Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/00534/B Page 1 of 15
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/00534/B Applicant : Mr Cleveland Perry Proposal : Conversion of existing redundant storage barn to provide a residential dwelling Site Address : Barn Adj To Field 134413 Churchtown Ramsey Isle Of Man
Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 02.08.2024 Site Visit : 02.08.2024 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 17.04.2025 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. General Policy 3 (GP3) establishes strict exceptions for countryside development, ensuring that proposals outside settlement boundaries adhere to specific housing and environmental policies. The proposal fails to satisfy GP3's requirements as it does not meet the provisions of Housing Policy 11 (HP11) or Housing Policy 4 (HP4), both of which regulate rural housing and conversion projects. The barn requires significant reconstruction, contradicting GP3's principle of retaining original structures without excessive intervention. The lack of architectural, historic, or social significance further undermines compliance, reinforcing that the development does not qualify as an acceptable countryside conversion.
R 2. Housing Policy 11 (HP11) requires that redundant rural buildings be substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation without excessive rebuilding. However, the barn exhibits severe structural deficiencies, including leaning walls, inadequate foundations, and saturated soil conditions, necessitating major reconstruction beyond policy thresholds. Additionally, HP11 mandates that qualifying buildings possess architectural, historic, or social interest, yet the structure holds no architectural, heritage or communal value. Paragraph 8.10 of HP11 explicitly prohibits the rebuilding of ruins or the erection of replacement structures disguised as conversions, reinforcing that the extent of intervention required far exceeds permissible policy limits, leading to clear non-compliance.
R 3. Housing Policy 4 (HP4) establishes a spatial strategy for sustainable housing development, restricting new housing in the countryside unless it meets strict exceptional circumstances. The policy prioritizes housing within existing towns and villages to ensure sustainable growth, protect rural landscapes, and prevent uncontrolled development in open countryside. Proposals for new housing outside designated settlements must fully comply with specific policy exceptions, including the conversion of redundant rural buildings under Housing Policy 11 (HP11). In this case, the proposal fails to meet HP4's requirements as the barn does not qualify for conversion under HP11 due to structural deficiencies and lack of architectural,
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/00534/B Page 2 of 15
historic, or social interest. HP4 reinforces HP11's provisions by ensuring that rural housing is permitted only where policy-defined needs exist, such as agricultural worker housing or conversions that maintain rural heritage. As the proposal does not meet these exemptions, it contradicts HP4's strategic objectives for controlled countryside development. __
Interested Person Status
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
Broadlands, Churchtown, Lezayre, Ramsey, as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status.
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
The Rectory, Churchtown, Lezayre, Ramsey, as they are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy. __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of the barn adjacent to Field 134413, Churchtown, Ramsey located to the south of Lezayre Road off an existing track which is accessed from the B17 and southwest of the Cemetery. The existing storage barn is split over two levels with a dual pitch roof over the upper level and a catslide roof to the lower level.
1.2 The previous use of the building was as a storage building comprising garaging, a log- store and workshop for the residential properties Ballachree and Tranent. Since the construction of Ballachree Cottage the applicant who resides at Ballachree Cottage has purchased the property to bring it into one ownership. Ballachree Cottage has a detached large garage that is used in conjunction with that property.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Conversion of existing redundant storage barn to provide a residential dwelling. The submitted drawings indicate that the building which measures approximately 20.24m long x 11.8m wide x 2.77m eaves height and 5.27m ridge height, with a 3.3m roof height for the flat-roofed section structure would be converted to form a single storey dwelling containing an Entrance Hall; Utility Room; Lounge/Kitchen/Study; Principal Bedroom with en-suite Bathroom; 2 further double bedrooms each with en-suite bathrooms; and, a back hall providing outdoor access and access into an integral garage.
2.2 The proposed external finishes would include Light Grey PPC Insulated Composite Roof Panels for the roof, Light Grey PPC Flashings for the ridges, and Anthracite Aluminium Downpipes for the rainwater goods. The walls will be covered with Untreated Larch Cladding
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/00534/B Page 3 of 15
Boards, while the windows and doors will feature Anthracite PPC Aluminium Window Frames, French Doors, Sliding Doors, and External Doors with Clear Glazing.
2.3 The existing spur off the access track leading from Bannaghlyn serving the site is to be retained and re-surfaced, and 3 No. on-site car parking spaces and a corresponding turning head to the front (east side) of the dwelling are to be provided.
2.4 The submitted Tree Protection Plan Drawing No. TP-250424A by Manx Roots Tree Management indicates as follows: "Encroachment into root protection area (RPA) of 6088 and 6089 is predicted to have no noticeable impact on the health of the trees due to the current ground conditions and the low likelihood that significant roots are present in this area. The trees are generally low quality yet the client wishes to retain them." A Construction Exclusion Zone around the existing trees to be retained is proposed with Herras protective fencing erected prior to any works commencing on site and kept there until works are completed.
