Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/00770/B Page 1 of 16
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/00770/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs David and Mary Keating Proposal : Conversion of agricultural building to residential (non-habitable) accommodation ancillary to the occupation of Moaney Woods Farm (retrospective) Site Address : Moaney Woods Farm Lonan Church Road Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7JX
Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 04.10.2024 Site Visit : 04.10.2024 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 22.11.2024 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposed development is unacceptable as the principle of the conversion from the existing agricultural building to a residential (non-habitable) accommodation is not accepted as the site lies within a rural and protected part of the countryside, where any development is strictly controlled, with the site not being allocated specifically for any development. The site is also not within any settlement boundary, and is not a building of historic, architectural or social interest warranting its conversion as an exception to development in the countryside. No personal circumstances have been put forward by the applicant to be considered to warrant a departure from the policies set out within the Strategic Plan (Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, Environment Policy 1, General Policy 3, and Environment Policy 16 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016).
R 2. The proposed development, by virtue of its design and use of large areas of glazing, would fail to relate positively and appropriately to the character of the surrounding countryside as it does not take into account a proper analysis of the context of the immediate locality, and would have a deleterious impact on the surrounding countryside, and this conflicts with Environment Policy 16 (c), General Policy 2(b) and Strategic Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, which all require that the proposal takes take into account the landscape context and the impact on the amenities of the area in which it is sited.
R 3. The fact that the building has an independent access, sits outside the historic curtilage of 'Moaney Woods, is an agricultural building with restrictive agricultural conditions within agricultural land undermines the argument that the building would be ancillary to 'Moaney Woods'. It is also considered that no approval has been granted to allow the extension of the residential curtilage of 'Moaney Woods' into this site, with the historic applications showing that
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/00770/B Page 2 of 16
there has been no change to the residential curtilage. It is also considered that the extant conditions on site would facilitate the future severance of this property from 'Moaney Woods', should residential use of the building be allowed. Therefore, the application will be at variance with the character of the area and contrary to General Policy 3, and Environment Policy 1 of the strategic Plan.
R 4. The extension of the residential curtilage to include the agricultural buildings and agricultural field, with insufficient over-riding justification having been demonstrated represents an unwarranted domestic intrusion into the open countryside beyond the existing residential curtilage of 'Moaney Woods'. As such, the proposal is contrary to General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1, and Spatial Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and the Area Pan for the East. __
Interested Person Status None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site represents part of Field 612363, which is part of the farm yard of Mooney Woods Farm, which sits north of the estate of dwellings within Reayrt Ny Glionne, adjacent to All Saints Park Lonan, Laxey. The field and the adjacent field (Field 612365), which are both within the ownership of the applicant is located on the western side of the B 12 (Lonan Church Road).
1.2 The site which is the subject of the current application sits on the north-eastern side of the farmyard, just adjacent the fields to the east, with a long narrow flat roofed farm building (workshop/garage) sitting directly west, and separated by mature landscaping and trees, which separates the buildings from the existing residential curtilage which now includes the an ancillary accommodation/former barn which sits south of these agricultural buildings.
1.3 The historical layout of the site, shown on the 1860's map clearly defines the old farm yard which only includes the existing dwelling, ancillary accommodation (former barn), and a number of outbuildings south of the dwelling, which appear to now be integrated into the fabric of the main dwelling. This historic layout appears to have been changed over time into the residential curtilage, with the workshop/garage and agricultural building (Approved in 2007 under PA 07/01677/B), clearly segregated from the residential curtilage by the existing mature boundary features which demarcates the site from the former farmyard (now residential curtilage) with the distinct access also reinforcing this separation form the former farm yard (now curtilage of dwelling). In fact, the ancillary accommodation (former barn), also has its distinct curtilage defined by the boundary walls which separates it from the main dwelling, given the appearance of a detached unit on site.
1.4 The demarcation of the various site sections is further reinforced by the substantial banking, number of trees and hedging/vegetation which delineates the residential curtilage to the east, the new farm yard to the west, directly adjoining the fields with no evident separation, and the vegetable area to the south with polytunnel, enclosed and separated from the residential curtilage. Most of the trees which separated the orchard to the south from the residential curtilage (about 11 mature trees have now been removed further blurring the boundary between the residential curtilage and the orchard.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Conversion of agricultural building to residential (non- habitable) accommodation ancillary to the occupation of Moaney Woods Farm (retrospective).
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/00770/B Page 3 of 16
2.2 The building which is the subject of the planning application has undergone external alterations to integrate large areas of glazing to the south and west elevation. The glazing to the south measures about 4.4m wide with top sitting about 2.1m above the ground level. The glazed area to the south measure about 3.6m wide and rise from the ground level to about 3.6m tall, creating the appearance of an office/commercial unit.
2.3 Whilst the works to create the hardstanding area measuring about 99.4sqm on the southern side of the agricultural building with a level access into the building via the large glazed area in front of the building has not been included as part of this proposal, it is considered that the impact of these works be assessed as part of the current proposal.
2.4 Other developments carried out on site which do not benefit from planning approval include the following: 1. The erection of a lean-to log store extension to the west elevation of the building. This extension projects about 3.7m from the west elevation of the agricultural building, measures about 14m long, and is about 3.7m tall where its roof meets the external wall of the agricultural building (2.5m from the eaves to ground level). This log store extension is closed on the north and south elevation, while the west elevation is open.
