Inspector's Report

Appeal No: AP25/0006 Application No: 24/91323/B _______________________________________________________________ Report on Inquiry into Planning Appeal ________________________________________________________________ Inquiry held on: 16 April 2025 Site Inspection held on: 14 April 2025 _____________________________________________________________ Appeal by: Mr & Mrs Glyn Hoosen-Owen

Against the refusal of planning approval for the demolition of stable block and adjacent buildings and construction of annexe at Meadow View, Cranstal Road, Bride

________________________________________________________________ Present: Mr Gareth Roberts for the Appellant Mr & Mrs Glyn Hoosen-Owen - the Appellants Mrs Greeba Cowen – relative of Appellants Russell Williams - Planning Officer for the Department ________________________________________________________________ Introduction

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

Site and surroundings

• 2. The appeal site lies in an isolated location outside of any defined settlement. The character and appearance of the surroundings are of countryside with undulating, open fields of pasture with scattered clusters of farm buildings and isolated dwellings. Meadow View is a pleasant chalet with bonneted dormer windows in the roof fronting onto Cranstal Road. Cranstal Road does include other frontage dwellings, but these are well spaced out and are not recognisable as a settlement. To the side of the chalet is a detached garage with a gated access to the road and frontage parking area. Beyond that is a grassed area of side garden which includes, backing onto the road with an intervening hedge, a three bay, comparatively substantial cart lodge being used for storage. In addition, and set back from the road, is a two stable and tack room building, no longer used for the keeping of horses. It is in this location that the proposed annex is intended to be built.

The proposed development

• 3. The appeal proposes the demolition of the existing stable block and the erection of a detached single storey building comprising an entrance porch and hallway, a through kitchen, living and dining area, with two sets of double sliding doors out

• onto a patio area and rear garden and two double bedrooms and bathroom. Vehicular access from Cranstal Road would be via the existing access to Meadow View and any associated parking would be in front of the existing house.
• 4. The proposal is promoted as being an annex to provide accommodation for a close family member who currently has some health issues and would benefit from living close to her family but may need more care as time progresses1.

Relevant Planning History

• 5. Planning permission has been granted to extend Meadow View to provide additional living and bedroom space as set out below2.

• • 20/00965/B Alterations and erection of extension to side elevation linking dwelling to detached garage and erection of dormer to rear elevation - Permitted

• 9 October 2020

• • 24/00411/B Demolish existing detached garage, erection of a two-storey extension, door/window alteration and installation of a dormer window Permitted - 19 June 2024.

Relevant policy3

• 6. The site is not within an area with a specific land use designation4. It is classified as being White Land or land that is not zoned for development. It is however, within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance and an area of Nature Conservation Zones, Nature Reserves and Sites of Ecological Importance for Conservation.
• 7. The planning policies most relevant to the appeal are contained within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP).
• 8. IMSP Strategic Policy (SP)1 identifies that development should make the best use of resources by, amongst other things, optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, and unused and under-used land and buildings. In addition, development should be located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services.
• 9. IMSP Strategic Policy 2 (SP2) identifies that new development will be located primarily within existing towns and villages. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in exceptional circumstances. These are set out in IMSP General Policy 3 (GP3). Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan. The policy identifies that previously developed land (PDL) which contains a significant amount of building and where the continued use is redundant, can also be considered as an exception.

• 1 The need for an annex for the family member for health reasons was not a contested point.
• 2 The more recent 2024 permission grants more extensive alterations and extensions to the dwelling.
• 3 Policies of most relevance.
• 4 Area Plan for the South.

• 10.IMSP Spatial Policy (SpP)5 sets out that new development will be located within defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with IMSP GP3 mentioned above.
• 11.IMSP Housing Policy 4 (HP4) essentially reflects the terms of IMSP Policies SP3, GP3 and SpP5 requiring new development to be located primarily within existing towns and villages5.