2.5 The application is accompanied by the following documents: 1. Bat Survey; 2. Topographical Survey; 3. Design and Access Statement; 4. Structural Appraisal; 5. Tree Constraints Plan; 6. Tree Protection Plan; and 7. Tree photos
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Site Specific: 3.1.1 The site lies in an area not zoned for development and is not within any recognised settlement boundary. The site is also situated within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance on the 1982 Development Plan. It is not located within any Conservation Area or Registered Tree Area and does not contain any Statutorily Protected Trees or Registered Buildings. The site is not prone to flood risks.
3.2 National: STRATEGIC PLAN 3.2.1 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application; 1. Strategic Policy 2 - Priority for new development to identified towns and villages 2. Strategic Policy 4(b) - Protection of built heritage and landscape conservation 3. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact 4. Strategic Policy 10 - Sustainable transport 5. Spatial Policy 5 - New development will be located within the defined settlements or permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3. 6. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations 7. General Policy 3 - Exceptions to development in the countryside 8. Environment Policy 1 - Protection of the countryside and ecology. 9. Environment Policy 3 - Protection of trees and woodland 10. Environment Policy 4 Wildlife and Nature Conservation 11. Housing Policy 4 - Sets criteria for new Housing in the Countryside 12. Housing Policy 11 - Conversion of rural buildings to dwellings 13. Transport Policy 4 - Highway safety 14. Transport Policy 7 - Parking provisions 15. Paragraph 8.10 - Conversion of Rural Buildings to Dwellings.
3.3 Area: AREA PLAN FOR THE NORTH AND WEST
3.3.1 It must be noted that at the time of writing, the Draft Area Plan for the North and West is not formally adopted and is only, at this stage, a broad direction of how planning policy is reviewing the areas. Their proposals can still be challenged at a public enquiry where an
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/00534/B Page 4 of 15
inspector could reach a different opinion to the drafts. The final draft would also need to be ratified by COMIN. This means that the 1982 development plan remains the correct land use designation and no material weight is given to the Draft Area Plan for the North and West.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Planning Circular 3/91 - Guide to the residential development in the countryside.
4.2 Residential Design Guide (2021) This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction.
4.3 The Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy (2015 - 2025) 4.3.1 The Department's Biodiversity Strategy is capable of being a material consideration. It seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The site which is the subject of the current application has been the subject of the following planning applications: 1. PA 09/00296/R for Creation of an access road on land behind Broadlands, Churchtown, Ramsey, IoM. Permitted - 9/1/09.
PA 14/00054/B for Repair and alterations to existing barn. Barn Adjacent To Field 134413 Churchtown Ramsey Isle of Man. Permitted - 20/2/14. The planning Officer made the following comment when recommending approval for the scheme: "The existing roof of the building and the building itself is significant intact, neither adds to the visual amenities of the area, and it could be argued the proposed works will improve this current situation. Certainly the works, which are mainly related to the roof and roof structure, will enable the building to be utilised. It is likely if no works are undertaken the building will become redundant and continue to adversely affect the immediate countryside."
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 DoI Highways (31 May 2024): After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking. The vehicular access, parking and turning areas should be conditioned to be implemented before first occupation of the proposals.
6.2 Lezayre Parish Commissioners (14 June 2024): o The Commissioners note that a second entrance to the dwelling from the road was added to the west side of the property without planning permission. They believe the property should have only one entrance as per the original planning permission. o Additionally, the Commissioners emphasized the need to manage water from the spring at this property to prevent it from affecting neighbouring properties. o They state that they support the conversion of the redundant storage barn adjacent to field 134413 in Churchtown to a residential dwelling (24/00534/B) unanimously.
6.3 DEFA Environmental Health (17 June24): 1. They state that the opinion is based on provided plans, with no site visit conducted. 2. They note that the plans don't indicate an obvious smoke nuisance risk, and the flue height should help reduce this risk.
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/00534/B Page 5 of 15
3. They advise that building regulations may not prevent smoke nuisance from solid fuel appliances. 4. They recommend that flues should discharge at a height that allows combustion products to disperse upwards. 5. They highlight factors affecting the likelihood of a nuisance, including surrounding land topography, height of neighbouring premises, construction characteristics, local wind patterns, and localized air movement effects. 6. They acknowledge that it may not always be possible to install a flue that prevents smoke nuisance. 7. They note other factors affecting smoke impact, such as fuel quality, burning rubbish, insufficient airflow, and the effect of any cowl fitted to the flue termination. 8. They mention that the architect states the proposed flue will be attached to a wood- burning stove. 9. They confirm that heating and hot water will be provided by an air source heat pump (ASHP), complying with the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (updated 2019).
6.4 DEFA Ecosystems Policy Team (13/6/24) comments: They state that: 1. The Manx Bat Group's (MBG) Preliminary Assessment for bats is in order, with a suitable level of assessment undertaken. 2. MBG found no evidence of bats within the buildings and determined negligible to low potential for bats, so no mitigation is required. 3. Responsible working methods should be followed as detailed in Appendix I of MBG's report. 4. No determination about nesting birds has been made, but thorough checks for nesting birds must be conducted before works begin. If nesting birds are present, works must stop and the Ecosystem Policy Team contacted. 5. Applicants may consider erecting a bird box for house sparrows or starlings on the northern elevation of the dwelling. 6. The Ecosystem Policy Team is content with the proposed landscaping, which includes appropriate tree, shrub, and hedging species for local wildlife. This landscaping should be secured via a condition on approval.
