SOC DEFA Planning Officer

Please reply to the signatory

Tel: (01624) 685913 Fax: (01624) 686443 Email: [email protected]

Our Ref: 24/00770/B

Paul Visigah

Mr. A. Johnstone, Planning Appeals Secretary, Cabinet Office, Government Offices, Buck’s Road, Douglas, IM1 3PN. Senior Planning Officer 20 January 2025. Dear Mr Johnstone,

PA No: 24/00770/B 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, Laxey, Isle Of Man, IM4 7JX

Please find a statement that sets out the position of the Department in respect of the above planning application.

The statement relies upon the Planning Officer’s original report which was determined by a Principal Planner on 29th November 2024, which is online and forms part of the planning file.

The enclosed statement comprises the following parts:

1. Appendix 1 – Statement of Case

In the event that the appointed Planning Inspector is minded to recommend that the application be approved, then the four-year expiration condition should be attached along with consideration to any potential conditions included at 4.0 of the Statement of Case.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Visigah, B.Tech (Hons), MSc, MRTPI Senior Planning Officer

Appendix 1 – Statement of Case STATEMENT OF THE Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Planning & Building Control Directorate

Planning statement on behalf of the Department relative to:

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

Moaney Woods Farm, Lonan Church Road, Laxey, Isle Of Man, IM4 7JX

PA Reference: 24/00770/B Prepared on behalf of the Planning Department by Senior Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah, B.Tech (Hons), MSc, MRTPI

1.0 Appeal against refusal for PA 24/00770/B

The reasons for 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.

2.0 Legal and Policy Position

In accordance with S10 of the Town Country Planning Act the application has been considered;

S(4) In dealing with an application for planning approval or an application under subsection (3), the Department shall have regard to —

• (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application; (ab) any relevant national policy directive under section 2A;

• (b) any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3;
• (c) such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and
• (d) all other material considerations.

There is a statutory duty to take into account the above, and while it is recognised that weight to be given is a matter for the decision maker.

That being said, it shall be noted that the Development Plan and other Adopted Policies do not have primacy as they do in the UK. The Isle of Man is also different from the UK as there is no presumption in favour of development as set out in the NPPF, and there is no 5-year land supply requirement.

In this application, the most weight has been given to the Strategic Plan, and the Area Plan for the East, as they have been through a statutory process, which includes evidence base and public consultation process, and are adopted by Tynwald.

Other material considerations referred to in the officer report include the IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025; historic case law in the UK which relate to curtilages definition and changes, and the conversion of agricultural buildings in the countryside. The Planning History of the site is also vital for consideration as it clearly sets out the evolution of the site and delineation of the site boundary.

3.0 Response to Reasons for Appeal

This report addresses those issues directly which were highlighted as the basis for the appeal. For a full assessment of the initial application please refer to the original Officer’s Report which would have been supplied with the initial documentation.

• 3.1 There appear to be three main issues raised by the appellants. The issues include:

• 1. 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.
• 2. 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.
• 3. 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.

• 3.2 FOLLOWING SECTION ADDRESSES THOSE ISSUES DIRECTLY
• 3.3 There is no demonstration of harm

• 3.3.1 The appellant opines that there has been no demonstration of any actual harm from the proposal, as those parts of the building which are publicly visible still largely retain the appearance of an agricultural building. In responding to this assertion, it would be vital to first point out that harm in this instance is not only visual as the incidental change of use of the agricultural land and building would mean that the building ceases to support agriculture which is a core element of the rural economy in this part of the island. Furthermore, a perhaps unintended consequence of extending the curtilage of Moaney Woods into the agricultural land would mean that there would be no further mechanisms available to planning to prevent the complete domestication of the site with its attended visual impacts if the building is allowed to be used as an ancillary building to Moaney Woods.
• 3.3.2 A key factor that needs to be considered here is the definition of the term ancillary, which generally involves anything you (as a person ) could do normally in a standard house as built; e.g. eat, sleep, sit comfortably, pray, study, watch tv, shower. To be ancillary, the accommodation must be subordinate to the main dwelling and its function supplementary to the use of the existing residence. Such additional accommodation should normally be attached to the existing property and be internally accessible from it. Where an extension to the existing house is not practicable and it is proposed to convert and extend an existing outbuilding, planning permission will normally depend on the development providing a modest scale of accommodation. The purpose of this is to ensure the use of the building as part of the main dwelling. This would, however, not be achievable in the current case given that the application building does not sit within the curtilage of the existing dwelling house, and the location of the application building relative to the existing dwelling at Moaney Woods would mean that the goat shed which sits between both buildings will also need to be annexed in order to create a well-defined curtilage that would include the subject building.
• 3.3.3 It must also be considered that it has not been clearly demonstrated via the current application that there is no short or long term need for the building for agricultural use. Therefore, inherent harm here lies in the non-availability of the building and adjacent goat shed for their intended agricultural use, and this is particularly relevant as no document submitted by the applicant has demonstrated that the extant agricultural need at the site or area no longer warrants reserving the subject building, and the adjacent agricultural building which would be annexed into the new residential curtilage for the approved use, particularly as there is a restrictive condition that the subject building must be used only for agricultural purposes.
• 3.3.4 Whilst the applicants have argued in Paragraph 4.5 of their Planning Statement that “The introduction of the glazing and its use as proposed does not preclude its conversion back to agricultural use should the need arise”, they have clearly indicated within Paragraph 3 of their Reasons for appeal that they seek to extend the residential curtilage to include the building, which would mean that the goal is not to return the building to agricultural use, as placing the building within the residential curtilage of Moaney Woods would preclude any possibility for the building to

