Erection of ancillary dwelling unit with additional tourist use

Refusal Reasons

• ✗The proposal constitutes a new, self-contained dwelling on agricultural land located outside any defined settlement boundary, in direct conflict with General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1, Strategic Policy 2, and Spatial Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). The site is not allocated for development and fails to meet any of the exceptions under GP3, such as essential agricultural housing, conversion of redundant rural buildings of architectural or historic interest, or redevelopment of previously developed land. No overriding national need or demonstrable lack of alternative sites has been evidenced. Furthermore, the claimed ancillary status is not supported by land-use characteristics or any applicable policy framework.
• ✗The development would result in the permanent loss of Class 2 agricultural land, one of the Island's most versatile and productive soil categories, contrary to Environment Policy 14 and Section 7.13 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. No agricultural justification has been provided, no overriding need has been demonstrated, and no assessment has been made of the availability of lower-grade land. The removal of an existing shed does not mitigate this loss or contribute to agricultural productivity.
• ✗By introducing a flat-roofed, modular structure into an open agricultural field, the proposal fails to respect the rural vernacular and landscape character, contrary to Strategic Policies 4 and 5, General Policy 2(b, c), and Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. The design conflicts with Planning Circular 3/91, which discourages flat roofs and promotes integration with traditional rural forms, and it lacks any innovative or context-sensitive qualities. No landscape appraisal or mitigation measures have been submitted, and the cumulative impact of domestic ancillary structures, including decking, lighting, and other paraphernalia, would erode the openness and rural character of the site.
• ✗The introduction of a self-contained unit with dual-purpose use (ancillary residential and tourist) into agricultural land outside the lawful curtilage of Close Chirrym risks incremental domestication and disturbance, contrary to General Policy 2(g, h) and the Residential Design Guide (2021). The absence of curtilage containment and the potential for frequent visitor turnover during holiday periods heighten amenity concerns for nearby occupiers, undermining the policy objective of maintaining a quiet rural character.
• ✗The proposed tourist use does not satisfy Business Policies 11 and 14 or Strategic Policy 8, which require rural tourism development to reuse existing built fabric, integrate sensitively with the landscape, and demonstrate economic viability and sustainability. The scheme introduces new built form into undeveloped countryside, offers no visitor-enhancing features, and provides no evidence of economic contribution or compliance with the Visitor Economy Strategy (2022-2032). These deficiencies reinforce its conflict with the Strategic Plan's spatial and environmental protections.