the character area.

Historic Features

• Laxey Wheel
• The Spiral stone
• St. Matthew’s Chapel (Keeill Vian)
• Long Cairns (King Orry’s Grave)

Ecological Features

• Comprehensive network of Manx hedgerows delineating field boundaries to the north of Laxey.
• Mature woodland covering the northern and southern slopes of the glen.
• Riparian and aquatic habitats.

Evaluation of Inherent Landscape Sensitivities

• Distinct, relatively small-scale, irregular field pattern.
• Fragmented woodland in valley bottoms.

Company Registration 134325C

• Ecological value of the aquatic ecosystem with riparian habitats.
• Built up area of Laxey in lower valley with vernacular architectural style.
• Scattered settlement pattern of traditional isolated farms and hamlets.
• Sites of archaeological importance.
• Sense of tranquillity away from Laxey.
• Victorian Isle of Man Steam Railway stations and halts.

Landscape Strategy The overall strategy is to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of this area, with its relatively sparse settlement other than the characteristic settlement of Laxey, its distinct small scale field pattern, its valley bottom woodland along National Glens and the setting of the various historic and archaeological features within the area.

Company Registration 134325C

SOC Applicant's Statement

Source & Provenance