SOC Garff Commissioners

Garff Sheading<br><br>LAXEY LONAN<br><br>MAUGHOLD<br><br>Garff Sheading	Garff Commissioners<br><br>Barrantee Garff<br><br>35 New Road, Laxey, Isle of Man, IM4 7BG. Telephone: (01624) 861241 Fax: (01624) 862623 Email:[email protected] www.garff.im

Mr Andrew Joyce Planning Appeals Administration Cabinet Office Government Office Douglas Isle of Man IM1 3PN 20th January 2025 Dear Mr Joyce Please could the comments below be forwarded to the Inspector appointed to consider the appeal on the following application:

Application Number: PA 24/00770/B Applicant: Mr Mr & Mrs David and Mary Keating Proposal: Conversion of agricultural building to residential (non-habitable) accommodation ancillary to the occupation of Moaney Woods Farm (retrospective). Address: Moaney Woods Farm, Lonan Church Road, Lonan IM4 7JX.<br><br>

The Commissioners Submission relating to the Appeal begins overleaf.

35 New Road, Laxey, Isle of Man, IM4 7BG. Telephone: (01624) 861241 Email: [email protected] www.garff.org

Appeal Submission from Garff District Commissioners

Application Number: PA 24/00770/B

Applicant: Mr Mr & Mrs David and Mary Keating

Proposal: Conversion of agricultural building to residential (non-habitable) accommodation ancillary to the occupation of Moaney Woods Farm (retrospective).

Address: Moaney Woods Farm, Lonan Church Road, Lonan IM4 7JX.

In this statement the Commissioners wish to reiterate that they have no objection to the proposals.

Members note the detailed analysis presented by the Planning Officer in his report and the reasons for refusal given by the Planning Committee in their decision notice dated 29th November 2024. The Commission acknowledges the accuracy in the analysis presented by the Planning Officer in terms of planning policy and its interpretation.

Members of the Commission also note the comments made by the applicant’s agent in their statement dated 3rd July 2024 which concludes by stating that there are ‘no Strategic Plan policies which would specifically support the conversion...’.

In this sense, Members acknowledge that based on analysis of planning policy alone the application presents as a straightforward ‘refusal’ decision.

Notwithstanding this, Members of the Commission do concur with a further statement made by the agent indicating that the current use of the building means that a purpose has been given to an existing and well-built structure that otherwise would be likely to fall out of use. They feel that this is an important consideration.

Members also note that the current use presents no negative visual impacts, nor any highways issues, nor other detriments that can be ascertained, etc.

In these circumstances, the Commission believes that re-consideration of the decision by the Inspector is an exercise that has value.

As stated above the Commission has resolved not to object to the proposals and would ask the Inspector to include these more positive aspects of the development in determining whether the planning policy can be set aside.

Members express their thanks to the Inspector for taking their views into account during this process.

Clerk, Garff District Commissioners