6.5 DEFA Senior Registered Buildings Officer has made the following comments on the application (15 April 2025): 1. Review has been conducted regarding the potential historic, architectural, or social interest of the existing building in respect of Housing Policy 11. 2. Assessment includes a structural report, design and access statements, photographs, and a brief desk-based survey. 3. Findings indicate that the building appears to date from after World War Two, likely constructed between 1945 and 1955. 4. Construction consists of precast concrete and brickwork/blockwork, with a duo-pitched roof over the main portion and a lean-to roof over the log store and workshop. 5. Roof structure comprises timber A-frames, purlins, and a metal sheet covering. 6. Conclusion states that, considering the building's age and construction, it is not of historic or architectural interest. 7. No information has been identified that would give the building social interest. 8. Any information provided by the applicant or agent that might demonstrate social interest is open for review.
6.6 The owners/occupiers of Broadlands, Churchtown have made the following comments (4 June 2024): 1. They refer to lack of Visible Notice 2. They are concerned about privacy due to the direct line of sight from the barn's north side into their living room window. This concern is heightened by their own planning
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/00534/B Page 6 of 15
permission to add a second storey with bedroom windows visible from the barn, which was recently approved under PA 22/01199/B. 3. The proposed residential building design, with three bedrooms and en-suite bathrooms, suggests it may be used as a holiday let. This could lead to increased noise and activity, impacting their privacy and peace. 4. They protest the applicant's intention to build a solid fence on their southern boundary, as it would restrict light to their garden, polytunnel, and native hedgerow, which are crucial for their food production. 5. They disagree with labelling the barn as a redundant structure, noting that converting it to a dwelling could make the land above it redundant for farming or equestrian use. 6. They are perplexed by the site plan excluding access to fields that are part of Ballachree Cottage property, which the applicant currently owns but may not in the future. 7. They believe the conversion of the barn into a non-family home will have long-term repercussions on the character of the area, their privacy, and the peace of Churchtown. They are concerned about the impact on their property and the adjoining cemetery.
6.7 The owners/occupiers of The Rectory, Churchtown, Ramsey (20 June 2024): They state that: 1. They live opposite the development site across the lane. 2. They are concerned that the development will lead to overdevelopment of the site, which is currently an area at the rear of two existing properties. 3. They believe the large development will increase the amount of vehicles using the very small lane. 4. They note that the development is very close to the boundary of Broadlands and will overlook their property. 5. They mention that the development will also be visible from Broadlands. 6. They are worried that the development may disturb existing wildlife.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are: 1. Principle (STP2, GP3b, HP4, HP11,) 2. Visual and Landscape Impact (GP2 b, c; EP1, STP 5) 3. Neighbouring amenities (GP2g & RDG 2021) 4. Highway Safety (GP2 h & i; TP 4 & 7) 5. Trees and Ecology (STP4b, EP3, GP2d) 6. Drainage / flooding (GP2l)
7.2 The Principle (GP3, HP 4, HP 11, & Paragraph 8.10) 7.2.1 The starting point here is the land designation. It is clear from the 1982 Development Plan that the application site is within a rural and protected part of the countryside where any development is strictly controlled (being situated within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance), with the site not being allocated specifically for any development.
7.2.2 The site lies outside any 'main settlement boundary,' the nearest settlements being Ramsey, about 1.6 km to the east, and Sulby, approximately 2.6 km to the west. The site is situated near a cluster of residential properties immediately to the north and east and the Historic Kirk Christ Church, Lezayre, approximately 200 m to the east. It abuts the cemetery, which bounds the site immediately to the east; to the south are fields and rising wooded ground leading to Skyhill. Given the site's location in open countryside, it is important that the scheme aligns with Housing Policies 11 and 4 to ensure it complies with the provisions of General Policy 3, which sets out the exceptions for development allowed in the countryside.
7.2.3 Housing Policy 11 outlines criteria for the conversion of rural buildings into dwellings, stating that proposals may be considered where specific conditions are met. General Policy 3 allows for exceptions to standard development restrictions in the countryside, provided
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/00534/B Page 7 of 15
proposals satisfy the conditions set forth in Housing Policy 11 and related guidance, including Paragraph 8.10. The policy emphasizes the retention of buildings that contribute to the housing stock and protect the Isle of Man's built heritage, ensuring that conversions respect the structure's inherent qualities and rural character. The Isle of Man's vernacular architecture for traditional agricultural buildings includes local Manx slate, mass rubble walls of Manx stone, narrow openings, and designs that harmonize with the rural landscape. This principle forms the foundation for assessing the suitability of buildings for conversion under Housing Policy 11. Similarly, Housing Policy 4 reinforces the provisions of General Policy 3 by permitting new housing in the countryside only under specific exceptions, including the conversion of redundant rural buildings under Housing Policy 11. This ensures that sustainable development is supported while preventing unrestricted construction in rural areas.
