Officer Report

Application No.: 25/90588/B Applicant: Mrs Anne Thomson Proposal: Single storey extensions to existing garage to provide additional vehicle and machinery storage Site Address: Swallows Rest Gibdale Farm Bayrauyr Road St Marks Isle Of Man IM9 3AT Planning Officer: Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken: 08.03.2024 Site Visit: 08.03.2024 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 12.09.2025 _________________________________________________________________

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. The machinery store hereby approved shall be for agricultural use and agricultural purposes only in association with the landholding of 'Swallows Rest' as outlined in blue on dwg 1677.g1.

Reason: the application has been assessed on this basis only in respect of its size, scale and nature of use being in connection with the agricultural use and land management of this area.

• C 3. The native planting as shown on drawing number 1677.g2 shall be planted in the first available planting season following the first use of the machinery store. The planting shall comprise at least 15 plants in a mix of native species and retained as such thereafter. Should any of the plants die or be uprooted within 5 years of the first planting, replacement planting shall be provided in a similar number and native species to that lost.

Reason: in the interest of visual amenity and creating a buffer between building and field and in the interest of biodiversity.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.

The reduced size and scale of the agricultural element and the additional evidence and justification for its need is considered acceptable and proportionate in this case. The linked arrangement of the agricultural works to the existing garage also helping to minimise any unwarranted and isolated spread of development into the open countryside. While agricultural need may still be argued in respect of GP3 and EP15, a balance has been struck in this case given the existing dwelling and its surrounding landholding which requires some degree of land management and associated equipment. For these reasons the application is considered to align with the general principles of General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 15 in terms of its siting and position of the agricultural element and not to undermine Environment Policies 1 and 2, and to meet with the general development criteria of General Policy 2 (b, c, g) in respect of the the garage extension element as to not harm the overall character and appearance of the site or surrounding countryside being typical domestic development not uncommon within grounds of an existing dwelling. Conditions in respect of the agricultural building use will be added and its use in connection with the main dwelling and its landholding only, and a condition seeking the buffer hedge planting within the field is appropriate in the interest of visual and biodiversity interest.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the following:

• dwg 1677.g1
• dwg 1677.g2 planning statement

• all date published online 10 Jun 2025

_________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal

It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:

• o Department of Infrastructure Highway Drainage - no objections raised.
• o Malew Parish Commissioners - no objections raised. _________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application relates to existing dwelling known as 'Swallow's Rest' and part of field 430685 sitting on the northern side of Bayrauyr Road, St Marks.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of an extensions to the existing garage. Part of the existing is to sit nearest the dwelling and is to provide additional vehicular parking and garaging for the main house, and to the furthest side and into field 430685 is an extension to provide agricultural building for the storage of agricultural machinery.

- 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 The dwelling was originally approved as a replacement agricultural workers dwelling under 09/00703/B with conditions including demolition of existing house, inclusion of an agricultural tie and conditions preventing change to windows. Permission to later remove the agricultural workers tie was approved at appeal under 20/00473/B. - 3.2 Changes to the dwellings access were approved under 19/00019/B, and approval also granted for extension under 23/01080/B.

3.3 In addition to the above there have also been a number of applications on fields surrounding the house and which form part of the land ownership. Some of these approved and some refused:

• o 21/00039/B Erection of 2 field shelters for livestock and horses - APPROVED
• o 23/00712/B Alterations to field shelter (retrospective) and an extension to field shelter to create feed store - APPROVED
• o 23/00718/B Erection of agricultural barn building - REFUSED
• o 24/90934/B Erection of a detached machinery storage Building - REFUSED

• 3.3.1 PA 23/00718/B was refused on two grounds; "fails to provide information demonstrating sufficient agriculture activity has been taking place or is going to take place on the site to justify the need for a new agricultural building" and "The proposed building is away from the existing building group, namely Swallows Rest. It is also close to the highway but the reasons provided for the proposed location are not sufficient to outweigh the visual impact of a new building to the open countryside".
• 3.3.2 PA 24/90934/B was refused on one ground that "in light of the appeal decision in 2021 removing the agricultural tie and the evidence presented which demonstrated that there was no agricultural activity taking place and that it was also unviable as a business, the Department considers that there is no justification for an agricultural building and that no agricultural need exists".

