Report of an Appeal by Mr Paula Kinrade against the refusal of planning approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling to replace the existing barn and stables at Field 120259, Smeale, Andreas, Isle of Man.

The relevant facts and material considerations are summarised as follows:

Preliminary

1. This appeal is being dealt with on the basis of written representations and my site visit which was carried out on the 23^{\text {rd }} May 2011.

The Appeal Site

2. The site is the curtilage of Field 120259 which is located on the south side of the A10 road north west of Andreas village. Within the field are a single-storey stable block and barn close to the road boundary. The stables were in use at the time of my site visit with the horses grazing in the field.

The Proposed Development

3. The proposal is to replace the stable block and barn with a dwelling on the existing footprint.

Planning History, Consultations and Planning Policy

4. PA 97/00493/A was approved for the erection of stables and hay store.
5. Andreas Parish Commissioners had no objections.
6. Highways Division considered that the access needed to be in the centre of the plot to ensure the visibility is achieved over land within the ownership.
7. An objection that the proposal was contrary to General Policy 3 was received from an interested third party.
8. The site is within an area of "white land", not zoned for development, in the 1982 Development Plan Order. It is within an "Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance". Within the 2007 Strategic Plan the following planning policies have relevance: General Policy 3, Environment Policies 1, 2 and 22 and Housing Policy 4.

The Case for the Planning Authority

9. The personal reasons for submitting the planning proposal are not sufficient to overcome the strong planning policies against development in the countryside. The proposal is on a site not zoned for residential development; secondly it is contrary to General Policy 3; thirdly it does not conform to Housing Policy 4; and fourthly it is an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. All these policies seek to prevent development unless it is essential or would not harm the character of the landscape. The proposal would fail on both counts.

10. The proposal would not serve a viable agricultural holding nor replace an existing dwelling and therefore there are no special circumstances to set aside the presumption against this new development.

11. Environment Policies 1 and 2 also apply, which seek to preserve the countryside for its own sake and protect landscape areas from development. It is not considered that the proposal merits overriding these policies.

12. The replacement of the barn and stable block by a dwelling would set a significance precedent for similar types of development through the countryside in the Isle of Man contrary to the Strategic Plan.

13. The requirements for providing a suitable access, in accordance with Highway Division demands, cannot be resolved without details of the development.

The Case for the Appellant

14. Mr Kaz Ryzner, on behalf of the Appellant, made the following points in rebuttal to the reasons for refusal. The Appellant acknowledges the general presumption against development in the countryside but considers that her personal circumstances should allow these policies to be set aside. With regard to the second reason for refusal relating to the impact of the access, there is already an existing vehicular access and sufficient sight lines already exist. The frontage is extensive and a new alternative access point could be provided. Therefore, this reason can be resolved at the reserved matters stage.
15. The Appellant's personal circumstances are extremely difficult and she considers her personal circumstances should outweigh the presumption against development. The Appellant's mother has lived in the area for some 30 years. The lease on her existing cottage, Cummal Beg Cottage, will expire shortly and will not be renewed. The Appellant, husband and young family live in a relatively modest house in the immediate area, Ballalough Estate in Andreas village. There is no room for expansion at the Appellant's home. The relative high house prices in Andreas means that moving to a larger home to accommodate her mother is not possible.
16. The Appellant wishes to sell her existing home and use the proceeds to build a new larger home on the footprint of the existing stables and barn on the appeal site to accommodate her family, including her mother. A new dwelling would not have any impact on the surroundings as it would replace buildings which have been there for more than 15 years, there are no neighbouring properties visible from the site except the gable of Gate-E-Wing, which is only visible in winter; there would be no overshadowing; it would not over dominate the area as it would be the same size as the existing buildings; drainage and services would be provided and there are no current drainage problems with this field; the noise would be quieter than the existing situation as the stables, which she visits daily, currently use a generator for power; the existing access is on a straight piece of road and has clear visibility in both directions; the design would follow the "L" shape of the current footprint; there would be no loss of open space as the footprint would be the same; and no hedges, trees etc would be affected.
17. The proposed dwelling would be single-storey on the existing footprint. Apart from standard planning conditions, the Appellant would accept a personal occupancy condition.

INSPECTOR'S ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION

18. From my consideration of all the submissions and my site visit, it seems to me that the main issue is the effect of the proposed dwelling on the character and appearance of the area.
19. The strong planning policies against development in the countryside were acknowledged for the Appellant and formed the basis of the case for the Planning Authority. As a result of my site visit, I judge that residential development on the site of the existing barn and stable would be contrary to the relevant planning policies and it would have an unacceptable adverse visual impact on the area because of the required new access and appearance of a dwelling within this rural setting. I acknowledge that the Appellant has personal reasons for wishing to develop on this site, but I do not judge them as of such weight as to overcome the strong planning policies against residential development on this site.
20. Therefore, in weighing the evidence, I conclude that the proposed dwelling would have an unacceptable adverse visual effect on the character and appearance of the area and the appeal should be dismissed.
21. If the Minister is minded to allow the appeal, then suitable planning conditions were appended to the rear of the Planning Officer's Statement.
22. I have considered all the other matters raised in the submissions but they are not such as to affect my recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION

23. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed. If accepted, this recommendation would have the effect of upholding the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application. John S Turner John S Turner 18^{\text {th }} June 2011 Independent Inspector