Change of use of the existing flat roofed building situated on the western side of the application building from agricultural to residential use. This building which was referenced in the officer report for PA 07/01677/B to support the agricultural use of the adjoining fields was approved under PA 88/01374/B.
Engineering operation within the site to create large areas of hardstanding adjacent the former office building for parking of vehicles and the creation of hardstanding areas.
2.4.1 The current scheme only shows the new concrete hardstanding directly south of the application building, and as such only this work would be assessed within the current application.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Site Specific 3.1.1 The site is not within an areas designated for development in the Area Plan for the East, meaning it is considered to be part of the countryside. The site is not within a Conservation Area, or Registered tree area, and there are no registered trees on site. The site is also not prone to flood risks. The site falls within Class 3 soil classification of the Islands Agricultural Land use Capability Map.
3.2 Area: Area Plan for the East 3.2.1 The following parts of the Area Plan for the East are of material relevance to the proposed development: 1. Paragraph 10.3.2: "Strategic Policy 8 supports development that makes use of existing built fabric of interest and quality provided there is no adverse effect on environmental, agricultural, or highway interests and where they enable enjoyment of our natural and man-made attractions. The policy reflects the general restriction on new development outside defined development zones."
3.3 Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider the following Strategic Policies; 1. Strategic Policy 1 - development should be located to make best use of previously developed land, redundant and underused buildings and utilising existing infrastructure; 2. Strategic Policy 2 - focuses new development in existing settlements unless complies with GP3; 3. Spatial Policy 1 - priority to Douglas for development
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/00770/B Page 4 of 16
4. Spatial Policy 2 - identifying Service Centres for development 5. Spatial Policy 3 - identifying service villages 6. Spatial Policy 5 - building in defined settlements or GP3 7. Spatial Policy 5 - new development will be in defined settlements only or in the countryside only in accordance with GP3; 8. General Policy 2 - detailed 'development control' considerations; 9. General Policy 3 - acceptable development in areas not zoned for development; 10. Environment Policy 1 - the countryside must be protected for its own sake; 11. Environment Policy 16 provides guidance for the use of existing rural buildings for new purposes. The prescribed condition for allowing such use includes the following: a) it is demonstrated that the building is no longer required for its original purpose and where the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation; b) the reuse of the building will result in the preservation of fabric which is of historic, architectural, or social interest or is otherwise of visual attraction; c) it is demonstrated that the building could accommodate the new use without requiring extension or adverse change to appearance or character; d) there would not be unacceptable implications in terms of traffic generation; e) conversion does not lead to dispersal of activity on such a scale as to prejudice the vitality and viability of existing town and village services; and f) the use of existing buildings involves significant levels of redevelopment to accommodate the new use, the benefits secured by the proposal in terms of impact on the environment and the rural economy shall outweigh the continued impact of retaining the existing buildings on site. 12. Housing Policy 11 - conversion of existing rural buildings list. 13. Transport Policy 1 - best located close to existing transport links. 14. Transport Policy 4 - safe and appropriate provisions for journeys; 15. Paragraph 7.13.4 states in part: "It is recognised that there have been considerable changes in the economy in the last twenty years. The number of people in full time agricultural employment has reduced for a number of reasons including increased mechanisation, reductions in the number of farms; and increases in the size of farm holdings. In many cases smaller farms have been amalgamated into larger units to increase economic viability. This has often been accompanied by the sale of former farmhouses and cottages to those who do not earn their employment in agriculture."
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL MATTERS 4.1 The Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy (2015 - 2025) 4.1.1 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.
4.2 Historic UK Case Law: 4.2.1 Court Cases: 1. R (Liddiard) v SoS 23/11/05: As discussed in R (Liddiard) v SoS 23/11/05, an inspector's decision in East Hampshire 28/2/05 DCS No 047-837-605 to uphold six enforcement notices was challenged. The notices related to works to buildings that had originally been constructed for agricultural or equestrian proposes. Part of these buildings had the benefit of an LDC (Lawful use or development certificates) for residential use, but the plan attached to the certificate did not include any residential curtilage since no such facility existed on site. The landowner claimed that good planning practice required dwellings to have a curtilage around them as amenity space and argued that the LPA had acted improperly when issuing the certificate by specifically excluding any amenity space. The inspector had rejected this argument, pointing out there was a material difference between a planning permission and the issuing of an LDC. The latter had to be determined only upon its facts, whilst planning policy and good practice could be applied to the determination of an application for planning permission. After a review of the case law dealing with the term curtilage, and considering the reasonableness of the actions of the LPA
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/00770/B Page 5 of 16
when the LDC was issued, the High Court held that the inspector was right to conclude that the building works would damage the character and appearance of the surrounding rural area.
This judgment confirmed that if the use of a building is changed to residential it does not follow that land around the building will also be in a residential use. When the residential use is of part of a building where other uses are being continued, as appears to have occurred in this case, land outside the building might not be used as part of the residential uses. This would be the case even if that land might previously have been within the curtilage of the building. If the land is not being used for residential purposes, it does indicate that it is no longer associated with the building and so is outside its curtilage. The inspector suggested that the time limit for making the use of land lawful for residential purposes (or ancillary to residential purposes) was 10 years, even if it were part of the change of use of a building to residential use, which is subject to a four-year time limit. Put another way, he said that if a material change of use of a building and land to residential takes place, the use of the building will be lawful after four years, but the connected use of the land lawful only after ten years. Where the change of use of the land takes place separately to a change of use of a building, such as extending a garden into an agricultural field, the ten-year period would apply."