7.2.4 Redundancy of Original Use 7.2.4.1 Part (a) of Housing Policy 11 requires that redundancy for the original use should be established. In this case, the barn has clearly not been in active agricultural use for many years and is currently being used for domestic storage associated with nearby residential property. The structural appraisal confirms that the building is redundant for its intended agricultural function and does not meet the practical needs of modern farming operations.
7.2.4.2 Site observations, supported by the structural report, further validate the redundancy of the original use. The barn's dilapidated condition and limited utility as a storage facility provide additional evidence for its redundancy under this criterion. As such, part (a) of Housing Policy 11 is satisfied.
7.2.5 Structural Integrity and Capacity for Renovation 7.2.5.1 Part (b) of Housing Policy 11 requires the building to be substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation. The structural appraisal identifies several significant defects that undermine compliance with this criterion and raise serious concerns about the feasibility of conversion without extensive intervention. 1. The northern elevation of the barn shows severe leaning, with deviations from verticality measured at up to 6.5% in certain sections, particularly on the eastern side of the lean-to (Structural Report, Paragraph 3.11). This level of leaning is indicative of foundational instability or structural failure and necessitates partial reconstruction of affected walls to restore stability. Such intervention conflicts with the policy's emphasis on preserving original structures that are substantially intact.
Foundations beneath the separating wall are identified as rudimentary, consisting of a 100mm-thick concrete footing (Structural Report, Paragraph 3.22). This minimal construction is inadequate for residential use, and further investigation is required to confirm the foundation arrangements for other walls. Anticipated reinforcement or reconstruction of foundations exceeds the modest repairs envisioned by Housing Policy 11, further weakening compliance with this criterion.
Saturated soil conditions were observed adjacent to the lean-to barn and western gable, with visible water pooling inside the structure (Structural Report, Paragraphs 3.20-3.21). These conditions, attributed to a nearby stream, compromise the stability of exposed footings and require extensive drainage improvements to mitigate future risks. Addressing these issues would involve substantial intervention, including water management and foundation stabilization.
The wallplates exhibit signs of wet rot and insect damage, as documented in the structural appraisal (Structural Report, Paragraph 3.16). Replacing these elements is essential to maintain the building's integrity, but it adds to the scale of required intervention.
==== PAGE 8 ====
24/00534/B Page 8 of 15
5. The lean-to barn includes areas of exposed soil flooring, which are unsuitable for residential use (Structural Report, Paragraph 3.19). Reconstruction of these floors is necessary to meet residential standards, further contributing to the extent of required works.
The structural report explicitly recommends rebuilding leaning walls and deteriorated sections as an economical solution (Structural Report, Paragraph 4.5). This recommendation highlights the extent of deterioration and conflicts directly with Housing Policy 11's requirement for buildings to be substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation.
7.2.5.2 These significant defects, as evidenced in the structural report findings, demonstrate that the barn is not substantially intact or structurally capable of renovation without extensive intervention. The scale of work required, including wall reconstruction, foundation reinforcement, and water management aligns more closely with rebuilding than renovation, fundamentally undermining compliance with Housing Policy 11 (part b).
7.2.6 Architectural, Historic, and Social Interest 7.2.6.1 Part (c) of Housing Policy 11 requires the building to be of architectural, historic, or social interest. The barn fails to meet this criterion, as confirmed by the Registered Buildings Officer's assessment and structural appraisal findings.
7.2.6.2 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 barn's construction includes precast concrete walls, blockwork infill, and metal sheeting (Structural Report, Paragraphs 1.2-1.4). This utilitarian design lacks craftsmanship, aesthetic qualities, or distinctive features that contribute to architectural interest. The absence of vernacular character is a fundamental limitation of the structure under this criterion. This position is further reinforced by the structural report where the following is stated: "As the existing building fabric does not hold significant aesthetic or vernacular value, it is anticipated it may be more economical to rebuild rather than rehabilitate sections. This should be further investigated at detailed design stage" (See paragraph 4.5 of Structural Report).
7.2.6.3 The barn was constructed between 1945 and 1955, as confirmed by its presence on the 1950s Ordnance Survey map (Structural Report, Paragraph 2.2). While age can be a factor in determining historic interest, the barn's post-war 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. The Registered Buildings Officer explicitly states: "With the building's age and its form of construction in mind, I do not judge the building to be of historic interest." No evidence has been presented to suggest that the barn holds cultural or communal value for the local community. The Registered Buildings Officer concludes: "I am not aware of any information that would give the building social interest."
7.2.6.4 Give the factors highlighted above, the barn fails to meet the tests of architectural, historic, and social interest outlined in Housing Policy 11 (part c). Its utilitarian design, post- war construction, and absence of cultural or community association render it unsuitable for retention as a building of interest.