- 4.0 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 The site is not designated for development on the 1982 Development Plan or the Area Plan for the South 2013. The site is not recognised as being at any flood risk and is not within any conservation area. There are no registered trees on the site.

4.2 In terms of Strategic Plan policy the following are considered relevant:

• o Strategic Policy 1 - make best and efficient use of sites
• o Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policy 3 - new development located in existing town centres, unless in line with GP3
• o Strategic Policy 5 - new development to make positive contribution
• o General Policy 2 - general standards towards acceptable development including visual, amenity and landscaping
• o General Policy 3 - exceptions to development in countryside
• o Environment Policy 1 - protection of the countryside. Adversely affecting development not permitted unless there is an overriding national need.
• o Environment Policy 2 - protection of AHLV from harm, unless the development is essential
• o Environment Policy 15 - agricultural buildings in the countryside
• o Community Policies 7 and 11 - reduce chance of criminal activity and spread of fire

4.3 In addition to the above the site also falls within an area on the APS the site recognised as being an area of Incised Slopes (D14) where the APS Written Statement indicates that the "overall strategy is to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area, with its wooded valley bottoms, its strong geometric field pattern delineated by Manx hedges, its numerous traditional buildings and its network of small roads and lanes. The strategy should also include the restoration of landscapes disturbed by former mining activities". The key landscape views listed below harmonise in part with EP2 of the IOMSP:

• i. To protect the tranquil, rural character of the area with its open views.
• ii. Sensitive location of new buildings and the use of screen planting.
• iii. Avoidance of physical or visual amalgamation of roadside housing.
• iv. Protection and enhancement of the identity of Ballabeg and Colby by the conservation of the rural character of the adjacent landscape.

4.4 Policy/Strategy/Guidance eg.

• Residential Design Guide - Section on local distinctiveness and architectural details.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.

5.1 Malew Parish Commissioners - no objection (03/07/2025).

5.2 The DOI Highway Drainage - Allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads. Applicant should demonstrate compliance with the clause above and not discharge surface water onto the highway (23/07/2025). - 5.3 DEFA Ecosystems - no objection subject to condition (27/06/2025) a small amount of hedging is to be lost although native planting is proposed along with bat boxes installed and conditions should be added to ensure both undertaken, and further condition to prevent external lighting being installed unless a lighting plan provided and agreed. - 5.4 DEFA Forestry, Amenity and Lands - no objection subject to conditions (23/06/2025) no registered trees impacted and would appear the likely construction would have limited impact upon retained trees. Therefore no objection. If minded to approve standard tree retention conditions to be applied and a detailed a landscape plan to be provided as information shown on the proposed site plan is insufficient. - 5.5 The following were also consulted but no response received as of 01/08/2025:

• o DOI Highway Services
• o Manx Utilities - electricity
• o Manx Utilities - water

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 Proposal

• 6.1.1 The application seeks extension and alteration of the existing garage in two parts; one for the extension for additional garaging for domestic vehicles, and the other extension for the storage of agricultural machinery.

6.2 Extension to provide additional domestic garaging

6.2.1 The extension to provide additional domestic garaging is considered to be unobjectionable being of a height, size and design which is in-keeping with the existing garage and of an overall scale which remains subordinate to the main house and not resulting in any adverse visual impact. This part of the works is considered acceptable in this respect.