• be used for agriculture by other farmers who may need the building to support agriculture, particularly as the applicants have indicated that they have no intention to engage in agriculture.
• 3.3.5 With regard to the assessments of visual harm, it would be vital to note that whilst the change to the south elevation of the building would not be visible from the public footpath, the glazing on the east elevation (which is not a feature of an agricultural building) would be visible along sections of the site boundary where gaps exist with views achievable from the public footpath. Moreover, these views would be accentuated during the winter months where the vegetation would be greatly minimised on site. Therefore, it is not accepted that there would not be de demonstrable visual harm resulting from this development, although it must be emphasized that the harm that results is beyond the visual impact of the proposal. In addition, there has been unapproved works to create areas of hardstanding south of the building to support this building, and vehicles parked here would be noticeable from the public footpath, and these would intensify the domestication of the site.
• 3.3.6 Likewise, the visual impacts of works to extend the residential curtilages into the agricultural land extends beyond visual impact of alterations on the building, as although the land concerned may still be “open”, in the sense that no further development in currently proposed, the suburbanising effect of all the other paraphernalia associated with use of land as part a domestic curtilage would likely result in harmful impacts to the character and appearance of the countryside, as there would be eventual removal of landscape features which could be removed without recourse to planning if the site becomes an extension to the residential curtilage. It would be important to note here that the mitigating effect of the removal of permitted development rights are unable to prevent the erosion of rural characteristics as domestic paraphernalia still need to be erected on land, and these have quite different visual characteristics from a farmland.
• 3.3.7 Further to the above, Housing Policy 11 (part e) is clear that residential use, such as that proposed would not be permitted if the residential use would be incompatible with the land-use zonings on the area plan. In this case, the proposed residential use of the building would be contrary to the zoning of the site as land not designated for development, and this is particularly relevant as the scheme in its current form fails to align with the relevant policies that guide the conversion of rural building (HP 11 and EP 16). This has been noted in Paragraph 4.6 of the applicants Planning Statement.

3.4 The application description did not propose any extension or alteration of theresidential curtilage to encompass the whole area owned by the applicant.

• 3.4.1 The Applicants argue that the application description did not propose any extension or alteration of the residential curtilage to encompass the whole area owned by the applicant. That being said, by the building becoming ancillary it could result in this inadvertently happening. It is worth noting that the curtilage of Moaney Woods is large in its current context, given it measures about 3,080sqm (0.76 Acres/0.31 Hectares), and there is nothing that precludes the extension of the existing buildings within the curtilage to provide for a private gym within the curtilage. As such, there is no basis to allow for further extension of the site to annex an area of land almost amounting to the size of the current curtilage, just to enable the private use of an agricultural building as a gymnasium, particularly as the subject building was originally approved as an exception allowable under GP3.

• 3.4.2 Likewise, the land on which the application building sits has been historically separated from the curtilage of the existing dwelling at Moaney Woods, even though they have over time been in the same ownership, and this clearly demonstrates that it has not been part of the domestic curtilage of the house since the dwelling operated on site; a factor that is clearly evident on submitted plans for developments approved for the site which clearly delineates Fields 612364 and 612363 as being without the curtilage of Moaney Woods. See historic plans below:

• Fig 1: Site/Location Plan for PA 84/01105/B

Fig 2: Site/Location Plan for PA 87/0453/B

Fig 3: Site/Location Plan for PA 87/04546/B

• Fig 4: Location Plan for PA 88/01374/B
• Fig 5: Site Plan for PA 88/01374/B

Fig 6: Site/Location Plan for PA 94/00443/C

• Fig 7: Site/Location Plan for PA 95/01113/B
• Fig 8: Location Plan and Site Plan for PA 07/01677/B

• Fig 9: Site Plan for PA 10/01749/B
• Fig 10: Location Plan for PA 10/01749/B

• Fig 11: Site/Location Plan for PA 20/00754/C

• 3.4.3 From review of these plans that accompanied developments carried out at the site, it is clear that the field which is the subject of the current application has never existed as part of the residential curtilage of Moaney Woods, and there has been a clear boundary defining extent of the residential curtilage. As such, there is no basis to allow the building as an ancillary building associated with the residential use of Moaney Woods.
• 3.4.4 It is clear that the applicant seeks significant alterations to the site boundary to include large areas of agricultural land and buildings, as it would be difficult to retain the other agricultural building which sits between both buildings in agricultural use, and this building also does not benefit from approval for conversion to residential use. Besides, it has also not been demonstrated within this application that the goat shed which will inadvertently be annex via this scheme is redundant for use as an agricultural building, as required by Housing Policy 11 and Environment Policy 16.
• 3.4.5 The assertion that the submission of a new plan and imposition of a condition could control the extension of the curtilage is noted. However, it would be vital to point out that the imposition of a condition to restrict the use of the building to agricultural use did not prevent its alteration and subsequent change of use from agriculture to residential use, without the benefit of planning approval. Therefore, it is not a given that the imposition of conditions would prevent unauthorised developments which could jeopardise the goals of the Strategic plan Policies to protect the countryside from unwarranted development, or protect the structures and buildings approved for

supporting agriculture from being removed from agricultural use where they would be most needed, as is clearly evident on site.