Case for the Planning Authority6

The principle of development

• 12. The appeal site is located in an area not zoned for development where there is a presumption against development in the countryside. Notwithstanding, regard must be given to the impact of the design, scale and siting of the proposed building and as a whole. Consideration of the suitability of the ancillary accommodation is also required.
• 13. In this instance, the proposed new building would generally utilise the existing footprint of the former stable building, though its full footprint would be larger. The design and appearance of the proposed annexe is relatively simple and in keeping with the site and host dwelling, which has an extant permission for a large extension and general modification.
• 14. The permitted extension effectively allowed for the remodelling of the original dwelling and an extra bedroom and living space to be created with a link attached to the original building.
• 15. The proposed annexe accommodation, as designed, is tantamount to a selfcontained 2-bedroom dwellinghouse with all necessary facilities for day to day living including bathroom and living space with a small kitchenette. The building will measure approximately 9.7m x 6.9m with GIA of 66.9m2.
• 16. If the annexe were to be severed from the main dwellinghouse then this would result in a separate self-contained dwelling being created within the open countryside, contrary to policy.
• 17. There is case law that has accepted that self-contained accommodation can be ancillary to the principal residence; such cases include when the unit would be occupied by a dependant relative and who might pay the bills etc. However, in most instances the test of whether a development comprises a separate planning unit rests upon its severability i.e. if the ancillary accommodation could practically and viably operate on its own were the primary use of the premises to cease or cease to be in the ownership of the same person.
• 18. In this instance, this is would be entirely realistic and achievable for the annexe to be severed from the principle dwelling with the vehicular access shared. Due to the location of the annexe and its detached nature, its curtilage could be severed into two units in order to provide separate gardens, parking and turning spaces for both dwellings.

• 5 None of the exceptions to policy apply in this case.
• 6 Source Planning Officer’s report - recommendation dated 23 Jan 2025. Reliance on report confirmed by email dated 19th March 2025.

• 19. It is acknowledged that the proposed annexe will offer accommodation for an elderly relative of the appellants and that care will be provided by them. That said, the annexe is entirely independent of the principle dwelling and there is no functional link between the two other than ownership. The occupant, for example, would not need to utilise the main dwelling in order to live or carry out their daily activities. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated why the main dwelling, if/when extended, cannot satisfy the stated need for ancillary accommodation for a relative. An alternative option would be to provide an annexe that is genuinely ancillary to the role and function of the main dwelling, with one bedroom and some form of functional link between the annexe and principle dwelling. But the application must be determined on its own merits.
• 20. Given the above, there is an in-principle objection to the proposed annexe, which is considered to be tantamount to a new dwellinghouse in the open countryside.

Visual impact

• 21. The application site is located in a remote countryside location north of Bride and comprises of the dwellinghouse, outbuildings and gardens which can be seen from the public highway.
• 22. The proposal seeks to replace a former stable building with a larger, new building that will form a 2-bed self-contained annexe. The building would be a simple, linear form with external materials that are suitable for the site and surrounding area.
• 23. The proposed annexe will create a contemporary appearance to the building which is not considered to have a significant harmful impact upon the character or appearance of the site or wider landscape setting, when regard is had to the existing built form to be demolished and other buildings/approved works within the property.
• 24. Thus, although the development would inevitably render the appeal site more urban, it would integrate reasonably into the local landscape, showing respect to local character in its scale and design. It is considered the degree of harm to the landscape of the AHLV and any consequent conflict with GP3, StrP4 or EP1-2 of the IMSP would be no more than moderate. The scheme would also comply with the several criteria of GP2.

Case for the Appellants7

• 25. The reason for refusal was that the annex was tantamount to a self-contained 2-bedroom dwelling house and could be separated from the main building. The Appellants do not wish to split the proposed annex from the main house and would accept a condition imposing such a restriction.
• 26. The main test the Department seems to apply to annexes to be occupied by a dependant relative is whether the ancillary accommodation could practically and viably operate on its own were the primary use of the site to cease or cease to be in the ownership of the same person (severability).

• 7 Statement of Case of the Appellants with particular reference to Appendix 1 - Design and Access Statement and Appendix 2 - letter dated 18 November 2024 from the Appellants regarding the need for the annex.