Dancey & Co v SoS & Lewes DC 1980: In Dancey & Co v SoS & Lewes DC 1980 the basic premise that curtilage definition is essentially a matter of fact and degree was established. In Methuen-Campbell v Walters 1979 a paddock attached to a garden was not considered to be within a curtilage as it was separated by a fence and not therefore intimately associated. The Methuen-Campbell case was quoted in James v SoS & Another 09/10/1990 where a tennis court had been erected some l00 metres distant from a house beyond an area of undergrowth and rough grass and a partial and indistinct line of trees and shrubs. It was held that an inspector had been correct in deciding that curtilages did not have precise limits and that each situation must be considered according to the facts of each particular case.
Barnett v SoS & Another 23/03/2009: In Barnett v SOS 23/3/09, it was established that a 1998 planning permission did not grant permission for new use beyond the residential site. The curtilage as defined by a 1995 site plan associated with an application to change the use of land from agricultural to residential use had not changed. The extent of the land included in the permission was therefore established by the site plan on the original planning permission. When the subsequent application for alteration and extension was made in 1998, a building already existed with a curtilage. Since there had been no application for a change of use, the site plan for the original planning permission still defined the extent of the curtilage, which was not extended merely by putting in a site plan covering a wider area.
4.2.2 UK Appeal Decisions: 1. South Somerset 01/02/2011 DCS No 100-070-803: An inspector refused to issue a LDC for a mobile home at a farmhouse in Somerset because it was not within the curtilage of the house and therefore required planning permission. The appellant stated that the land on which the mobile home was sited had been part of the domestic garden of the house for over 25 years. Referring to the characteristics of a curtilage reviewed in McAlpine v SSE 1995 and the dictionary definition the inspector decided that the land did not have the appearance of a garden. The overall impression was of a yard area, permanently hard surfaced, that was physically and functionally separate from the farmhouse and the area immediately adjacent to it. The mobile home was not obviously visible from the farmhouse and the land on which it was stationed had an independent vehicular access. The land did not fall within the curtilage of the farmhouse, the inspector decided, pointing out that this would bring the stationing of the mobile home within the definition of development irrespective of the purposes to which it would be put.
Brentwood 2/1/13 DCS No 100-080-168:
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/00770/B Page 6 of 16
The owner of a dwellinghouse in Essex was unable to overturn an enforcement notice requiring him to cease using an area of ground which the council claimed should be returned to agricultural land. The appellant stated that prior to purchasing the land in 2008 he erected fences around the plot which formed part of an arable field. The council wrote to him confirming that the fence did not require permission and the planting of a hawthorn hedge and fruit trees was acceptable. However, it also confirmed that conifer trees which had been planted must be removed along with domestic items stored on the land. The appellant complied and later planted a beech hedge, fruit trees and vegetables. In 2012 the council decided that a material change of use had occurred and issued the enforcement notice. In reviewing the evidence an inspector noted that the appellant mowed the land and, whereas before there was a physical boundary between the back of his garden and the field, no such demarcation currently existed. Indeed, it was possible to walk from the patio and flower beds associated with the original garden onto the appeal site and while the latter had a more 'informal' appearance this situation was not untypical of many residential gardens which often had a vegetable plot or less cultivated character at their ends. The appellant clearly enjoyed the views obtained from the land and in tending his fruit and vegetables and while the latter were grown for consumption, they were not produced for commercial reasons and consequently did not fall within the definition of an agricultural use. In upholding the notice the inspector varied its terms to allow the retention of fencing around the site since this could lawfully be erected under permitted development rights.
Three Rivers 1/11/2004 DCS No 046-738-226: In Three Rivers, two appeals involving enforcement notices were directed at development which had occurred in the green belt. The inspector had to determine whether a tennis court fell within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. The first notice claimed that a tennis court had been erected without permission and required its complete removal. A second notice alleged that part of the land was also being used for the storage of builder's plant and machinery. The inspector recorded that the property comprised a substantial modern detached dwellinghouse standing in a large plot. It had been built following a permission granted in 1999, as a replacement dwellinghouse. In noting claims by the appellant that an adjoining area used for grazing fell within the curtilage of the property, he observed that the planning permission granted in 1999, appeared to exclude the area from the defined residential plot. Thus while the curtilage of the original dwellinghouse might have been more extensive, the demolition of the property extinguished the original residential use including the use of surrounding land as part of the garden. In erecting the new dwelling which was completed in 2000, the curtilage of the new dwellinghouse was defined by hedgerows and fencing and did not include the adjoining grazing land where the tennis court and storage developments had taken place. Thus, he decided that neither the tennis court nor storage of materials, could be incidental to the use of the property as a dwellinghouse.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The site which is the subject of the current application has not been the subject of two applications which are considered relevant to the current application: 1. PA 87/04546/B for Erection of goat handling/storage shed together with milking parlour and hay store. This lean-to roofed masonry building was approved by the Planning Committee on 11.03.1988.
a. Whilst this building was approved to be erected on the western side of the main access to the dwelling on site, it was erected on the eastern side of the access and outside the defined historic curtilage boundary of Moaney Woods (where it was approved to be erected), and now sits on the edge of Field 612363. The current location now places it on the same site as the application building.
b. The new building also does not bear any semblance with the building approved under the application as evident in the replacement of the high level windows with full height domestic windows and the position and number of the roller shutter doors on the west
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/00770/B Page 7 of 16
elevation. Also, the double door proposed for the south elevation is non-existent. These changes mean that the building was erected without following the approved plans, or altered later without planning approval, as there is no history of approval being granted for changes to the appearance of the approved building.
