Inspector's Report

Report on an Inquiry into a Planning Appeal

Inquiry: Wednesday 20 August 2025 Site Inspection: Monday 18 August 2025

Appeal made by Mr Cleveland Perry against the refusal of a planning application for approval for conversion and alterations to existing redundant storage barn to provide a residential dwelling on land adjacent to Field 134413, Churchtown, Lezayre, Isle of Man. _________________________________________________________

Preliminary Matter

• 1. It is claimed for the Appellant that the Planning Committee was misled in its refusal of the application. However, that is a matter between the Appellant and the Department and not for this appeal, which provides for a fresh and independent assessment of every material consideration, both for and against the proposed development.

Description

• 2. The application site comprises the appeal barn curtilage, located south of Lezayre Road and reached off a track from the B17. The site is near the cluster of residential properties comprising Churchtown. The nearest dwellings are Broadlands and Tranent to the west and The Rectory to the north. The site abuts the Kirk Christ Church cemetery to the east. There are fields to the south.
• 3. The split-level barn has a dual-pitch roof over the upper part and a catslide roof over the lower level. The building measures approximately 20.2m long by 11.8m wide and 2.8m to the eaves and 5.3m to the ridge. The lower section is about 3.3m high.
• 4. The barn has most recently been used for garaging and storage and as a workshop for nearby residential properties. The appeal property is in the same ownership as Ballachree Cottage to the west, where the Appellant resides and which has its own detached garage.
• 5. The conversion would create a single-storey dwelling with integral garage. External finishes would include light grey composite roofing panels, wallcladding in untreated larch boarding and window and door frames and rainwater goods in anthracite-coloured aluminium.
• 6. The access track would be resurfaced and there would be on-site parking and turning space for three cars, as well as a garden area.

Planning Policy and Guidance

• 7. Policy provisions relevant to this appeal are set down in the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP). The overarching strategic aims of the

• IMSP include that new development should primarily be located within defined urban settlements, protecting Manx built heritage, supporting sustainable transport and encouraging high quality design to make a positive architectural contribution to the Island.
• 8. Although associated with the group of buildings comprising Churchtown, the appeal site is in the countryside, outside any defined settlement boundary, and is unallocated for development.
• 9. General Policy 2 (GP2) of the IMSP sets broad criteria for development, including (b-c) respect for the site and surrounding landscape, (d) protection of wildlife, (g) protection of residential amenity and (h-i) provision of safe access and adequate car parking.
• 10. GP3 and Environment Policy 1 (EP1) resist rural building in order to protect the countryside for its own sake. But GP3 makes exceptions, including for (b) the conversion of redundant rural buildings of architectural, historic or social value and interest and (c) redundant, previously developed land (PDL) with significant building, where its redevelopment would reduce impact and improve the environment.
• 11. Housing Policy 4 (HP4) echoes the strategic aim to locate development mainly in settlements but also makes the exception (b) for the residential conversion of redundant rural buildings, subject to compliance also with in accordance with HP11.
• 12. HP11 is contained within section 8.10 of the IMSP, specifically concerning the conversion of rural buildings to dwellings. Introductory paragraphs 8.10.1-2 state that the conversion of buildings in the countryside that are no longer suitable or needed for their original use, but which are of sufficient quality or interest to warrant retention, can make a useful contribution to the housing stock, ensure retention of our built heritage, and improve the appearance of what might otherwise become derelict fabric.
• 13. HP11 then sets criteria for such residential conversions where (a) redundancy is established, (b) the building is intact and structurally capable of renovation, (c) it is of architectural, historic or social value and (d) large enough for a dwelling and (e) compatible with adjoining land uses.
• 14. EP3 protects trees and woodland, EP4 safeguards wildlife conservation and EP13 requires the avoidance of unacceptable risk of flooding.
• 15. Transport Policies (TP) 4 and 7 require safe access and parking.
• 16. Circular 3/91 (C3/91), cited by the Appellant, gives general guidance on the design of residential development in the countryside but is of limited applicability because it refers essentially to new buildings.