7.2.7 Size and Alterations 7.2.7.1 Part (d) of Housing Policy 11 requires the building to be of sufficient size to form a satisfactory dwelling, either as it stands or with modest, subordinate extensions. The barn's gross external area of approximately 239m2 is adequate for conversion into a dwelling. As such, it is judged that the scheme meets the requirements of part (d) of HP 11.
7.2.8 Compatibility with Surroundings
==== PAGE 9 ====
24/00534/B Page 9 of 15
7.2.8.1 Part (e) of Housing Policy 11 requires that residential use be compatible with adjoining established uses or land-use zoning. The barn is located in a semi-rural area with scattered dwellings and open fields. The proposed residential conversion aligns with the surrounding uses, it is not considered that the conversion of the building would be incompatible with adjoining established residential use of the adjacent dwellings. As well, the proposed residential use would not have adverse impacts upon neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking, loss of light or overbearing impacts. Whilst the comments from the neighbours regarding potential impacts are noted, the converted barn would be situated about 29m away from the nearest dwelling at Broadlands Churchtown, with the single storey nature and use of high-level windows on the north and west elevations which would be visible from the neighbouring properties serving to diminish any concerns that would arise in terms of impacts on neighbouring amenity. Therefore, it is not considered that the proposed changes would exacerbate the relationship between that currently attainable between both properties. Therefore, there is no reason to assume its use for residential purposes would be incompatible with adjacent uses.
7.2.9 Serviceability 7.2.9.1 Part (f) of Housing Policy 11 requires the building to be capable of being serviced without unreasonable public expenditure. The application form notes that connections to electricity, water, and telecoms are required, but not gas. Private drainage via a Klargester Biodisc plant with runoff to soakaways or field drainage ditch is proposed. Heating and hot water are to be provided by an air source heat pump (ASHP), and a woodburner is also proposed to supplement heating requirements. These elements meet the requirements of Housing Policy 11(f) as the applicant has demonstrated that connections to these services could be made. No significant additional infrastructure is required, ensuring compliance with this criterion.
7.2.10 Material Compatibility 7.2.10.1 Housing Policy 11 emphasizes the use of materials that match the existing building to retain its original character. The proposed alterations introduce larch cladding and natural slate roofing, which are inconsistent with the barn's original materials of concrete, blockwork, and metal sheeting. These changes erode the building's utilitarian character and fail to align with the policy's requirements. However, as these materials are consistent with traditional building materials, it is not considered that this change would be detrimental, given its improved appearance over the existing external appearance which is non-traditional.
7.2.11 Preservation of Original Structure 7.2.11.1 Paragraph 8.10 prohibits the rebuilding of ruins or the erection of replacement structures. The structural appraisal's recommendation to rebuild sections of walls (Structural Report, Paragraph 4.5), and the significant rebuilding works that would be required to make the building liveable contradicts this policy and further undermines compliance with Housing Policy 11.
7.2.12 While the proposal demonstrates compliance with certain criteria of Housing Policy 11, such as redundancy of use, compatibility with surroundings, and serviceability, it fails to meet critical requirements concerning structural integrity, architectural interest, and preservation of original materials. The structural failings, including leaning walls, inadequate foundations, and saturated soil, demonstrate that the barn is neither substantially intact nor structurally capable of renovation. Additionally, the lack of architectural, historic, or social interest, as confirmed by the Structural report and supporting information provided by the applicant's agent, and further reinforced by the Senior Registered Buildings Officer, further weakens its suitability for conversion under this policy. Therefore, the scheme is considered to fail in meeting the requirements of Housing Policy 11, which explicitly demands full compliance with all outlined criteria. The policy clearly states that the conversion of existing rural buildings into dwellings may only be permitted when every condition is satisfied. Partial compliance is not sufficient, as the policy specifies that proposals must meet the following criteria: redundancy of the original
==== PAGE 10 ====
24/00534/B Page 10 of 15
use; substantial intactness and structural capability for renovation; architectural, historic, or social interest; a suitable size for conversion without adversely affecting the building's character; compatibility with surrounding uses or zoning; and the provision of satisfactory services without undue public expenditure.
7.2.13 Further to the above, the scheme does not align with Housing Policy 4 which states that new housing should be located primarily within existing towns and villages, in sustainable urban extensions, or in accordance with the provisions of Housing Policy 11. The proposed development is in open countryside and does not meet the exceptional circumstances outlined in Housing Policy 4, such as essential housing for agricultural workers, conversion of redundant rural buildings, or replacement of existing rural dwellings (in accordance with HP 11).
7.2.14 Given these points, the proposed conversion of the barn to a dwelling does not comply with the strategic and spatial policies aimed at controlling development in the countryside. The application fails to meet the criteria for exceptional circumstances and does not align with the principles of sustainable development. Therefore, the application should be refused on this basis.