PA 88/01374/B for Erection of 'kit barn' for housing angora goats, Moaney Woods. This application was approved by the Planning Committee on 04.11.1988. a. This building was approved to be erected on the eastern side of the main access to the dwelling 'Moaney Woods'. b. The building was to measure 80m long, 18m wide and have an asymmetrical roof over. c. The building was to have its lower section finished in blockwork, while the upper section was to be finished in timber. This building was never erected, as the building approved under PA 87/04546/B was erected in its approved location just east of the main access.
PA 07/01677/B for Erection of an agricultural building, Moaney Woods Farm. This was approved by Officer Delegation on 05.02.2008. a. This approved building was to have 12 roof lights, six on each roof plane, but the current building has 6 roof lights (three on each roof plane), as such it was not built according to plan. b. The approved building was to measure 13.1m x 9.1m, and be 5m tall to the roof ridge (3.7m to the eaves). The current building on site measures 14m long and 9.1m wide, and 5.0m tall (3.7m to the eaves). This means that the building in its current form is longer than that approved in 2007 by 1m. The number of rooflights and the change in length means that the building was not erected according to plan. c. The building was approved with a restrictive conditions which states thus: Condition 4 - Agricultural purposes - building: "The building must be used only for agricultural purposes."
Condition 5:
"Any vehicles stored within the building must be used in connection with
agricultural." d. The planning Officer in recommending approval made the following Comments: "I have written to the Agricultural Advisor (DAFF) regarding the justification of the proposed barn. He states that the Department would not consider the size of the enterprise as an agricultural business. The site comprises of 12 acres of 8 acres is used for sheep grazing. The rest has yet to be fenced for sheep. A further 10 acres is owned at St Johns, but it is not currently utilised, but is intended to be as ewe numbers increase. Currently there are 30 ewes and their off-spring graze the fields, all ewe lambs are retained with the intention to build the breeding flock up to 50 breeding ewes. The ewes have to date lambed outside due to the lack of available housing. Animal health and welfare would be improved with the proposal. The applicant has currently a 360 tracked digger, stone burrier, crusher and tractors all of which are for use on the land. The stone crusher is also used to maintain tracks for the DOT. I initially had concerns that the vehicles on the site where commercial vehicles, however after receiving additional information and from visiting the site on two occasions it would seem all the vehicles on the site are in connection with agricultural activities and therefore the use of the proposed and existing shed would/are being used for agricultural use only. For these reasons and for the reasons given by the Agricultural Advisor, I therefore consider the proposal would be appropriate in this location and therefore my recommendation is for an approval."
5.2 The residential curtilage of Moaney Woods, which is part of the broader site area has been the subject of the following planning applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of the current application. These include: 1. PA 84/01105/B for Construction of garage with Granny flat over, Moaney Woods (Approved by the Planning Committee on 09.11.1984).
==== PAGE 8 ====
24/00770/B Page 8 of 16
a. The site layout at the time of this application was completely defined to reflect the historic curtilage of the original farm yard, and had no link with the adjoining field where the current application building is situated. b. Condition 5 of the approval required that: "The building must be retained within the same ownership as the dwelling known as 'Mooney Woods' as defined in the submitted application and must not be sold or let off separately therefrom, to the satisfaction of the Committee".
PA 87/04530/B for Conversion of outbuilding to living accommodation with living room extension, Moaney Woods (Approved by the Planning Committee on 11.03.1988). a. The building which was the subject of the planning application was set within the curtilage of 'Moaney Woods' which follows the historic curtilage definition in the 1860's historic map. b. The approval allowed for the extension of the residential curtilage to include the extension which projected into the adjacent agricultural field, thus redefining the curtilage to include the added building footprint measuring 5.5m x 7.3m. NO additional land area was included in this curtilage re-definition. c. The Officer noted in the General Report that the building could not easily be detached from the main house as sited. d. Condition 1 of the approval stipulated that: "The proposed accommodation must be used solely in association with, and ancillary to 'Moaney Woods'."
PA 01/01224/C for Change of use of cottage to office, Moaney Woods Cottage (Approved by the Planning Committee on 09.11.2001). a. The Planning Officer noted in his General Report that "The property is situated within the curtilage 'Moaney Woods farmhouse", with the site area following the re-defined curtilage under PA 87/04530/B.
PA 94/00443/C for Provision of bed & breakfast accommodation, Moaney Woods Farm (Approved by the Planning Committee on 22.07.1994). b. This scheme involved the conversion of a single storey part of the farmhouse to bed and breakfast accommodation. c. No change to the curtilage was proposed within this scheme, as such, the curtilage remained as changed under PA 87/04530/B.
PA 95/01113/B for Erection of conservatory, Moaney Woods (Approved by the Planning Committee on 22.11.1995). a. This scheme enabled the erection of a single storey conservatory to the northern end of the main dwelling on site. b. The curtilage remained unchanged under this scheme.
PA 10/01749/B for Alterations and erection of a first floor extension to dwelling (approved). a. Approval was not sought to extend the residential curtilage, although the redline boundary was changed to include the land directly surrounding the converted ancillary building (which was not the subject of the application), measuring about 454.3sqm. As there were no changes to the boundary around this building in terms of boundary markers, and as approval was not sought for any alterations to the curtilage, it is not considered that the curtilage was changed by this application. b. No reference was made within the Officer report on changes to the curtilage. c. The boundary markers for this building still remained the low boundary wall around the original building before the rear extension under PA 87/04530/B.