The Case for the Appellant – Mr Cleveland Parry

The material points are: Response to the Refusal

• 17. The three stated reasons for refusal relate to the alleged rural location, and the structural condition of the building and the detailed requirements for its conversion.
• 18. The submitted structural report clearly states that the barn is capable of repair. Yet the determination of the application was weighted against approval on grounds that refurbishment was not possible due to the structural condition of the building.
• 19. In addition, re-roofing and repair works completed under a previous approval (14/00054/B) clearly demonstrate that the existing building should not be considered as a ruin. The original barn dates back to the 1950s and is recorded on the 1957 Ordnance Survey map. The unusual construction of the barn, given its type and location, provides architectural and historic interest.
• 20. It is therefore considered that the proposal is in accordance with the criteria of HP11 of the IMSP, such that the proposal also aligns with the wider policy framework of GP3 and HP4, which control the sensitive conversion of rural buildings.

Assessment

• 21. Even if regarded as not directly meeting the criteria of relevant policy for the refurbishment of buildings in the countryside, the proposal does reflect the intent of those polices. Despite no historical context, the design respects the existing features and constraints of the building. The barn is redundant for its current use, following previous roof replacement and buttressing to the supporting masonry.
• 22. The design is well thought out to respect the privacy of neighbours and allow a poor building to be brought back into meaningful use as a home for a direct family member, allowing the elderly Appellant and his wife to remain in the main Ballachree Cottage in their old age.
• 23. The proposed single-storey accommodation is modest and would ensure that this countryside property would not become a further derelict feature of the landscape. The design is unashamedly modern but uses a sympathetic palette of local materials. Access would be from an existing driveway and there would be sufficient on-site parking.
• 24. The proposal represents significant planning benefit with supporting evidence that, whilst the structure requires attention, it is capable of full refurbishment.

• 25. It is submitted that, whilst outside any main settlement, the site is within the well-established area of Churchtown, where there are sixteen residential properties and one barn, the subject of this appeal. The residential use would be compatible with all the surrounding Churchtown properties.

Conclusions

• 26. It is agreed that the proposed development needs to be considered in the context of the site and this proposal requires professional judgement to be applied where the proposal falls short in strict policy terms. Reliance is placed on the open nature of the appeal process and wholistic approach to all the merits of the case.
• 27. Large parts of the case for the Planning Authority are accepted as correct. However, the statements on the assessment of the site as being within an area not zoned for development and relating to the structural integrity of the building are challenged.
• 28. It is requested that this appeal be allowed and the refusal overturned.

The Case for the Planning Authority

The material points are: Issues

• 29. The issues to consider are:

• i. principle,
• ii. visual and landscape impact,
• iii. neighbouring amenity,
• iv. highway safety,
• v. biodiversity, and
• vi. drainage and flood risk.

Principle Policy

• 30. To be acceptable, the proposed conversion should comply with HP4 and HP11 of the IMSP, in order to meet the exceptions of GP3 in the countryside.
• 31. HP4 and HP11 together permit conversions of redundant, traditional rural buildings where this protects the Manx vernacular built heritage and promotes the use of local materials.

Redundancy

• 32. The barn has clearly not been in active agricultural use for many years but is currently used for domestic storage associated with nearby residential properties.
• 33. The submitted structural appraisal asserts that the building is redundant for its original agricultural function and does not meet the practical needs of modern farming operations. The barn is in dilapidated condition and is of limited utility even as a domestic storage facility.

Structural Stability and Preservation of the Original Building

• 34. The structural appraisal identifies several significant defects that raise serious concerns about the feasibility of conversion without extensive intervention. The northern elevation shows severe leaning, indicating foundation instability or structural failure, necessitating partial reconstruction of affected walls. Such intervention conflicts with policy emphasis on preserving original structures. Some foundations are described as rudimentary, inadequate for residential use and requiring further investigation of all the walls. Anticipated reinforcement or reconstruction of foundations would exceed the modest repairs envisioned by HP11.
• 35. Saturated soil conditions were observed adjacent to the lean-to barn and western gable, with water visibly pooling inside the structure. This was attributed to a nearby stream compromising the stability of exposed footings and requiring extensive drainage improvements and water management. Wall plates show signs of wet rot and insect damage and would need replacing.
• 36. The lean-to barn includes areas of exposed soil flooring, which would require reconstruction.
• 37. The significant rebuilding works required contradict HP11. The extent of deterioration brings the appeal proposal directly into conflict with the requirement of HP11 for the building to be substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation without extensive intervention and rebuilding.

Architectural, Historic and Social Interest

• 38. The barn does not reflect the traditional Manx agricultural vernacular, which is characterized by local materials such as Manx slate, mass rubble walls, and narrow openings. Instead, the construction of the building includes precast concrete walls, blockwork infill, and metal sheeting. This utilitarian design lacks craftsmanship, aesthetic quality or distinctive features that might contribute to architectural interest. This is further emphasised by the structural report which advocates rebuilding of some sections as the more economical option.