• 27. It would be difficult in the case of the appeal proposal to separate the proposed annexe off to provide separate gardens, parking and turning spaces for both dwellings due to existing buildings on the site, as well as highway issues and an existing controlled open drainage ditch to the northeast. Further for it to be used as a separate dwelling it would require Planning Approval that would amount to Tandem Development likely to be rejected.
• 28. In respect of policy compliance, the proposal would adhere to the terms of IMSP Policy SP1.
• 29. Although the proposed annex is not new isolated development in the countryside, IMSP Policy SP2 requires it to be measured against paragraph 6.3 Policy GP3.
• 30. The proposed annex is in line with IMSP Policy GP3 (c) which sets out that development outside of areas zoned for development will not be permitted unless the land contains a significant amount of buildings; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment.
• 31. The Department claim the proposal is tantamount to an independent 2-bedroom dwelling that could be readily severed from the principle dwelling to create a separate planning unit, contrary to IMSP Policy GP3.
• 32. They also claim an in-principle objection, creating a new dwelling in an area where zoning and Strategic Policy does not support such proposals. This is not an application for a new dwelling.
• 33. The proposal is required to allow a close family member, who is in need of care, to live close by to allow for easy access by the family. The stables and outbuildings are not required anymore, and it would allow a purpose-built annex to be constructed, with a low cost of living and also being a green, energy efficient and sustainable property.
• 34. The annex is designed to have minimal impact from the street and on neighbouring properties. The Department has raised no objections in respect of design, including proposed external materials, scale and massing of the proposed building.
• 35. The annex has been designed to suit the needs of the Appellant’s mother, the owners having the benefit and knowledge that they are committing to providing a sustainable and eco-friendly new building, in line with the initiatives and guidelines of the Isle of Man Government. The existing stables could not be converted due to its poor construction and shallow foundations.
• 36. The proposed annex creates a good piece of architecture that fits into its context well. Its proportions, materials and roof scape sit easily in its immediate context and contributes positively to its existing densely landscaped setting.
• 37. This scheme is worthy of support and should be allowed with the inclusion of a condition restricting the use of the proposal to an annex for a family member.

Other Parties

• 38. Other representations received are as follows:

• • Bride Parish Commissioners - No comments received.
• • DOI Highway Services - No objection: no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as the proposals would have a similar or less parking demand to the existing situation.
• • Ecosystem Policy Team - No objection subject to checks for bats and birds in and around the building prior to demolition.

Assessment by the Inspector

• 39. The appeal proposal is for a single storey building of a greater scale, massing and footprint than the existing stable building to be demolished. The proposal would stand, more or less, in the same location as the stables, off to one side of the existing house, within the side garden.
• 40. The Appellants confirmed that the new annex had been designed to suit the needs of the family member who would be occupying it.
• 41. The design is simple and reflective of its countryside location. There has been no suggestion that the proposed building would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the countryside landscape, nor would it undermine the protectionist policies to safeguard the character and quality of the AHLV. Having visited the appeal site, I have no reason to question this uncontested assessment of the impact on the wider landscape, the building being seen in the context of Meadow View, and with the intervening cart lodge only glimpsed views would be achievable from the road.
• 42. The issue in this case centres on whether the proposed annex can be considered to be ancillary accommodation to the main house and in this way not considered as a separate new dwelling in the countryside. If the conclusion is that it is not ancillary accommodation, then the justification for the dwelling must then be considered.
• 43. Ancillary means supporting or serving something more important. The word annex means a building added to another8. In either case the subservience of one building to another is a common theme and there would normally be expected some sense of dependence of the annex to the main dwelling in respect of providing facilities9.
• 44. In this instance the proposal is described as an annex to the main house. However, it is proposed to be located in a detached position on the side garden with clear separation between the main house and the new accommodation.
• 45. The extent of the accommodation proposed is for two reasonable size double bedrooms both with fitted wardrobes, a shower room and an open plan kitchen dining and lounge area with two sets of patio doors to an outside patio and

• 8 Chambers Dictionary.
• 9 This would not just be utility services.

garden beyond. I heard at the Inquiry that the second double bedroom was to accommodate friends and other family members when they visited the family member who would live in the accommodation.

• 46. Access to the building would be across the side garden and vehicles visiting would entre through the existing gated access and park in front Meadow View.
• 47. The new building would remain in the ownership of the Appellant’s and there is no intention at this stage to sever the proposed building either physically or in terms of ownership from the main house.
• 48. Whilst acknowledging the Appellants’ intentions in respect of the relationship of Meadow View with the annex, and that the proposal has been designed to the requirements of the family, the extent of the accommodation proposed goes beyond what I consider to be ancillary to the main dwelling. The proposed ground floor plan10 shows a bungalow providing a level of accommodation to support independent living beyond what it would be reasonable to consider as an annex.
• 49. The proposed siting within the established side garden would allow for the bungalow to be set into a separate curtilage with a separate or shared vehicular access from Cranstal Road11 severing occupation and possibly ownership of the bungalow sometime in the future. I do appreciate that is not the Appellants’ intention at the moment, but that is not to say future circumstances or a change in ownership may not lead to a desire to create a standalone dwelling.
• 50. I have noted the Appellants’ contention that planning permission would be required for a change of use of an annex to a separate dwelling unit. This may be so. However, having granted permission for an annex with the level of accommodation as proposed, the Department would be in a difficult position in considering the severance of the building once constructed, when the justification on family care grounds was no longer relevant. This would similarly be the case should a condition restricting occupancy of the dwelling be imposed but subsequent permission being sought to lift such a restriction in differing circumstances in the future.
• 51. Whilst I appreciate the family’s desire to care for the promoted occupant, at the Inquiry it was apparent that the level of care, at the moment, was more of a keeping a close eye on rather than providing nursing care12. Obviously, the need for care may increase into the future, but in both cases a smaller annex providing a level of accommodation which could be considered ancillary to the main dwelling, both in respect of proximity to Meadow View, as well as some element of dependency on the facilities of the main dwelling13, would suffice to fulfil the required function.
• 52. Therefore, the appeal proposal, with the extent of accommodation proposed, amounts to a new dwelling in the countryside outside of existing towns and