PA 11/01626/B Installation of solar panels on the main dwelling (approved). a. Paragraph 3 of the Officer Report defined the curtilage as follows:
==== PAGE 9 ====
24/00770/B Page 9 of 16
"3. The application site is set approximately 30 metres off the public right-of-way to the south, and is surrounded by predominantly agricultural land. Dense coniferous trees rise above the tallest point of the farmhouse, parallel to the public right-of-way, on the south, south-eastern curtilage boundary. Deciduous trees line the north-western and north-eastern curtilage boundaries of the application site. A separate office building is located on the eastern curtilage boundary of the application site, where as a low level hedge runs along the western curtilage boundary." b. The red line boundary included all lands within the ownership of the applicant and as such cannot be judged to re-define the curtilage.
PA 20/00754/C for Change of use from office use to residential (approved). a. The red line boundary was set just around the application building with the blue line encompassing all land within the applicant's ownership as required by the Development procedure Order. b. The site plans and Officer photos taken on 8 October 2020 showed that at this time a narrow access had been created through the hedges and trees which to connect the residential curtilage to the adjoin farm yard. This appears to have been created before April 2010 as the access appears on the 2010 Google Maps. c. The Officer Photos also showed that works were being carried out on site to create a hard standing area directly north of this buildings although no approval was sought for this, even though the Act (1999) defines these works to constitute development.
PA 24/00537/C for Change of use of existing ancillary accommodation and parts of the existing garden to a dwellinghouse and a self-contained tourist accommodation (Approved by the Planning Committee on 16.09.2024). a. This application also sought and was granted approval to create a new garden area for the new dwelling to include land associated with the converted ancillary building by an additional 586sqm (approximately), beyond that previously approved under PA 87/04530/B (as the Planning Officer noted in Paragraph 2.2 of his report that "The red line boundary will be the curtilage of the new dwelling house"). b. The site plan and location plan which accompanied the application excluded the application building for the current application which was within the broader site area, although the other buildings on site were included, noting this contravenes Article 1 (2) (d) of the Development Procedure Order (2019) which states: "Every application to which this paragraph applies must include an accurate and up-to-date site location plan to a standard scale on which - (d) there is illustrated the relationship of the site to adjoining land and buildings, to any highway serving the site, and to the nearest settlement or other familiar point of reference; " This appears to be deliberate given that this building was to be the subject of a new application which followed this application (PA 24/00537/B), and which was submitted on 08.05.2024, about 58 days after PA 24/00770/B was submitted (on 04.07.2024).
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 DOI Highways Division confirms that they find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking, as the existing site could be used for frequent daily agricultural traffic (19 Jul 2024).
6.2 DEFA Head of Agriculture has made the following comments on the application (29 October 2024): o He notes that he has made comments on the application building in 2007. o There appeared to be some practical agricultural benefits to the building but from the current planning information there appears to be 12acres associated with the property. The
==== PAGE 10 ====
24/00770/B Page 10 of 16
planning statement also states that the land is not actively farmed by the owners, being cut or left for nature. o It is likely that neighbouring farmers could find some use for the building, most likely storage of either hay/fodder or machinery, but this does not appear to be an option the current property owner wishes to pursue. o It's likely that that the building is constructed to an agricultural specification and not to commercial/industrial standards. o Whilst there appears to be little agricultural justification for use of the current building from the property currently for any alternative use, I would highlight that any commercially constructed building would likely be constructed to a different specification than an agricultural building.
6.3 Garff Commissioners have stated that they have no objections to the proposal on 19 July 2024.
6.4 Manx Utilities Authority - Electricity have not made any comments on the application although they were consulted on 11 July 2024 for comments on the application.
6.5 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The key issues to consider in the assessment of the current application are: 1. The acceptability of the principle of Converting the agricultural building (GP3, EP1, HP 11, EP 16, SP 4 & 5); 2. Curtilage Definition and acceptability of Ancillary Use of Building; and 3. Visual Impact (SP3 & 5, GP2, EP1)
7.2 THE PRINCIPLE 7.2.1 The starting point for any application is the land designation, and in this case, the application site is situated within a rural and protected part of the countryside where any development is strictly controlled, with the site not being allocated specifically for any development. The site also sits outside of the settlement boundary of Baldrine, which is the closest settlement, and for which it is required that development should maintain the existing settlement character and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities (See Spatial Policy 4). The above would mean that the development would also fail to comply with Strategic Policy 5 which requires that new development are to be located within the defined settlements, unless it can be demonstrated that the development complies with General Policy 3.
7.2.2 With the above in mind, General Policy 3 is the most relevant policies when assessing this application, given that the site sits in the countryside, and outside any defined settlement boundary. In assessing compliance with GP3, it is first noted that the scheme as currently proposed is not location dependent in relation to the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services. Likewise, the proposal is not essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry nor is there an overriding national need, and the site is required for the interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage. Therefore, it is judged that the proposal fails parts (a), (d), (e), (f), (g) and h) of General Policy 3. Moreover, part (c) which relates to previously developed land is not application, given the position of the Strategic Plan that the definition of previously developed land excludes Land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings, as with the application site.