• 39. The barn was constructed between 1945 and 1955 and its post WWII construction reflects a period of mass production focused on functionality rather than design or cultural significance. It does not represent a rare or innovative example of its type and lacks the technological or architectural merit often associated with historic structures.

Size and Alterations

• 40. The gross external area of approximately 239m² is adequate for conversion into a dwelling and it is judged that the scheme meets the requirements of HP11 in this respect

Compatibility with Surroundings

• 41. Although strictly in the countryside, the barn is located in an area of scattered dwellings and open fields. The proposed residential conversion would align with the surrounding land uses and it is not considered that the residential use of the building would be incompatible with adjoining the neighbouring dwellings or have an adverse impact upon their amenity in terms of overlooking, overbearing or loss of light.
• 42. Whilst the comments from the neighbours regarding potential impacts are noted, the single-storey converted barn would be situated about 29m away from the nearest dwelling at Broadlands, with only high-level windows on the north and west elevations visible from the neighbouring properties. This would diminish any concern in terms of neighbouring amenity.
• 43. There is no reason to assume that the residential use of the barn would be incompatible with adjacent land uses.

Serviceability

• 44. It is noted that connections to electricity, water, and telecoms could be provided. The dwelling would be served by private drainage via a proprietary biodisc plant with run-off to soakaways or field drainage ditches. An air source heat pump would provide hot water. These features would meet the servicing requirements of HP11.

Materials

• 45. The proposed alterations would introduce traditional materials including larch cladding which would improve the appearance of the barn and would be acceptable in terms of HP11.

Visual and Landscape Impact

• 46. The proposed conversion introduces timber cladding and grey roof covering and window frames to enhance the external appearance of the barn and improv its visual integration within the rural landscape. This aligns with GP2(b-c), which emphasises respect for the site and surroundings, whilst

• mitigating the utilitarian character of the existing precast concrete and blockwork.
• 47. Although these modifications make for a more sympathetic design for the building, its utilitarian origins and lack of craftsmanship fail to embody vernacular heritage, limiting its alignment with the strategic objectives and criteria of HP11(c) of the IMSP for rural residential conversions.

Neighbouring Amenity

• 48. Concerns are raised on behalf of nearest neighbouring Broadlands and The Rectory are noted, regarding overlooking of living and bedroom windows and noise and disturbance. However, these properties are at least 29m distant at a lower level than the barn with boundary screening by vegetation. It is considered that the proposal complies with the GP2(g) regarding residential amenity.

Highway Safety

• 49. The existing access and proposed parking arrangements are considered by the Highway Authority to be appropriate and to align with the provisions of TP4 and TP7 of the IMSP.

Biodiversity

• 50. The submitted assessment for bats concludes, to the satisfaction of the Ecosystem Policy Team (EPT), that the barn has low to negligible potential for bat activity and that no mitigation for bats is required.
• 51. However, the EPT recommends checking for nesting birds prior to construction, and providing a bird box thereafter, but concludes that the proposed tree, shrub, and hedging species are appropriate for the local wildlife habitats.
• 52. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with EP4-5 and GP2(d) of the IMSP regarding biodiversity.

Drainage and Flood Risk

• 53. The proposals represent the re-use of existing built fabric in an area not at risk of flooding. The topography directs surface water away from lowerlying areas and, with the proposed drainage solution, would ensure that the development would not increase flood risk either within the site or to adjacent properties. The development would thus align with EP13 and GP2(l) of the IMSP in mitigating any potential flood risk.

Conclusion

• 54. The proposal demonstrates compliance with several planning policies, particularly in terms of landscape, neighbouring amenity highway safety, biodiversity and drainage.

• 55. Despite these positive considerations, the scheme fundamentally fails under GP3 and HP11 concerning structural integrity, architectural merit, and countryside development restrictions. These shortcomings in policy alignment cannot be overlooked and partial fulfilment does not justify setting aside countryside protection policies.
• 56. It is therefore recommended that this appeal be dismissed and the refusal upheld.