6.3 Extension to provide machinery storage

• 6.3.1 The key matter to consider in the case of this application is the extension to provide the agricultural storage element particularly given the previous refusals for other agricultural buildings on the site and that the works step into field 430685. Key matters for consideration are site history, siting and design of the proposal, justification and any other matters for consideration. Site History

• 6.3.2 Swallow's Rest is a substantial two-storey detached house, set back by about 100m from the north side of Bayrauyr Road and is reached by a long access drive. The existing dwelling was approved as a replacement dwelling with an agricultural tie in 2009 but the tie was later approved for removal in 2020. The house is sits within the open countryside and part of its landownership includes fields 435371, 435370, 434509, 434510, 435138, 435139 and 430685 (equating approx. 20 acres).

• 6.3.3 Planning history is important as part of this application and shows that arguments have been made both for and against agricultural need over the years. One of the biggest and most notable changes at the site has been in its ownership, which changed hands after the agricultural tie was removed. Since then the new owners had approval for equestrian stables and feed store (23/00712/B) and have applied on two separate occasions for a standalone agricultural buildings and both applications were refused for lack of agricultural need.
• 6.3.4 PA 23/00718/B was refused for a 25m x 9m building due to insufficient agriculture activity taking place or going to take place on the site to justify the need for a new agricultural building, and the siting also being away from the existing building group and in an unacceptable isolate position.
• 6.3.5 PA 24/90934/B was refused for a 25m x 9m building again due to lack of agricultural need. This time the officer made reference to the removal of the previous agricultural tie application where the applicant at that time provided an extensive statement demonstrating that no farming activity had taken place and that the size and quality of the land would render a farming enterprise totally unviable financially. The officer for the application concluded that whilst the positioning was better given its unjustified need would be visually intrusive, and "given the evidence presented at appeal and the inspectors findings it is clear the land cannot support an agricultural enterprise and as such this application for an agricultural building is considered unjustified and contrary to planning policy in principle. The Department is considers that there is no justification for an agricultural building and that no agricultural need exists as such the proposals conflict with General Policy 3(f) and Environment Policy 15." Agricultural Considerations
• 6.3.6 As part of 24/90934/B the officer stated "It would be vital to note here that agricultural enterprises are the sole income of farmers and their livelihood is heavily dependent on their continued and efficient operation. The bigger and more established the farming operation, the easier it's likely to be to demonstrate an agricultural need for a new building to continue the farming operation. This is not to say that smaller farm holdings or start up hobby farms should be discouraged as these can also help contribute to local economy and sustainability. The risk is that any ad hoc decisions taken on agricultural buildings without sufficient justification of need could lead to a proliferation of unwarranted buildings across the countryside which may become obsolete if the intended farming operation do not materialised as expected. As such, in dealing with small scale holdings it is expected that their agricultural justification should be proportionate to the size of the operation and that they can provide detailed evidence to support the need for any building." Proposal
• 6.3.7 The planning statement provided makes clear that the land is not farmed and is a nonagricultural landholding, but outlines reasoning for the size of the agricultural storage element to provide sufficient space to house equipment and machinery in supporting the responsible care and upkeep of the land for ecological value and purposes.
• 6.3.8 With any management of land there is a degree of equipment and machinery likely to be required and it wouldn't be unreasonable for this equipment to be stored under cover and out of the elements to ensure its longevity and protection.
• 6.3.9 The proposed 12.2m x 8.5m extension of the existing garage for the additional storage of machinery for the upkeep of land is considered to be of a size and scale more appropriate and proportionate to the justified need as evidenced as part of this application and explained use of the land. The siting, scale and design of the extension being reflective of the existing garage and positioned as to best avoid any isolated spread of development into the wider countryside also weighing in favour of the application. Should the storage space no longer be required for land management its siting and design mean it could easily be engulfed as part of the remaining garaging and for continued use by the main dwelling and not subdivided.