7.3 Visual and Landscape Impact (EP1, EP2, GP2 b, c; EP1, & STP 5) 7.3.1 The proposed conversion introduces timber-style cladding and a slate roof to enhance the barn's external appearance, improving its visual integration within the rural landscape. These material choices align with General Policy 2 (b) and (c), which emphasize respecting the site and surroundings in terms of siting, scale, and materials, while mitigating the utilitarian character of the existing precast concrete and blockwork. Although these modifications offer a more sympathetic design, the barn does not inherently reflect the architectural quality or innovation encouraged by Strategic Policy 5, which aims to promote development that makes a positive contribution to the Island's built environment. As outlined in Paragraph 4.3.8, Strategic Policy 5 critiques "anywhere architecture", generic designs that fail to connect with the Island's character and highlights the importance of avoiding rigid imitation of traditional styles while accommodating modern lifestyles. The barn's utilitarian origins and lack of craftsmanship prevent it from embodying either vernacular heritage or innovative modern design, limiting its alignment with the policy's objectives.
7.3.2 Strategic Policy 5 also requires developments to take into account their landscape context through a Design Statement that justifies how the proposal responds to its surroundings. The barn's modified materials improve its compatibility with the rural environment, addressing concerns about visual disruption under Environment Policy 1, which mandates protection of the countryside for its own sake. However, as emphasized in Environment Policy 2(a), development must avoid harming the quality and character of the landscape. In this case, while the timber cladding and slate roof introduce a more harmonious design, they do not fundamentally alter the building's non-vernacular nature or elevate its contribution to the rural character.
7.3.3 The proposed conversion provides visual enhancements that align with General Policy 2 (b) and (c), ensuring the barn does not adversely affect the surrounding landscape's character. While these upgrades improve its external appearance, the building itself lacks the intrinsic architectural distinction required to meet the architectural, historic, or social interest criteria under Housing Policy 11, as confirmed by the Registered Buildings Officer and the structural appraisal. Strategic Policy 5 calls for development that enhances the built environment by contributing thoughtfully to its context, which the barn's utilitarian origins and limited design innovation fail to achieve. Thus, despite visual improvements, the proposal does not fully comply with policy objectives aimed at achieving high-quality architecture that aligns with the Island's heritage or sustainability principles.
7.3.4 Overall, the proposed conversion offers visual improvements that enhance the barn's compatibility with the surrounding countryside, aligning with General Policy 2 and Environment
==== PAGE 11 ====
24/00534/B Page 11 of 15
Policy 2. These modifications mitigate the utilitarian appearance of the structure and reduce its visual impact, contributing positively to the rural character. However, Strategic Policy 5 requires development to contribute meaningfully to the built environment by either reflecting vernacular heritage or introducing innovative, high-quality design. The barn's utilitarian nature and lack of intrinsic architectural or historic merit prevent it from achieving this standard. While the proposal is acceptable from a landscape perspective, it does not fully align with Strategic Policy 5's aim of promoting development that makes a positive architectural contribution. Thus, approval of the scheme must rely exclusively on its visual integration, with strict conditions applied to ensure material use and repair works minimize disruption to the surrounding countryside.
7.4 Neighbours Amenities (GP 2, EP 22 and RDG 2021) 7.4.1 Previous assessments regarding impacts on neighbours have been carried out under compliance with Housing Policy 11(e). However, due to objections raised by neighbouring properties, it is necessary to conduct a more detailed assessment of these impacts to ensure clarity and address all concerns comprehensively.
7.4.2 The site has neighbouring dwellings located to the north and west: o Kione-ny-Curragh, directly to the north, approximately 38m-40m away. o Broadlands, approximately 30m to the north-west. o Tranent, located immediately to the west of Broadlands, around 50m from the barn. o The Vicarage (The Rectory), approximately 80m to the north, beyond Kione-ny- Curragh. Representations have been received from the occupants of Broadlands and The Vicarage, highlighting several concerns which include: (1) overlooking into living and bedroom windows at Broadlands, particularly due to the barn's higher elevation; (2) noise nuisance from the residential use of the barn; and (3) questions over the barn's redundancy, given that the applicants are not directly farming their 6 acres of land. These concerns are addressed for each property below.
Broadlands 7.4.3 Broadlands is located approximately 30m wall-to-wall from the barn and sits at a lower level. Concerns raised include overlooking into living room windows and bedroom windows, as well as potential noise from the proposed residential use. While the barn is at a higher elevation, the west-facing elevation visible from Broadlands comprises non-active spaces such as a garage door, entrance hallway, and utility room. These are not living spaces that would generate overlooking concerns. Additionally, there is boundary hedge planting along the common boundary, which can be further enhanced to mitigate visibility. Given the passive frontage facing Broadlands, the distance of 30m is sufficient to minimize privacy intrusion and is consistent with the Residential Design Guide's recommendation of a 20m back-to-back distance in urban settings.
Kione-ny-Curragh 7.4.4 Kione-ny-Curragh is situated directly to the north of the barn, at a distance of approximately 38m-40m. Concerns of overlooking are minimal, as the north-facing elevation contains bedroom windows screened by retained trees within the barn's garden area. This natural screening effectively blocks indivisibility between the properties, ensuring no unacceptable privacy impact.