• 10 Dwg no HO-07.
• 11 Were the cartlodge to be demolished it would be likely possible to design an engineering solution to build a direct vehicular access from the road over ditch/water way.
• 12 There is no dispute that some caring function is required sufficient to justify an appropriately sized annex.
• 13 This does not necessarily mean the annex must be attached to nor within the main dwelling.

villages which would not comply with the Spatial Vision for the Island where communities would become more sustainable, guiding most new development to existing settlements, thus making the optimum use of existing and planned infrastructure and services, whilst reducing the need to travel, especially by private car.

• 53. The Appellants suggest the proposal is compliant with IMSP Policy GP3 (c) which sets out that development outside of areas zoned for development will not be permitted unless the land contains a significant amount of buildings; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment.
• 54. The appeal site as already described includes Meadow View, the frontage cart lodge, the stables and pigsty to be demolished and the detached side garage to be demolished when the new extension is built. This is not a significant amount of buildings. They are all contained within a residential curtilage and although the use of the stables for the keeping of horses or other animals does not persist, I observed it did have some use associated with the residential occupancy of the site. This cannot be considered to be a redundant use. Whilst the proposed bungalow has already been described as being simple in design and not impacting on the landscape or wider environment, considering the policy criteria as a whole14 the proposal is not in full compliance with its terms and there are no other criteria in IMSP Policy GP3 which could justify the proposal. Conclusion
• 55. The proposal at the level of accommodation shown, and without a clearly defined associated, ancillary relationship with the main house of Meadow View, would amount to a new dwelling in the countryside contrary to IMSP Policies SP1, SP2, SpP5, GP2, GP3 and HP415. Significant harm would ensue in this regard. Whilst some positive weight can be attributed to the caring function which the family would provide this would not outweigh the harm of the appeal proposal undermining the Strategic Objectives of the IMSP which include the protection of the countryside for its own sake, to guide most new development to existing settlements, thus making the optimum use of existing and planned infrastructure and services.

Recommendation

• 56. Therefore, I recommend that the appeal be dismissed. If accepted, this recommendation will have the effect of upholding the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application.
• 57.In the event that the Minister should agree with the Appellants’ case and decide to grant planning permission, recommended conditions are set out at Annex A below. They are based on the conditions suggested by the Planning Authority as

• 14 IMSP Policy GP3.
• 15 Which are most relevant to the proposal.

part of their Statement of Case and were discussed in detail at the Inquiry. The reasons for each condition are set out within the schedule.

Reason

• 58. Overall, it is considered the proposed annex, at the size and level of accommodation proposed, would constitute a new unjustified dwelling in the countryside which would undermine the Strategic Objectives and policies of the IMSP which include the protection of the countryside for its own sake, to guide most new development to existing settlements, thus making the optimum use of existing and planned infrastructure and services. No convincing case of exceptional circumstances in favour of the proposal has been established to outweigh the identified harm. Therefore, the terms of IMSP Policies SP1, SP2, SpP5, GP2, GP3 and HP4 would be unacceptably compromised.

Frances Mahoney MRTPI IHBC

Independent Inspector 3rd July 2025

Annex A

Schedule of Conditions

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 development shall be completed in accordance with the materials as indicated on approved drwg no. HO-08.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

3) The accommodation hereby approved shall be occupied only by family of those occupying the main dwelling, as a single family household and the accommodation shall not be occupied as an independent dwelling unit.

Reason: To ensure proper control of the development and to avoid any future undesirable fragmentation of the dwellinghouse in this countryside location.

The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following approved plans received on 22nd and 26th of November 2024:

• HO-01 – Location Plan
• HO-02 – Site Plan

• HO -07 – Proposed Ground Floor Plan
• HO -08 – Proposed Elevations and Section

End of Schedule