Other Representations

• 57. The Lezayre Parish Commissioners support the proposal.
• 58. DOI Highway Services find the proposal to have no significant negative implications for highway safety and functionality or parking, subject to a condition ensuring the completion of the access and parking arrangements.
• 59. The DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team comments that a submitted report by the Manx Bat Group is in order, with a suitable level of assessment undertaken, finding a negligible to low potential for bat activity, with no mitigation required. Checks for nesting birds would be required during construction and a bird box should be provided. The proposed landscaping is appropriate to local habitats.
• 60. The DEFA Senior Registered Buildings Officer comments that, dating from about the 1950s in modern construction, the barn shows no architectural or social interest.
• 61. The Owner-occupiers of Broadlands question the redundancy of the barn for agriculture and see the proposal as blocking access to adjacent farmland. They raise concerns over privacy due to direct lines of sight between windows and overshadowing of the garden by to the 2m shared boundary fencing. They are also concerned about the potential use of the dwellings as a holiday let, disturbing the peace of the area adjacent to the cemetery.
• 62. The Owner-occupiers of The Rectory fear overdevelopment of the appeal site opposite the Rectory, increasing vehicle movements disturbing wildlife and causing overlooking and affecting outlook at neighbouring Broadlands.

Assessment by the Inspector

Planning Issues

• 63. I consider the main issues to be the principle of the proposed conversion and the effects the development would have in terms of its design and visual impact and with respect to neighbouring residential amenity. It is also appropriate to consider other matters of highway safety, biodiversity and drainage.

Principle

• 64. Although spatially associated with the sixteen or so dwellings of Churchtown, the appeal site and the barn are outside any defined settlement boundary, according to current strategic policy. The site is accordingly subject to the constraints of GP3 and EP1 of the IMSP that protect the countryside for its own sake.
• 65. The proposal is therefore also to be considered against the exceptions of GP3 and HP4 and the criteria of HP11 of the IMSP for the conversion of rural buildings.
• 66. The site is clearly previously developed land. Moreover, the Planning Authority accepts that the barn has not been in agricultural use for many years and is dilapidated and of limited use even for domestic storage. It seems on balance that the building is reasonably be regarded as redundant.
• 67. The building dates from about the mid-20th Century and has been subject to substantial repair and structural stabilisation. It is of essentially modern construction. I therefore favour the view of the Registered Buildings Officer, over that of the Appellant, in that I find that the barn exhibits no architectural, historic or social value or interest.
• 68. The submitted specialist structural survey report identifies significant structural faults and envisages that relatively extensive reconstruction would be necessary for its conversion and that this would be the more economical option.
• 69. From personal inspection, despite prior repairs and an apparently straight ridge and sound roof, the building is in a visibly dilapidated state, with cracking in the concrete walls suggesting prior movement. The north wall of the single-storey section leans significantly in parts and is supported by added blockwork buttresses. Ground conditions are unknown and parts of the building and foundations are currently affected by groundwater.
• 70. However, it is the overall technical finding of the structural report that the building is capable of refurbishment without increase in structural loadings. On the evidence available, I consider it reasonable to regard the barn as intact and structurally capable of renovation, albeit with substantial rebuilding required.

• 71. It follows that the proposed development would meet the exceptions GP3(b) and (c) and HP4(b) to the extent that the site is PDL and the building is redundant, but not in terms of architectural or historic value and I consider the further question of environmental improvement below.
• 72. It also follows that the proposal meets the strict terms of HP11(b) in that the barn is intact and structurally capable of renovation, noting that HP11(b) is itself silent as to the degree of rebuilding that may be required. The development would also comply with HP11(e) as it is plainly large enough for a dwelling. The proposal fails to comply with HP11(c) in terms of historic value. The compatibility of the development with adjoining uses in terms of HP11(e) is for further consideration below.
• 73. So, despite a measure of policy compliance, there is a significant degree of conflict in principle between the appeal proposal and GP3 and HP11 of the IMSP. This is to be taken into the planning balance with such other material considerations that may lean in favour of the proposal.

Design and Visual Impact

• 74. The Planning Authority finds no objection to the inherent design of the proposed conversion, which includes the use of traditional materials, including timber wall cladding and subdued colouration of the roof and the window and door frames. I agree that this would enhance the external appearance of the building and improve its visual integration with the rural landscape, mitigating its present utilitarian appearance
• 75. In this way, although there is no vernacular heritage value to preserve in terms of GP3 and HP11, the design would be in line with GP2(b-c) of the IMSP in respecting the site and surroundings.

Residential Amenity.