The Vicarage (The Rectory) 7.4.5 The Vicarage, located approximately 80m to the north, has raised concerns about overdevelopment, increased vehicle movements, and potential wildlife disturbance. However, the proposal involves the conversion of the existing barn without extensions, ensuring it does not constitute overdevelopment. Vehicle movements are unlikely to increase significantly, as the existing access and garage location will remain unchanged. The impact on wildlife is addressed in a separate section of the report and is not relevant here.
==== PAGE 12 ====
24/00534/B Page 12 of 15
Tranent 7.4.6 Tranent is located approximately 50m to the west of the barn, beyond Broadlands. No specific concerns have been raised regarding Tranent, and given its greater distance from the barn, no unacceptable impacts are anticipated.
Other Neighbours 7.4.7 The site adjoins the cemetery immediately to the east, and no other neighbouring properties would be impacted by the proposed development. 7.4.8 In view of the concerns raised and the assessment provided, the proposed development adequately addresses impacts on neighbouring residential amenities. The distances between the barn and adjacent properties, the passive frontage facing Broadlands, and the retained screening reduce the likelihood of unacceptable overlooking or loss of privacy. Furthermore, concerns about overdevelopment and vehicle movements have been addressed, demonstrating that the conversion would not impose unreasonable impacts on neighbouring properties. The proposed development complies with the provisions of General Policy 2(g), Environment Policy 22(iii), and the recommendations of the Residential Design Guide 2021. Based on these factors, the proposal is deemed acceptable in terms of its impact on neighbouring residential amenities.
7.5 Highway Safety (TP7 and GP2) 7.5.1 The barn on the application site is served by an existing access track from the public highway and has historically functioned as a garage. Following a review, DoI Highways has confirmed that the proposed development would not result in any significant negative impacts on highway safety, network functionality, or parking provisions, affirming the scheme's acceptability from a highway safety perspective.
7.5.2 Additionally, the proposal includes a garage that would provide secure, covered parking space with sufficient capacity for cycle and bin storage. It is recommended that the provision of the garage be conditioned to ensure completion prior to the first occupation of the dwelling and that it be retained thereafter. The site also offers ample space for additional on-site parking, meeting the requirements of Transport Policy 7, which ensures adequate parking and servicing arrangements for developments.
7.5.3 The existing access and proposed parking arrangements are considered appropriate and align with the provisions of Transport Policies 4 and 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. These policies emphasize the importance of maintaining highway network functionality and providing sufficient on-site parking. The proposed arrangements support the safe and functional use of the development, ensuring full compliance with relevant transportation and planning policies.
7.6 Impacts on Biodiversity (EP4, EP5, STP 4, & GP 2) 7.6.1 The proposed development has been carefully assessed for its potential impacts on local biodiversity. As outlined below, the assessment and proposed mitigation measures demonstrate compliance with relevant policies, ensuring the preservation and support of ecological systems.
7.6.2 The applicant has submitted a 'Report on Preliminary Assessment for Bats' by The Manx Bat Group (MBG), dated 7th March 2024. This report has been reviewed by the Ecosystem Policy Team (EPT), which confirmed that the assessment was thorough and sufficient to determine potential ecological impacts. The report concluded that the barn has negligible to low potential for bat activity, and no mitigation for bats is required. However, the Ecosystem Policy Team has recommended thorough checks for nesting birds prior to construction, and any work should be halted immediately if nesting birds are found. As the presence of nesting birds falls under the jurisdiction of the Wildlife Act 1990, such matters are best addressed outside the planning remit. Nevertheless, to prevent undue disturbance, an informative note can be
==== PAGE 13 ====
24/00534/B Page 13 of 15
added to any approval to recommend that work commences outside the bird nesting season (February to August).
7.6.3 Landscaping proposals have been assessed by the Ecosystem Policy Team, which confirmed that the selected tree, shrub, and hedging species are appropriate for the area and contribute positively to local wildlife habitats. As such, these measures align with Environment Policy 5, which supports landscaping that encourages biodiversity, and the relevant provisions of General Policy 2 (d), which require development not to adversely affect locally important habitats. A condition can be applied to any approval to ensure the landscaping plan is implemented as proposed, supporting local biodiversity and ecological continuity.
7.6.4 The development has been reviewed for compliance with Environment Policy 4, which prohibits development that would adversely affect species and habitats of international, national, or local importance. In this case, the submitted assessments have identified no species or habitats that would be significantly affected by the proposed conversion. Similarly, the site does not fall within any designated Ramsar Sites, Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSIs), or other statutory ecological designations outlined in Environment Policy 4. As such, the proposal poses no identifiable risks to protected ecological areas.
7.6.5 The proposal also aligns with Strategic Policy 4 (b), which mandates the protection of nature conservation and landscape quality, particularly in rural areas. The landscaping plans enhance ecological value while maintaining the rural character of the site, supporting this policy objective.