• 3.4.6 In addition to the above, allowing the extension of the curtilage would mean that an area meant to support agriculture is to be annexed to the curtilage of Moaney Woods, resulting in the addition of an area of agricultural land measuring about 2206sqm, despite the current curtilage enclosing land in excess of 3, 000sqm, and there is no justification to allow such extension of the curtilage into the said land as the scheme does not pass for exceptional development allowable in the countryside as set out the General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan.

3.5 Issue of severance of the building from the rest of the land owned by the applicant

3.5.1 The appellants have argued that 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 that he planning officer should not have pre-judged any future application for such severance or change of use. Whilst this comment is noted, the goal of planning assessment for developments, particularly those which relate to the definition of curtilages and use of ancillary buildings is the assessment of the potential for the severance of the land. In fact, a key assessment is to ascertain whether the extant conditions on site would facilitate such severance, hence conditions are imposed that seek to prevent severance.

• 3.5.2 On that basis, whilst it is noted that the application building in its current form does not have all the necessary day to day living facilities for it to be considered to result in the creation of a separate planning unit, the site is laid out such that the dwelling and agricultural building (subject building) are in separate and physically distinct areas (sites), and the application building could be accessed completely independently of the main house, making it difficult to judge its use as being “incidental to the enjoyment” of the main house. Likewise, there is a clear separation between both sites by the existing boundary treatment such that the linking access (which has recently been widened in a manner that blurs the boundary between both sites) could be closed up without planning approval, enabling the creation of a separate planning unit.
• 3.5.3 It is perhaps worth noting that although a planning application can define the extent of a planning unit, subsequent changes can take place (with or without planning permission) which can alter the extent of the planning unit, by subdividing the original planning unit into separate planning units. In this case, the use of the application building as an ancillary non-residential outbuilding may cease over time, such that the use of the building ceases to be ancillary to the primary use of the dwelling within the broader site, and this has potential to facilitate severance. Therefore, it is important to ascertain whether the physical and functional operations of the site are such that would make retaining the application building as an ancillary building to the main dwelling unattainable, and this is the reason the assessment of potential severance is important.

3.6 Conclusion

• 3.6.1 This statement seeks to address the initial reasons for appeal articulated in the appellant’s Appeal Request. Additional statement(s) would be provided as rebuttal(s) further to the appellant’s providing additional statement(s) on the issues highlighted in their appeal request.

• 4.0 Potential Conditions
• 4.1 In the event that the Inspector is minded to recommend approval it is recommended that the following condition(s) be applied:

C1: Restrict use to Moaney Woods Farm only For the avoidance of doubt the building and extended curtilage hereby approved shall be for ancillary residential use only, and shall only be occupied/used by the occupants of Moaney Woods Farm, Lonan Church Road, Laxey, only and by no other persons. The building shall not operate as an independent planning unit.

Reason: To ensure proper control of the development and to avoid any future undesirable fragmentation of the curtilage, as permission has been granted for use of the land and building for the purposes associated with Moaney Woods Farm, Lonan Church Road, Laxey, only, and the application has been considered on this basis only.

C2: Residential Curtilage Within One month of this decision becoming final, a Plan which shows details of the land area to form the extended curtilage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. This curtilage boundary shall exclude Field 612364 to the south of the existing curtilage and the parts of Field 612363 defined by the existing boundary features east of the application building. The boundary must be formed by either a planted hedge of native species or a Manx hedge constructed in accordance with Planning Circular 1/92. The residential curtilage shall be laid out in accordance with the submitted plan and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To reflect the historic curtilage associated with the dwelling, and to ensure that the curtilage is clearly defined in the interest of protecting the countryside.

C3: Internal Layout 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 curtilage.

C4: Removal of Permitted Development 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 or placed within the new curtilage hereby approved, 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.

C5: Low Level Lighting

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.

C6: Restrict Approval to Building No approval is hereby granted for conversion of the adjacent goat handling/storage shed approved under PA 87/04546/B, which sits directly west of the application building and outside the defined historic curtilage of the dwelling at Moaney Woods Farm. The building shall remain as an agricultural building on site, and shall not be used for any other purpose. No alteration shall be carried out within and outside the building unless planning approval has been granted for such works.

Reason: To ensure proper control of the development and to reflect the information provided in the application, as the Department has assessed the impact of the proposal on the basis of the specific use of the application building and the documents submitted.

C7: Block up Field Access 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 curtilage