• 76. The Planning Authority finds no harm with respect to neighbouring amenity but the residents of Broadlands and the Rectory in particular object on grounds related to privacy, overshadowing and disturbance to the peace of the area due to vehicle movements and potential use of the dwelling as a holiday let.
• 77. On fresh consideration, I find that the minimum distance of 29m that would separate the proposed dwelling from those properties would be sufficient to obviate these effects acceptably, given the normal minimum window to window distance is 20m. A degree of overshadowing to the garden of Broadlands by a standard garden fence might be somewhat inconvenient but, in my judgement, this does not amount to a planning objection in this case.
• 78. Although it would be accepted in the countryside as an exception, the proposed dwelling would become part of an established residential group. In that context, I do not consider that its occupation and use would cause

• undue disturbance to other residents or the adjacent cemetery, even as a holiday let, albeit the latter does not seem to be in real prospect.
• 79. I find no objection in terms of neighbouring residential amenity and regard the proposed conversion as compliant with GP2(g) of the IMSP in this respect.

Other Matters Highway Safety

• 80. I am satisfied that the proposed development, using the existing access, duly improved, and providing car parking space to adopted standards, would have no adverse impact on highway safety. In these respects, the proposal is therefore compliant with GP2(h-i), TP4 and TP7 of the IMSP, subject to a condition to ensure the completion of the access and parking arrangements.

Biodiversity

• 81. With respect to biodiversity, on the evidence provided there is unlikely to be any harm to bats or birds, such that the development would not harm the ecology of the area and might ultimately enhance it with improved landscape planting. Conditions would be necessary to control external lighting and ensure no harm to any bats resorting to the area and to require the installation of bird nesting boxes. With such stipulations in place, the development would accord with GP2(d) and EPs 4 and 5 of the IMSP regarding biodiversity.

Drainage

• 82. There is no overall flood risk applying to the site but there is a need for drainage measures to address surface and groundwater on the site. I am content that this can be achieved under building control legislation. However, a planning condition would be justified in this case to ensure appropriate drainage, avoiding surface water flows over adjacent property. This would achieve compliance with EP13 of the IMSP with respect to drainage and flood risk.

Personal Circumstances

• 83. I appreciate the family circumstances of the Appellant and a current but transient need for additional accommodation. However, whilst personal circumstances are material, I give little planning weight to the stated prospect that the proposed dwelling would be used ancillary to Ballachree Cottage because the development would create a separate permanent dwelling in the countryside, some distance from Ballachree Cottage.

Conditions

• 84. If approval is granted, conditions will be necessary, based on those suggested without prejudice by the Planning Authority. As indicated above, Conditions 2, 3 and 9 would be required to secure appropriate access, parking, finishing materials, biodiversity and landscaping, respectively in the interests of highway safety, visual amenity and biodiversity.
• 85. Conditions 4 and 5 would duly restrict the enlargement of the dwelling without express permission and define the curtilage of the property, in the interests of local amenity.
• 86. Condition 6 would control external lighting to protect bats and Condition 8 secures a bird, both in the further interests of biodiversity. Condition 7 would ensure the proper drainage of the land without flood risk to other property.

Planning Balance and Conclusion

• 87. It is not disputed that the appeal building is large enough for a dwelling and my findings above, with respect to visual and residential amenity, indicate that the dwelling created by the conversion would be compatible with adjoining land uses, in the terms of criteria (d-e) of HP11.
• 88. I have also found that, subject to routine conditions, the development would have no unacceptable adverse impacts on highway safety, biodiversity, drainage or flood risk.
• 89. Indeed, the development would produce certain planning benefits by enhancing the immediate appearance of the barn and its site, as well as potentially improving local biodiversity with the proposed landscaping and other ecological mitigating measures, also secured by condition. These factors amount to a significant environmental improvement in terms of GP3(c) and in line with the overall strategic aims of the IMSP.
• 90. It is also material, although not determinatively so, that the Lezayre Parish Commissioners do not oppose the appeal.
• 91. With regard to the principle of the proposed development, there is no doubt that the proposed conversion of the appeal barn into a dwelling is strictly non-compliant with certain of the protective provisions of GP3, EP1 and HP11 of the IMSP with respect to building conversions in the countryside.
• 92. In particular, the building is clearly of no architectural or historic value in terms of GP3(b) and HP11(c). I am also aware that the Planning Authority give substantial weight to the amount of rebuilding required for its conversion as an indicator in relation to the question of structural capability of renovation.
• 93. The relevant IMSP polices on rural conversions are essentially aimed at controlling renovations of traditional buildings in the open countryside, in

• order to protect the landscape. The appeal building is a non-traditional building strictly in the countryside but closely associated with the established built group of Churchtown. In this case I have found that the proposed development would cause no significant planning harm and would bring material planning benefit.
• 94. The Planning Authority was and the Minister is now entitled to judge that an avoidance of conflict with other development plan polices and a degree of planning benefit are insufficient to justify approval against a policy conflict of principle.
• 95. It is a fine balance, and mere policy compliance does not of itself carry a planning benefit. However, it is my own judgement, on fresh consideration of all the evidence in this particular case, that the planning benefits of the development are sufficient to override the degree to which the proposal conflicts with strategic planning policy in principle.
• 96. This leads me to the overall conclusion that this appeal should be allowed and the refusal overturned, subject to the conditions I have outlined.