• Summary
• 6.3.10 In the case of this application, the existing garage is fairly small and offers limited provision for accommodating both typical domestic storage as well as any other land management storage. Its extension for domestic purposes (vehicle or other domestic paraphernalia for gardening, bicycles, garden furniture etc) has been accepted, and the linked machinery store is also considered acceptable providing additional space for wider land management equipment. This agricultural storage part of the building having reduced size and scale compared to previous planning applications and considered to be more appropriate and proportionate to the justified need. The siting and design of the linked structure also helping to avoid any spill of isolated development into the fields and wider countryside. The proposal considered within acceptable levels in this case.

6.4 Other matters - Trees and Ecology

• 6.4.1 Both trees and ecology have commented on the application indicating no objection subject to conditions; Ecology seeking landscaping, bat boxes and no external lighting unless agreed by a lighting plan, and Forestry seeking standard tree retention conditions and a detailed landscaping plan to be provided. Ecology
• 6.4.2 The inclusion of bat boxes does not go to the heart of the approval in this case and so requiring them by condition would be unreasonable. A note will be added to remind the applicant of their obligations under Wildlife Act 1990 and any provision of boxes contributing to biodiversity of the site and would be welcomed. New landscape planting has been shown on submitted plans and a condition ensuring its provision will help to mitigate any lost as a result of the development and providing soft landscaping buffer along the edge of the building. Trees
• 6.4.3 There are a number of smaller ornamental style trees where the proposed garage extension is to sit. Further information was requested about these trees and emails were received from the agent. This response included emails from the applicant and their landscaper with reference to recent tree storm damage, permission to remove an ash tree and that other trees here were below the size requiring permission for their removal.
• 6.4.4 The application content fails to provide any detailed information for the trees, their varieties or their stem sizes/canopy cover. The submitted drawings show only indicative tree and shrub imagery and they have not provided any copies of any issues tree license.
• 6.4.5 In response to the tree comments received from DEFA the agent sought to provide some additional tree planting information indicating some Beech trees to be planted in addition to the hawthorn and fuchsia.
• 6.4.6 There is a separate application currently running through the system 24/91170/B, this application includes an arboricultural impact assessment and the proposal include for the removal of approx. 21m of cypress trees and 1 mature ash sitting alongside a main road and with notable area of canopy cover. The application has received comments from DEFA accepting removal but with no requirement for any mitigation planting. In comparison the scale of tree removal in this case is much smaller, in a far less visible position away from the public gaze. While each application is to be assessed on its own merits the level of tree replanting sought by DEFA Forestry seems a little unreasonable and comparatively excessive given the small area and small scale of those few small trees being lost in this particular case. Therefore, their loss without replanting is not considered to be so harmful in this case as to result in any cause for concern or a reason for refusal. There will be no condition added in respect of any specific tree re-planting and only that buffer hedging along the outer edge of the machinery store.

8.0 CONCLUSION - 8.1 This application follows two previous refusals for standalone agricultural buildings where there was a lack of justified agricultural need for their size, scale and siting. This proposal now seeks to address the previous refusals by extending the existing garage to provide a mixture of both private domestic storage as well as additional machinery and implement storage associated with the upkeep and management of the wider 20acre land holding. The amended scheme including the reduced size of the machinery store and the additional evidence and justification for its need considered proportionate and within the bounds of acceptability in this case. The linked arrangement of the works to the existing garage also helping to minimise any unwarranted and isolated spread of development into the open countryside. While agricultural need may still be argued in respect of GP3 and EP15, a balance has been struck in this case given the established dwelling and its existing garage, and its immediate surrounding landholding which requires some degree of land management and associated equipment. For these reasons the application is considered to align with the general principles of General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 15 in terms of its siting and position, and to meet with the general development criteria of General Policy 2 (b, c, g) and not to undermine Environment Policies 1 or 2 or character area D14. - 8.2 Conditions in respect of the agricultural building use will be added and in connection with the main dwelling and its landholding only, and a condition seeking the buffer hedge planting within the field is appropriate in the interest of visual and biodiversity interest.

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.

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 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 : Permitted Date: 17.09.2025 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.