7.2.3 The above then leaves part (b) of General Policy 3, which states that development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan, except for "(b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11 and EP 16). When the application is assessed via the lens of Housing Policy 11 which sets out the criteria for assessing applications
==== PAGE 11 ====
24/00770/B Page 11 of 16
for the conversion of redundant rural buildings into dwellings, it is noted that this policy will not be applicable given that the proposal seeks conversion to a non-habitable accommodation. Therefore, the most applicable policy will be Environment Policy 16 which deals with the use of existing rural buildings for new purposes such as tourist, or non-habitable uses like small-scale industrial/commercial use, and which could also include the proposed recreational use of the building.
7.2.4 Environment Policy 16 sets out seven (7) conditions which should be met to allow for the use of an existing rural building for other uses, other than their original purpose. Part (a) of HP 16 requires that redundancy for the original use has to be established, and that the building should be substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation. In establishing redundancy, it is noted that applicant's agent has stated in the Planning statement that the current owners do not have any wish to have livestock and are managing the land through taking a grass cut off it but otherwise is being left to nature, which indicates that there is no direct requirement for the use of the building by the current owners for agriculture. However, the site is connected to an area of farmland which would benefit from the building, given that the other agricultural building on site is now used for non-agricultural use (garaging and workshop/storage), although there is no evidence of planning approval being granted for this change of use from agricultural use. Similarly, there are active farms in the immediate locality which could benefit from acquiring or renting the building for agricultural use. It is also important to note that a number of large farms on the island have acquired smaller holdings to increase their farm sizes, a situation acknowledged in Paragraph 7.13.4 of the Strategic Plan, where it was clearly stated that "smaller farms have been amalgamated into larger units to increase economic viability." Therefore, whilst the applicants have indicated that they do not have immediate agricultural need for the building, there is nothing within the application to suggest that there is no extant need for the building and adjoining fields for agricultural use. Besides, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the agricultural buildings on site (the goat handling/storage shed and application building), and the adjoining fields could in fact not be sold or rented out to other farmers seeking to increase their farm holding. It is, therefore, judged that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the building is redundant for its intended agricultural use, given the issues that have been highlighted above.
7.2.5 In terms of the requirements of the second part of EP 16, Part (a) which borders on whether the structure is substantially intact and capable of renovation. No evidence has been provided to state that the structure is substantially intact and capable of renovation with the application. However, the structure a relatively new build, having been constructed after 2008, when the planning application was approved. It was also observed during the officer's site visit, that the structure was in good form, with no visible structural issues. As such, it is considered that the second part of EP 16 (a) would be met in this regard.
7.2.6 Turning towards part (b) of Environment Policy 16, which requires that the reuse of the building should result in the preservation of fabric which is of historic, architectural, or social interest or is otherwise of visual attraction, it is considered that the building is not a building of architectural, historic or social interest, and as such the proposal would fail to meet the requirements of this part of the policy which refers to buildings that reflect the islands design vernacular. It is vital to note that the proposal in its current form does not preserve a built fabric of historic, architectural, or social interest, as it does not bear any architectural qualities that defines the islands countryside, nor does it have any historical or particular social history as indicated in paragraph (b). When assessed within the context of the definition offered by the applicant's agent that the classification generally means that 'the buildings are old and ideally retain their original characteristics, and require that the conversion may be achieved without significantly altering or extending the building', the application would still fail EP 16 (b), given that the building is not old, and does not retain its original characteristics being made to appear as a domestic building within a residential location, with appearance considerably different from the original agricultural building approved for the site. Moreover, the alterations have significantly altered the appearance of the building such that it would be more akin to a
==== PAGE 12 ====
24/00770/B Page 12 of 16
commercial building or a industrial building, like no other in the immediate landscape or view. Whilst such buildings are not uncommon in the rural landscape, it would be at odds with the current agricultural context of the site, and without any acceptable policy justification, twinned with the distance from the dwellinghouse where it sits outside a defined residential curtilage.
7.2.8 With regard to EP 16 (c) which requires that it should be demonstrated that the building could accommodate the new use without requiring extension or adverse change to appearance or character, it is considered that alterations are adverse, by making an agricultural building appear domestic, and its character as an agricultural building which sits well within the rural landscape has also been altered considerably by the alterations, which introduce large glazed fenestrations which are not aligned with its approved agricultural use/character. In fact, the changes to the appearance of the building has led to the loss/reduction of the original character of the existing building as an agricultural building set in the islands countryside. The reference made in the Planning Statement that the Department has approved schemes which significantly extended such buildings, is noted. However, each case is assessed on its own merit, and there is nothing within the submissions to suggest that the context of the applications approved by the Department is directly identical to that of the application site.
7.2.9 When looking at whether the proposal complies with part (d) of EP 16 which requires that there would not be unacceptable implications in terms of traffic generation, it is considered that the building is for private use, which should not allow for any increase in vehicular traffic. However, given that the building sits within site that has its specific access to the adjoining lane, the Department has no means to effectively control future use, should the gym be used for commercial purposes given that its current scale and facilities available would easily allow boutique commercial use.
7.2.10 Turning towards whether the conversion does not lead to dispersal of activity on such a scale as to prejudice the vitality and viability of existing town and village services, it is considered that the proposal in its current form as a private facility would not lead to dispersal to an adverse scale. However, as has been noted in Paragraph 7.2.9 above, the Department does not have the means to monitor the use of the gym, should it become commercial. It should be noted that the site is situated near a village on a lower tier of the settlement hierarchy, and as such any change to commercial use (which would be difficult to control even of a restrictive condition is attached) would be of a significant scale relative to the services and needs of Baldrine. It would also be worth noting that the history of the site shows that a number of developments have been carried out on site without the planning approval and/or developments have not been carried out as approved, and there is nothing that prevents the continuation of such practice as reflected in the sites overall history.
7.2.11 The final part of EP 16 (part f) states that permission may be granted where the use of existing buildings involves significant levels of redevelopment to accommodate the new use, the benefits secured by the proposal in terms of impact on the environment and the rural economy shall outweigh the continued impact of retaining the existing buildings on site. In this case, it is considered that there has been considerable redevelopment at the site as evidenced in the increased creation of hardstanding areas on site to allows for significant levels of car parking on site, creation of other hardstanding areas around the building, and all these have not been carried out to support the agricultural use of the land, which is its statutory use. Therefore, these works are not judged to be in the environmental interest of the site as no agricultural justification exists for these developments on site which is still agricultural land. It is also not considered that the redevelopment of the site would be in the interest of the rural economy which is largely agricultural, given that it would depreciate the existing stock of agricultural buildings that support the islands agricultural, such that newer buildings would have to be erected in the area to support agricultural use. Whilst the applicant argues that the introduction of the glazing and its use as proposed does not preclude its conversion back to agricultural use should the need arise, this would come at significant costs, given the large areas of glazing that would need to be removed, and it is not considered that these costs
==== PAGE 13 ====
24/00770/B Page 13 of 16
would be in the interest of the rural economy. Therefore, it is concluded that the alterations would not be in the interest of the rural agricultural economy.
7.2.12 The position that there would be adverse impacts on agriculture is also noted in the comments made by the DEFA Head of Agriculture who considers that there appeared to be some practical agricultural benefits to the building, whilst also noting that it is likely that neighbouring farmers could find some use for the building, most likely storage of either hay/fodder or machinery, but this does not appear to be an option the current property owner wishes to pursue. It is also highlighted that the building has been constructed to agricultural specification (rather than domestic), which reinforces the emphasis to be used for the purpose for which it was approved and conditioned accordingly as per the previous permission for agricultural use.
7.2.13 Overall, in the case of this application, the agricultural building is not traditional, but a modern timber building which is not of any historic, social or architectural interest. The overall development of the site would also not result in overall environmental benefits, given the significant domestication of the agricultural site as is now evident, nor would the scheme result in significant benefits to the rural economy which is largely agricultural, to outweigh the continued impact of retaining the existing buildings on site in its current approved form for agricultural use. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would fail the key tests of Environment Policy 16, which sets out the criteria for the use of existing rural buildings for new purposes. While the building appears to be substantially intact, the activity that would come along with the residential use of the site would also increase the overall domestication of the site, resulting in the loss of it agricultural character, and this is not judged to be in the interest the rural landscape and the environment. The principle of the proposal is, therefore, considered to be contrary to General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1, and Environment Policy 16 of the Strategic Plan.
7.3 CURTILAGE DEFINITION AND ACCEPTABILITY OF ANCILLARY USE OF BUILDING (GP 3, EP 1 and Historic UK Case Law). 7.3.1 Further to the factors discussed in Section 7.2 above, it is not considered that the site sits within the residential curtilage of the dwelling 'Moaney Woods', and as such, the use of the building cannot be considered ancillary to the use of the dwelling. There is currently no specific policy within the Strategic Plan to address the definition of a residential curtilage, save for the definition of curtilage within Appendix 1, as such particular reference will be given to UK case law and historic UK Appeal decisions referenced in Section 4.0 of this report.
7.3.2 It must however, be first established that the approved use of the barn for agricultural use, and which is reinforced by the restrictive condition for use as an agricultural building, on land which is within agricultural use, and for which no approval has been granted for change of use to residential use. Furthermore, the building sit within an area of land completely set outside the historic curtilage of Moaney Woods, and no approval has been granted over time to extend the residential curtilage into this field. In fact, the only real changes to the historic curtilage of Moaney Woods where the changes allowed under PA's 87/04530/B and 24/00537/C which sought to accommodate the extension to the former ancillary outbuilding, and later to create a residential curtilage around building as an independent dwelling unit linked to the existing residential curtilage of Moaney Woods. No other change has been proposed to alter the residential curtilage of 'Moaney Woods, and this is evident in the site history detailed in section 5.0 of this report. It would be vital to note that for the use of the farm building to be ancillary to the dwelling at Moaney Woods, the accommodation it offers must be subordinate to the main dwelling, and its function must be supplementary to the use of the existing residence, and this is not the situation in the current case. Moreover, the use of the building has to be subordinate to the lawful use of the main building to which it is ancillary. In this case, the approved use of the application building is agricultural, and it currently sits on agricultural land. As such, the building cannot be judged to be ancillary to a non- agricultural use.
==== PAGE 14 ====
24/00770/B Page 14 of 16
7.3.3 Whilst the applicants could argue that there is no clear separation between the farm site and the residential curtilage, such that the use of the building would be ancillary to the main dwelling, it is worth noting that historically, the site does not exist as part of the residential curtilage of the main dwelling on site, given that it was not part of the historic farm that existed on site (See 1860's Ordinance Map of Area, and 2021 Departments map which shows a clear distinction between the residential curtilage (previous farm yard), and the existing farm yard which houses the application barn and goat handling/storage shed together with milking parlour and hay store (approved under PA 87/04546/B), even both properties have historically been within the same ownership. It would be worth noting that recent actions taken by the applicants have served to blur the boundaries between the residential curtilage and the farm yard via the removal of part of the existing hedging, boundary wall and trees which clearly separates the residential curtilage from the farm yard. However, a review historic documents (including the annotated map on page 2 of the applicant's Planning Statement would show that a clear distinctions always existed, with the changes now evident only taking place recently. Therefore, it is not considered that the agricultural barn could be used as an ancillary building to the main dwelling, given that they sit within distinct and separate curtilages, and land identified for dissimilar uses (dwelling - residential use, while application building-agricultural use).
7.3.4 Equally, if the changes to the site area which have served to domestic cate the site area where the subject of planning applications, their implications on the site context, including the potential impacts on the defined residential curtilage would have been assessed. However, these changes were incrementally carried out without recourse to the planning process. It must be noted that the works carried out to create an access link between the farm yard and residential curtilage should have required planning approval as Part 6(2) (d) (ii) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 defines the "the provision of a new means of access" to constitute development. As well, the works to materially alter the site area to create the new areas of hardstanding around the building and hardstanding areas for parking, as well as the widening of the access link between the farm yard and residential curtilage would also constitute development as Part 6(1) defines development to also include "the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land", yet no approval was sought for these changes which resulted in significant alterations to farm yard. It must be stated that none of these changes were carried out to facilitate the agricultural use of the site, and this calls to question the agricultural justification for the works, whilst strengthening the position that the works were carried out to facilitate the domestication of the site.
7.3.5 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the works to domestic these sections of the farm yard would be at variance with the provisions of Environment Policy 1 which seeks to protect the countryside and its ecology for its own sake. The works would also fail to align with GP 3, as it involves works to an agricultural land not zoned for development, yet it does not meet any of the exceptions allowable under GP3, and it is not a development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative.
7.3.6 For a detailed analysis of the positions that have formed the basis for this position regarding the curtilage and unacceptable ancillary positions assumed by the development, please refer to Section 4.2 of this report.
7.4 VISUAL IMPACT (GP2, EP1,STP 5) 7.3.1 In terms of the potential visual impacts upon the countryside, it is considered that the alterations to create the areas of glazing at the southern and eastern side of the building would not directly apparent from the farm lane which abuts the site, although there would be views from the northern parts of the track to the glazing to the side, and this is not considered to be in the interest of the character of the surrounding countryside.
==== PAGE 15 ====
24/00770/B Page 15 of 16
7.4.2 The proposed large amounts of glazing would also make the building particularly prominent at night when the lights are on, thus increasing its visual impact on the landscape due to the lit windows. As the building sits isolated at the edge of open fields, the glazed areas would give a domestic appearance to the agricultural building, given that there is limited screening provided by the low hedge banks on its northern boundary, and as the position of the building is within a part of the landscape which is elevated.
7.4.3 Overall, it is judged that although there is some level of planting directly south of the building where it sits very close to the farm track, it is considered that these would do little in ameliorating the impacts of the scheme on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside, particularly at night when the lights are switched on. The scheme is, therefore, considered to fail the requirements of Environment Policy 1, General Policy 2, Strategic Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan, as the proposal fails to take into account a proper analysis of the site context in terms of fenestration position, design, and finish.
7.5 OTHER MATTERS 7.4.1 It is noted that there is a discrepancy in the 'as built structure' as per the 2007 permission in relation to appearance and floor area. The approved building was to have 12 roof lights, six on each roof plane, but the current building has 6 roof lights (three on each roof plane).
7.4.2 Likewise, a new log store extension measuring 3.7m x 14.1m with floor area approximately 52.2sqm has been added to the west elevation of the building, increasing the floor area from 127.4 sqm to 179.6sqm, yet no approval was granted for this change. The current proposal also does not seek approval for this change to the building. It should be noted that whilst the changes to the roof plane in terms of rooflights, and the external alteration to create the large areas of glazing could be assessed under the current application (given that it deals with the specific part of the building for which the conversion is sought), the extension to create the log store would not be assessed as part of the current application as the proposed conversion does not involve the log store.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The purpose of the planning system is to control the use and development of land in the public interest. That requires a consideration of what is most appropriate for the population of the island as a whole. As well, the protection of the Manx countryside from development and the presumption that new development should be directed to locations consistent with the principles of sustainable development are two of the most important themes running through the Strategic Plan, the purpose of which is to establish a consistent framework within which the public interest can be served by the planning system. When making a planning decision that has permanent consequences (such as the conversion of existing rural buildings) it is also essential to bear in mind that the development sought will endure long after the circumstances of the current applicant have ceased to exist.
8.2 The site which is the subject of this application is not designated for development, is not within any settlement boundary, and is not a building of historic, architectural or social interest warranting it to be considered as an exception to development in the countryside. It is also judged that the site is not a previously developed land given that its historic and approved use is for agriculture. Additionally, the proposed redevelopment would result in an increased impact on the environment and landscape, and is not judged to benefit the rural agricultural economy. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be contrary to General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1, Environment Policy 16, Strategic Policy 2, and Spatial Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan. It is, therefore, recommended that the application be refused for these reasons.
9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
==== PAGE 16 ====
24/00770/B Page 16 of 16
(a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
9.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 4(2) who should be given Interested Person Status.
9.3 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 Interested Person Status. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 28.11.2024
Determining Officer Signed : J SINGLETON
Jason Singleton
Principal Planner
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