Recommendation

• 97. I recommend that the appeal be allowed, and planning approval granted for conversion and alterations to existing storage barn to provide a residential dwelling, on land adjacent to Field 134413, Churchtown, Lezayre, Isle of Man, as shown on the drawings listed and subject to the conditions and reason for approval set out in the Appendix to this Report.
• 98. If accepted, this recommendation would have the effect of overturning the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application.

B J Sims

Brian J Sims BSc (Hons) CEng MICE MRTPI Independent Inspector

19 September 2025

Appendix

Schedule of Recommended Planning Conditions Reason for Approval List of Approved Drawings

• C 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.
• C 2. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, all access arrangements, including the garage, parking and turning areas, shall be provided in full accordance with Drawing No 003 and shall thereafter be retained. These areas shall not be used for any purpose other than associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction at all times.

Reason: To ensure that adopted car parking standards are met, in the interests of highway safety.

• C 3. Prior to the commencement of development, a schedule of materials and finishes, including samples of the materials to be used in the construction of all external surfaces, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall thereafter be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details and retained as such.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and the visual amenity of the area.

• C 4. 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 extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling, and no garages or other free-standing buildings shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwellings hereby approved without the prior written approval of the Department. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the surrounding area.
• C 5. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, the residential curtilage shall be laid out strictly in accordance with Drawing No 003. The boundary shall be defined using either a native species planted hedge, a traditional Manx hedge (in accordance with Planning Circular 1/92), a post-andwire fence, or a combination thereof. The boundary shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the curtilage is defined in a manner appropriate to the rural setting.

• C 6. Prior to the installation of any external lighting, a detailed low-level lighting scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The scheme shall be designed in accordance with the BCT and ILP Guidance Note 8: Bats and Artificial Lighting (12 September 2018), and include details of luminance, mounting heights, hours of operation, and mitigation against light spill. The approved scheme shall be implemented and thereafter retained.

Reason: In the interests of protecting ecological species and to prevent light pollution.

• C 7. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, a scheme for the management of surface water and any active spring sources within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the dwelling and thereafter retained.

Reason: To prevent runoff from adversely affecting neighbouring land and to safeguard amenity.

• C 8. Within three months of the commencement of development, details of a bird box suitable for use by house sparrows or starlings, including its type, materials, design, and exact position on the northern elevation of the dwelling, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The approved bird box shall be installed prior to first occupation of the dwelling and thereafter retained. Reason: In the interests of enhancing biodiversity at the site.
• C 9. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved drawings, the development shall not commence until a detailed landscaping scheme for the site has first been submitted to the Department and approved in writing. The landscaping scheme shall include details of a layout, planting (excluding nonnative species), hard surfacing, site levels, and landscape features including hedges and trees to be retained.

The soft landscaping details shall include planting plans and written specification and a programme for the implementation, completion and subsequent management of the proposed landscaping. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved landscaping scheme and the landscaping shall be retained thereafter.

All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwelling, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which die or become seriously damaged or diseased within a period of five years after planting must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: To ensure that the development achieves an appropriate standard of landscaping which contributes to the environment.

Reason for Approval

Despite a degree of conflict with strict terms of General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Housing Policy 11 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 to protect the countryside for its own sake and control the conversion of rural buildings, the conversion of the barn into a dwelling would have no unacceptably adverse impacts upon any other material planning interests, including residential amenity, highway safety and biodiversity. The development would provide a measure of enhancement to the character, appearance and biodiversity of the site and its surroundings in Churchtown, justifying approval in this particular case.

List of Approved Drawings

• 001 Location Plan dated 29.9.23
• 002 Existing Site Plan dated 29.9.23
• 003 Proposed Site Plan dated 29.9.23 101 Proposed Plans and Elevations dated 29.9.23 TS-250424 Tree Constraints dated 24.4.24 TP-250424 Tree Protection dated 24.4.24

• end of appendix -