7.6.6 In summary, the impacts on biodiversity have been appropriately assessed within the scope of planning legislation. Matters outside the planning remit, such as compliance with the Wildlife Act 1990 regarding nesting birds, are addressed by informative notes to ensure best practice during construction. The proposal adheres to Environment Policies 4 and 5, Strategic Policy 4, and the biodiversity-related provisions of General Policy 2 (parts d and e), which require that development does not adversely affect protected wildlife or locally important habitats and incorporates existing topography and landscape features to support biodiversity. With conditions for landscaping implementation and informative regarding bird nesting, the proposal demonstrates compliance with these policies and is deemed acceptable in terms of its impact on biodiversity.
7.7 Drainage / Flooding (EP 13 & GP2) 7.7.1 The proposals represent the re-use of an existing built fabric, and the site does not lie within a recognised Flood Risk Area, as identified in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. While the development would result in a greater extent of hard surfacing compared to the current condition, it is considered that this would not lead to additional flood risk for land or properties lying at a lower level relative to the site. 7.7.2 The proposal has been reviewed against the requirements of Environment Policy 13 (EP13), which explicitly prohibits development that would result in an unacceptable risk of flooding, either on or off-site. The policy emphasizes managing surface water runoff to ensure that flood risk is neither created nor exacerbated. Additionally, General Policy 2 (l) requires that developments are not subject to unreasonable risk of flooding and do not create flood risk for surrounding areas. In this case, the site's topography, which directs surface water away from lower-lying areas, combined with the proposed drainage solutions, ensures that the development does not increase flood risk either within the site or to adjacent properties. These measures align with both EP13 and GP2 (l) and mitigate potential risks effectively.
7.7.3 In conclusion, the proposed development does not present an unreasonable risk of flooding or contradict the provisions of Policies EP13 and GP2 (l). The proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of drainage and flood risk management.
7.8 Other Matters
==== PAGE 14 ====
24/00534/B Page 14 of 15
7.8.1 Regarding the comments from the Environmental Health Team about the introduction of a chimney flue for a wood-burning stove, their advice highlights the potential impacts of combustion products from solid fuel appliances on neighbouring premises. Given that the Barn is situated approximately 30 meters from the nearest neighbouring dwelling, this distance is considered sufficient to prevent any unacceptable detriment from fumes, smoke, or emissions from the chimney flue to the occupants of neighbouring dwellings. The Environmental Health Team's comments should be included as an informative note in any granted permission. This aligns with the provisions of Policy ENV 22 iii) of the Adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. Therefore, the proposals are deemed acceptable in this regard.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposal demonstrates compliance with several planning policies, particularly in terms of highway safety (TP7, GP2), drainage (EP13, GP2), biodiversity (EP4, EP5, STP4, GP2), and neighbouring amenity (GP2, EP22, RDG 2021). The existing access and parking arrangements align with Transport Policy 7, ensuring safe and functional use of the site. Additionally, the drainage assessment confirms no significant flood risk, meeting Environment Policy 13 and General Policy 2 requirements. The proposal integrates landscape enhancements and biodiversity protections, with appropriate planting and ecological measures in place, ensuring compliance with Environment Policies 4 and 5. Privacy and overlooking concerns have been mitigated through separation distances and screening, aligning with the Residential Design Guide 2021.
8.2 Despite these positives noted above, the scheme fundamentally fails under General Policy 3, Housing Policy 11, and Housing Policy 4, particularly concerning structural integrity, architectural merit, and countryside development restrictions. The barn is not substantially intact, requiring extensive rebuilding beyond modest renovations, which directly conflicts with HP11. The absence of architectural, historic, or social interest further weakens compliance with HP11, as confirmed by the Registered Buildings Officer's assessment. Housing Policy 4 restricts new countryside housing unless exceptional circumstances apply, and the proposal does not satisfy these exemptions. While Strategic Policy 5 encourages development that enhances the built environment, the barn's utilitarian origins and lack of design innovation limit its contribution to the Isle of Man's architectural quality. The required rebuilding exceeds the policy thresholds set by Paragraph 8.10, which strictly prohibits reconstruction of ruins or replacement buildings under the guise of conversion.
8.3 Given the policy framework governing rural development, the proposal does not meet the necessary criteria for the conversion of redundant buildings. While compliance in infrastructure and environmental aspects is noted, the fundamental shortcomings in structural integrity and policy alignment cannot be overlooked. General Policy 3 sets clear exceptions for countryside development, and Housing Policy 11 requires full compliance with all criteria, meaning partial fulfilment does not justify approval. Since the proposal fails to satisfy Housing Policy 4's strict countryside development controls, and substantial intervention is required beyond permissible renovation, the application is recommended for refusal.
9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).
9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to: o applicant (in all cases). o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.
==== PAGE 15 ====
24/00534/B Page 15 of 15
9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10.
9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required): o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant); o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure, and the local authority for the area; o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and o in the case of a petition, a single representative.
9.5 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity, they cannot be given the Right to Appeal.
__
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made: Refused
Date: 28.04.2025
Signed : P VISIGAH Presenting Officer
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal