250988

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      23/01384/B                                     Page  1  of  15

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. 23/01384/B Applicant : Mrs Carole Berry Proposal Erection of detached greenhouse, shed and raised beds (retrospective) Site Address Field 430886 Edd Beg Kerrowkeil Road Grenaby Malew IM9 3BB

Case Officer :

Hamish Laird Photo Taken :

19.04.2023 Site Visit :

19.04.2023 Expected Decision Level Planning Committee

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation 08.05.2024

The application is for the retention of the greenhouse, shed and raised beds on part of the field sited to the North-West of the dwelling at Edd Beg. Planning permission for these structures is required because the land area on which they are sited is agricultural land and they are to be used for the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse and not for agricultural purposes. Furthermore, the proposals do not seek planning approval for a change of use of this part of the field for it to fall within the domestic curtilage of Edd Beg. Whilst they could be used for agricultural purposes, the site is not a registered agricultural land holding and does not enjoy agricultural permitted development rights on account of their domestic nature and appearance and due to the fact the site is not a registered agricultural holding for which agricultural permitted development rights would apply. Overall, the proposal represents domestic development on agricultural land for which no proposals to extend the residential curtilage of the dwelling have been submitted. The proposal represents an unacceptable form of development in introducing a domestic element and unlawful extension of the residential curtilage of Edd Beg into the countryside. This proposal for the retention of the greenhouse, shed, and raised beds fails to comply with the provisions of Policies SP2, EP1, and GEN2 b) and c) in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. __

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

None __

Officer’s Report

THESE THREE APPLICATIONS RELATE TO THE SAME SITE AND ARE BROUGHT TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

0.0 SUMMARY

0.1 This report relates to 3 planning applications affecting the same site at Edd Beg, Kerrowkeil Road, Grenaby, Ballasalla, Isle of Man, IM9 3BB, as follows:

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      23/01384/B                                     Page  2  of  15

o 23/00407/B - Proposed alterations and extension to side North-West elevation to create additional living accommodation. o 23/01383/B - Erection of detached garage and car port and extension to curtilage (retrospective) o 23/01384/B - Erection of detached greenhouse, shed and raised beds (retrospective) on adjoining Field 430886

The applications are all recommended for refusal for the reasons outlined in the Report below. The site and surroundings are the same for each proposal. A single Report has been produced for ease of reference. Each application should be considered on its merits and determined accordingly.

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site represents the residential curtilage of Edd Beg, and part of its immediate environs. The applicant owns adjoining land comprising fields to the north, south and west (Field Nos. 4344445, 430886, 430890 and 430891). Edd Beg is a detached, chalet style 1 1⁄2 storey dwelling constructed in Manx stone, under a natural slate roof. Along with its attendant fields, it is located on the western side of Kerrowkeil Road. The dwelling has a detached garage with car port attached to its north side and is located to the south and west of the dwelling on the plot. There is also a shed and greenhouse located on part of the applicants land to the west of the dwelling and north of the car port/garage. The site is accessed from the B41 Road at its junction with a minor road running to the south which serves Ballarobin Farm.

1.2 The property sits isolated from any of the nearby properties within open countryside, with no neighbouring dwellings located close-by. The site is surrounded by fields with the nearest neighbouring properties being farm-holdings at Ballarobin Farm, and Manella Grange, which are both quite some distance away.

2.0 THE PROPOSALS

o 23/01384/B - Erection of detached greenhouse, shed and raised beds (retrospective) on adjoining Field 430886. This would be outside the residential curtilage on the field and would not form part of the proposed extension to the residential curtilage.

2.1 The greenhouse has a grey aluminium frame and glazed walls and roof. It measures approx. 2.5m wide x 3.75m deep x 2.0m high to the eaves and 3.0m high to the ridge. It and the garden shed are located to the North-East of and screened from the garage, carport and shed by an evergreen hedge. The shed measures approx. 1.3m wide x 1.9m deep and has a pitched roof approx. 2.5m in height to its ridge. It is constructed from blue/grey composite horizontal boards with a blue/grey composite panel pitched roof. Door to match. The site of the shed, greenhouse and planting beds are located to North-East of and is screened by the dwelling at Edd Beg. 2 No. raised planting beds are located close to and on the North-East side of the greenhouse and shed respectively. They measure approx. 3.75m long x 1.5m wide x0.3m high for the bed next to the greenhouse; and, 1.2m high for the bed next to the shed. The site would remain as agricultural land.

2.2 Planning permission for these structures is required because the land area in question is agricultural land and they are to be used for the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse and not for agricultural purposes. Whilst they could be used for agricultural purposes, they do not enjoy agricultural permitted development rights on account of their domestic nature and appearance and that the site is not a registered agricultural holding.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South as land not designated for a particular purpose, and the site is not within a Conservation Area. The site

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      23/01384/B                                     Page  3  of  15

area is not prone to flood risks. There are no registered trees on site, and the site is not within a registered tree area.

3.2 The Character Appraisal within the Area Plan for the South states thus concerning the area:

3.2.1 Ballamodha and St Mark's (D14):

3.2.2 Landscape Strategy: "The overall strategy for the area should be to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of this farmed landscape with various field patterns defined by different hedges, a scattered settlement pattern of traditional hamlets, farmsteads and nucleated settlements fringed by trees, a varied road network enclosed by grassed Manx hedges and roadside vegetation, and numerous wooded valleys and glens. In addition to the conservation of archaeological sites, measures should also be adopted to conserve and enhance the physical structure and setting of upstanding heritage features such as the Silverdale watermill."

"Key Views o Distant views prevented at times by dense woodland in river valleys and by the cumulative screening effect of hedgerow trees, which tend to create wooded horizons. o Open and panoramic views out to sea from the higher areas on the upper western parts of the area where there are few trees to interrupt views."

3.3 The Strategic Plan stipulates a general presumption against development in areas which are not designated for a particular purpose and where the protection of the countryside is of paramount importance (EP 1 and GP3).

3.4 Environment Policy 1 Indicates:

"The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative."

3.5 Strategic Policy 5 advises: "New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies."

3.6 In General Policy 2, the following elements are relevant to the consideration of these proposals:

"General Policy 2: Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;

(c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;

(h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      23/01384/B                                     Page  4  of  15

(n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

3.7 "General Policy 3 advises: Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:

(a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10);

(b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11);

(c) previously developed land(1) which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment;

(d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14);

(e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services;

(f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry;

(g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and

(h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage."

3.8 Given there is an existing dwelling on the site, it is relevant to consider Housing Policy 15 which guides extensions to traditional dwellings in the countryside.

3.9 Housing Policy 15: The extension or alteration of existing traditionally styled properties in the countryside will normally only be approved where these respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. Only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions which measure more than 50% of the existing building in terms of floor space (measured externally).

3.10 Paragraph 8.12.2: Extensions to properties in the countryside As there is a general policy against development in the Island's countryside, it is important that where development exists, either in an historic or recently approved form, it should not, when altered or extended detract from the amenities of the countryside. Care therefore, must be taken to control the size and form of extensions to property in the countryside. In the case of traditional properties, the proportion and form of the building is sensitively balanced and extensions of inappropriate size or proportions will not be acceptable where these destroy the existing character of the property. In the case of non-traditional properties, where these are of poor or unsympathetic appearance, extensions which would increase the impact of the property will generally not be acceptable. It may be preferable to consider the redevelopment of non- traditional dwellings or properties of poor form with buildings of a more traditional style and in these cases, the Department may consider an increase in size of the replacement property over and above the size of the building to be replaced, where improvements to the appearance of the property would justify this.

3.11 In addition, Housing Policy 16 advises:

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      23/01384/B                                     Page  5  of  15

"Housing Policy 16: The extension of non-traditional dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public."

3.12 Environment Policy 4 protects biodiversity (including protected species and designated sites).

3.13 Other policies within the Strategic Plan which are considered relevant to the proposal are: Infrastructure Policy 5, Transport Policy 4, and Community Policies 10 and 11 which relate to fire safety.

4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Planning Circular 3/91 (Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside) is considered relevant. The section on 'Proportions and Form' on page 4 provides advice on how to make variations to the floor area of traditional buildings (extensions).

4.1.2 Policy 3 states: "The shape of small and medium sized new dwellings should follow the size and pattern of the traditional farmhouse. They should be rectangular in plan and simple in form. Extensions to existing buildings should maintain the character of the original form".

4.1.3 Policy 4 states: "External finishes are expected to be selected from a limited range of traditional materials". The supporting texts to policy 4 states that "Modern construction and materials may be used to achieve a similar external appearance".

5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 This property has been the subject of a number of previous applications which are considered relevant in the determination of this application.

5.2 PA18/00478/B - Approval was granted for an extension to the rear of the dwelling. Permitted 28/6/2018. The Planning Officers Report advised that the extension was to be at the height of the main ridge and removed the existing lean to and flat roofed extensions at the rear. The north eastern elevation featured a gable facing towards the oncoming traffic which is travelling down the road, with a large first floor window whose upper part follows the profile of the pitch of the roof of the extension. The other elevations have roofing at first floor level with a range of horizontally proportioned windows.

5.3 The Report further advised: "The walling is to be finished in through coloured render, in a grey colour to match the stonework with the existing render re-finished to match this. Both sides of the extension roof will include a large section of single rooflight and images have been provided to illustrate this on other buildings. Additional rooflights are to be installed elsewhere on the existing and proposed roofs: those proposed in the existing roofing will be smaller, conservation type lights and the two proposed in the new roofing will be larger, modern lights."

5.4 The application was permitted on 28/6/2018.

5.5 In 2019, PA 19/00818/B sought approval for the erection of a new domestic garage north of the existing house and within the neighbouring field outside of the residential curtilage. This application was refused on the grounds that the proposal would result in an unwarranted spread of development across the countryside contrary to Environment Policy 1 with insufficient evidence of need for its siting within the neighbouring field.

The reason for refusal was:

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                      23/01384/B                                     Page  6  of  15

1. "The application has not been provided with sufficient justification or evidence of need to demonstrate an exception to policy failing General Policy 3 and as such the application results in an unwarranted spread of development across the countryside contrary to Environment Policy 1."

5.6 This decision was upheld on appeal with the Minister Refusing the appeal in a letter dated 4/11/2020.

5.7 PA 20/00938/B - Extension of residential curtilage and erection of detached garage on part Field 430890 and Edd Beg, Kerrowkeil Road, Grenaby, Ballasalla - Permitted - 20/10/2020. Not implemented.

5.8 This proposal was for the erection of a garage measuring approx. 5.5m wide x 5.45m deep in a similar location to that where the current garage/carport/shed has been erected. It measured 2.6m high to the eaves, although the ridge was at a lower height than the current retrospective 23/01383/B proposals because there was not internal staircase or provision of a first floor store in the roofspace. The 20/00938/B approval was for a setback distance of curtilage from the road to back of garage approx. 40m and from house to edge of track, 21m.

5.9 An approval was granted under PA 21/01180/B for "Installation of replacement roof tiles in the main dwelling". This was permitted on 6/10/2021.

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

o 23/01384/B - Erection of detached greenhouse, shed and raised beds (retrospective) on adjoining Field 430886

6.1 Highway Services (8/12/23) has expressed no interest as they have no implications for highway safety.

6.2 Malew Parish Commissioners (10/1/24) have raised no objections to these proposals; and,

6.3 No comments have been received from occupants of any neighbouring or nearby properties.

7.0 ASSESSMENT

23/00407/B - Proposed alterations and extension to side North-West elevation to create additional living accommodation.

7.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this application are:

a. Principle of Development b. The visual impact of the proposal (HP16, GEN2 b) and c)); c. Impact on neighbouring amenity (GEN2 g); d. Impact on Highways (TP4 & TP7); and e. Impact on site ecology (GEN2 d) and EP 4).

7.2 VISUAL IMPACT ON EXISTING DWELLING AND THE SURROUNDING COUNTRYSIDE

Principle of development

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                      23/01384/B                                     Page  7  of  15

7.2.1 The existing dwelling has been lawfully erected, and proposals for extensions are considered to be acceptable in principle subject to the provisions of Polies GEN2, GEN3, H15 and H16 of the Strategic Plan. It is noted that a previous 2-storey extension (see PA18/00478/B) has been erected to the rear of the dwelling. The floorspace of the original dwelling is calculated from the submitted drawings (See both PA18/00478/B and PA23/00407/B). Originally, the ground and first flor areas plus front porch amounted to 285.42m2. The PA PA18/00478/B added 56.0m2 to the floor area, or 19.6% of the original floorspace. The 23/00407/B proposals for the ground floor extension would add 31.68m2 of floor area. Combined, the added floor areas amount to 30.0% of the original floor area of the Edd Beg dwelling.

7.2.2 Policy H15 indicates that extensions to dwellings in the countryside should normally be approved where they respect the proportion form and appearance of the existing property. "Only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions which measure more than 50% of the existing building in terms of floor space (measured externally)." In this regard, the floorspace of the proposed extension would comply with the provisions of Strategic Plan Policy H15.

The visual impact of the proposed extension (EP1, HP16, GEN2 b) and c)); 7.2.3 In terms of the visual impacts of the proposed works on the existing dwelling, it is considered that the proposed extension respects the proportion, design and form of the existing dwelling and would appear as a subordinate addition to it. The flat-roofed (23/00407/B) extension would measure approx. 4.8m deep x 6.6m wide (floor area of 31.68m2) x 3.0m high to the eaves of its flat roof. Whilst the new flat-roofed, ground floor extension is considered to be of a more contemporary design than the existing property, it is not judged to unduly harm the character and appearance of the main dwellinghouse which has existing flat roofed elements attached to the main rear elevation of the dwelling on either side of where the previously approved 18/00478/B rear 2-storey extension is attached, one of the flat-roofed elements would be located adjacent to where the new extension is proposed to be located. Notwithstanding, the flat roof finish of the extension would ensure that the key features of the main dwelling are not obscured by its addition, which would be on the north-west side away from public view given that the extension would be largely screened by the existing dwelling. It would thus appear as a contemporary but subordinate addition to it.

7.2.4 It is also noted that the flat roofed extension which would involve the addition of a basic form which is somewhat at variance with Policy 3 of Planning Circular 3/91 which does not support the addition of basic forms to traditional properties. However, as has been noted, the dwelling has an existing flat roofed element. As such, it is considered that the extension would be reasonably well integrated into the existing built fabric on site. Given the above, it is considered that the proposal would be compliant with the requirements of and GEN2 in the Strategic Plan.

7.2.5 With regard to potential impacts on the character of the surrounding countryside, it is considered that the proposed works would modernise the appearance of the existing property, albeit, it would be erected at a position on the property where it would not be prominent when viewed from the surrounding countryside. In terms of its proportion, form, and scale, these are considered to be in keeping with the property and would not detract from its appearance. The design of the extension is considered to be acceptable and would make a fitting addition to the site, with only a small impact on the character of the site and surrounding area. As well, the proposed scheme would not result in the loss of any surrounding trees or impact on any tree on site, ensuring that the development does not cause harm to the visual amenity of the locality or surrounding countryside. Accordingly, it is considered the proposal is acceptable and would not adversely affect the appearance of the site within the countryside or harm the character and quality of the landscape, Therefore, the proposal is considered to comply with the provisions of Policy EP1, GEN2 b) and c); and, HP16 in the Adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016).

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                      23/01384/B                                     Page  8  of  15

7.3 IMPACTS ON NEIGHBOURING AMENITY

7.3.1 With regard to impact on neighbouring dwellings, the site is in an isolated position in the countryside. There are no neighbouring or nearby residential properties within close proximity to the site, and no neighbours amenities would be affected as a result of the proposed development. This accords with Policy GEN2 g) of the Strategic Plan.

7.4 HIGHWAY IMPACT

7.4.1 With regard to Highway impact, the scheme does not propose any alterations to the means of access to the site or parking within the site. Highway Services has raised no objection to the proposals, and as such, it is considered that there would be no adverse impacts on parking or highway safety resulting from the proposal. This accords with Policies T4 and T7 of the Strategic Plan.

7.5 IMPACT ON SITE ECOLOGY

7.5.1 In terms of impacts on ecology or biodiversity within the site, it is also important to establish if any real harm would result with respect to ecological and environmental concerns, it would relate to the removal of some vegetation to facilitate the erection of the extension. In this case, it is considered that the scale of the proposed works is such that it would result in minimal vegetation removal. Also, no trees would be removed as a result of the proposal. Therefore, any impacts on biodiversity within the site will be negligible, and overridden by the retention of the rural character of the site which will remain largely unchanged. This accords with Policies GEN2 d) and EP4 of the Strategic Plan.

7.6 OTHER MATTERS

7.6.1 The extent of the element of the proposed development would be sited within the existing curtilage of Edd Beg. However, the North-West side elevation of the extension would result in anyone entering or leaving the extension via the pedestrian access door in the North- West side elevation having to do so from adjoining agricultural land. It is noted that PA23/01383/B for the "Erection of detached garage and car port and extension to curtilage (retrospective)" includes an extension to part of the curtilage immediately to the North-West of the side elevation of the extension. This application is the subject of separate consideration. If PA23/01383/B is approved, along with the PA23/00407/B proposals, the occupants of the property would step out onto garden land using this entrance. The applicant was requested to amend the curtilage of the PA23/00407/B application to enlarge the curtilage, however, this has not occurred. If the PA23/01383/B proposal is refused, (which also involves the consideration of an unlawfully erected garage, car port and shed attached to the rear of the car port), then this application should also be refused for the reason that it would represent an inappropriate form of development in the countryside as it would in effect comprise residential development that could not be reasonably accommodated within the existing residential curtilage of Edd Beg, and would represent an unacceptable form of development on agricultural land contrary to the provisions of policies ENV1 and H11 of the Strategic Plan.

7.7 CONCLUSION

7.6.1 Overall, and subject to the approval of an extension to the residential curtilage of Edd Beg through the consideration of PA23/01383/B, it is considered the proposal would comply with the relevant policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. However, as advised in paragraph 7.6.1 above, whilst the proposed development would be sited within the existing curtilage of Edd Beg, the North-West side elevation of the extension would result in anyone entering or leaving the extension via the pedestrian access door in the North-West side elevation having to do so from adjoining agricultural land. This is considered to be unacceptable because the

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                      23/01384/B                                     Page  9  of  15

development could not be comfortably contained within the existing residential curtilage of Edd Beg, and therefore, it is recommended that the application be refused.

Reason for Refusal

The proposed single storey, flat roofed extension to be attached to the North-East side of the dwelling at Edd Beg, would have its North-West elevation sited hard on the boundary of the domestic curtilage, and would result in users of the kitchen area existing the dwelling via the proposed side door directly onto agricultural land. This is unacceptable because it would result in a form of development by stealth as it would in effect comprise residential development that could not be reasonably accommodated within the existing residential curtilage of Edd Beg and would represent an unacceptable form of development on agricultural land which would be harmful to the rural nature, and character of the site and surroundings contrary to the provisions of policies ENV1, GEN2, GEN3 and H11 of the Strategic Plan.

8.0 ASSESSMENT

23/01383/B - Erection of detached garage and car port and extension to curtilage (retrospective)

8.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this application are:

a. Principle of Development b. The visual impact of the proposal (HP 15, GP2); c. Impact on neighbouring amenity (GP2); d. Impact on Highways (TP 4 & EP 16); and e. Impact on site ecology (EP 4).

8.2 Principle of development

8.2.1 The site has in part been previously the subject of an approved planning application for the erection of a garage plus an extension of the residential curtilage of Edd Beg to facilitate this erection of the garage. See PA 20/00938/B at paragraph 5.7 in the sites planning history. This was permitted on 20/10/2020, but was not implemented. Insofar as PA20/00938/B is concerned the principle of development was established.

8.2.2 In respect of the current PA23/01383/B application, the proposal involves the retention of the garage erected which has the same footprint/ground floor area as that previously approved, although it differs in that it is higher to the eaves and ridge because it has an internal staircase and domestic storage accommodation at first floor level. The garage as erected also has a carport attached to its North-West side with a timber shed attached to the rear of the carport. Neither of these attached structures were considered as part of the PA20/00938/B application. They have been unlawfully erected, and the domestic curtilage of Edd Beg has been unlawfully extended to accommodate these structures. This application seeks to regularise these matters, as well as proposing to extend the curtilage immediately to the North-West side of the dwelling at Edd Beg.

8.2.3 The proposed extension to the residential curtilage for Edd Beg would accommodate these structures and, as advised above, would also extend the curtilage immediately adjacent to the North-West elevation of the dwelling and site for the proposed 23/00407/B extension. Given the previous PA20/01938/B approval, the principle for an extension of the residential curtilage and the erection of the garage was established. However, as this was not built and an unapproved garage, plus carport and shed were erected on land outside the approved residential curtilage, the principle of development is not established and the proposals fail to accord with the provisions of Policy ENV1, and GEN2 b) and c) of the Strategic Plan.

==== PAGE 10 ====

                                      23/01384/B                                     Page  10  of  15

The visual impact of the garage, carport, shed and curtilage extension (EP1, GEN2 b) and c));

8.2.4 In terms of the visual impacts of retaining the garage, carport, shed and curtilage extension, the built structures represent a significant increase in built form and footprint over and above that of the previously approved garage. As indicated in paragraph 8.2.2 above, the garage has the same footprint although it is taller than that previously approved. The attached carport which measures approx. 3.8m wide x 5.5m deep adds a footprint of 19.25m2 to that of garages footprint of 29.9m2, whilst the shed adds a further measuring approx. 3.8m wide x 3.5m deep, adds a further footprint of 13.3m2 to the garage. Combined, the footprint of the carport (19.25m2) and shed (13.3m2) amount to 32.55m2 which is more than the garages 29.9m2 footprint. Cumulatively, it is considered that the built form of development is excessive. Whilst the garage footprint on its own may prove acceptable, its extra height located in the expanded curtilage further away from the dwelling than previously approved, are all together considered to be excessive, and overall detract from the rural character and open nature of the site and its surroundings in this open countryside location.

8.2.5 As a consequence, it is considered that the proposals to retain the garage, carport and shed, and the extension of the curtilage of Edd Beg to accommodate them have resulted in an unacceptable visual impact that is unduly harmful to the character of the site and surroundings and as such are contrary to the provisions of Policies EP1 and GEN 2 b) and c) in the Strategic Plan.

8.2.6 In respect of the element of the proposals to extend the residential curtilage of Edd Beg immediately to the North-West of the dwelling, this element alone is considered to be acceptable in visual terms as it would be sited on the NW edge of the existing plot measuring approx. 4.2m wide x 10.3m deep amounting to approx. 43.2m2 located immediately to the west of the dwelling adjoining the area where the proposed west side ground floor extension is to be sited, would be acceptable as it would not involve any built form of development, and is screened from the surrounding area by the dwelling on the plot and adjacent hedging separating it from the garage, carport and shed.

8.2.7 Overall, it is considered that proposal fails to comply with the provisions of Policies EP1 and GEN 2 b) and c) in the Adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016).

8.3 IMPACTS ON NEIGHBOURING AMENITY

8.3.1 With regard to impact on neighbouring dwellings, the site is in an isolated position in the countryside. There are no neighbouring or nearby residential properties within close proximity to the site, and no neighbours amenities would be affected as a result of the proposed development. This accords with Policy GEN2 g) of the Strategic Plan.

8.4 HIGHWAY IMPACT

8.4.1 With regard to Highway impact, the scheme does not propose any alterations to the means of access to the site or parking within the site. Highway Services has raised no objection to the proposals, and as such, it is considered that there would be no adverse impacts on parking or highway safety resulting from the proposal. This accords with Policies T4 and T7 of the Strategic Plan.

8.5 IMPACT ON SITE ECOLOGY

8.5.1 The application is for the retention of the detached garage, car port, attached shed and extension to the curtilage of Edd Beg. It seeks retrospective planning permission for the retention of the development already undertaken in this situation. There would be no adverse

==== PAGE 11 ====

                                      23/01384/B                                     Page  11  of  15

impacts on ecology or biodiversity within the site, as a result. This accords with Policies GEN2 d) and EP4 of the Strategic Plan.

8.6 OTHER MATTERS

8.6.1 The element of the proposed development involving the extension to the residential curtilage of Edd Beg that would be sited on the NW edge of the existing plot measuring approx. 4.2m wide x 10.3m deep amounting to approx. 43.2m2 located immediately to the west of the dwelling adjoining proposed development is required to facilitate the PA23/00407/B development. Whilst this element of the proposals, on its own, may prove acceptable, and as such could facilitate the PA23/00407/B development for a ground floor side extension to the dwelling, however, the remainder of the application represents an unacceptable form of development on agricultural land in the countryside and fails to accord with the Policies EP1, ENV1 and GEN 2 b) and c) in the Adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016).

9.00 CONCLUSION The proposed retention of the garage, car port, and shed and the extension of the domestic curtilage to the North-West of Edd Beg, are unacceptable because they represent development by stealth resulting in an unlawful extension of curtilage, and by their size scale, extent. Have resulted in a visually harmful piecemeal encroachment into the open countryside contrary to the advice contained in Policies EP1, ENV1 and GEN 2 b) and c) in the Adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016).

Reasons for refusal: 1. The proposed retention of the unlawfully erected Garage, Car port and timber shed, is considered to be unacceptable because, cumulatively, the built form of development is excessive. The additional height of the garage over and above that of the previously approved PA20/01938/B garage, which would be located within the expanded curtilage further away from the dwelling than previously approved, are excessive and visually harmful and overall, owing to their mass, bulk, scale, and domestic nature, unacceptably detract from the rural character and openness of the site and its surroundings in this countryside location contrary to the provisions of Policies EP1, ENV1 and GEN 2 b) and c) in the Adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016).

The element of the proposals for the extension of the domestic curtilage of Edd Beg to accommodate the retained garage, carport and shed, and to provide an extension to the domestic curtilage immediately to the north-west of Edd Beg to accommodate a proposed extension to the dwelling have resulted in an unacceptable visual impact in this countryside location that is unduly harmful to the rural character and open nature of the site and surroundings, and would unacceptably further this harmful appearance through the element of this proposal to extend the domestic curtilage immediately to the north-west of Edd Beg. As such, all elements of the proposals to extend the domestic curtilage of Edd Beg are contrary to the provisions of Policies EP1, ENV1 and GEN 2 b) and c) in the Adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016).

10.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 10.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (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

==== PAGE 12 ====

                                      23/01384/B                                     Page  12  of  15

(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.

10.2 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 above who should be given Interested Person Status

10.3 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.

9.0 ASSESSMENT

o 23/01384/B - Erection of detached greenhouse, shed and raised beds (retrospective) on adjoining Field 430886.

The main issues to consider in the assessment of this application are:

a. Principle of Development b. The visual impact of the proposal (SP2, EP1, GEN2); c. Impact on neighbouring amenity (GEN2); d. Impact on Highways (TP 4 & EP 16); and e. Impact on site ecology (EP 4).

9.1 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

9.1.1 Planning permission for these structures is required because the land area on which they are sited is agricultural land and they are to be used for the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse and not for agricultural purposes. Furthermore, the proposals do not seek planning approval for a change of use of this part of the field for it to fall within the domestic curtilage of Edd Beg. Whilst they could be used for agricultural purposes, the site is not a registered agricultural land holding and does not enjoy agricultural permitted development rights on account of their domestic nature and appearance and due to the fact the site is not a registered agricultural holding for which agricultural permitted development rights would apply. The principle of development is not accepted.

9.2 THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL (HP 15, GP2);

9.2.1 The greenhouse has a grey aluminium frame and glazed walls and roof. It measures approx. 2.5m wide x 3.75m deep x 2.0m high to the eaves and 3.0m high to the ridge. It and the garden shed are located to the North-East of and screened from the garage, carport and shed by an evergreen hedge. The shed measures approx. 1.3m wide x 1.9m deep and has a pitched roof approx. 2.5m in height to its ridge. It is constructed from blue/grey composite horizontal boards with a blue/grey composite panel pitched roof. Door to match. The site of the shed, greenhouse and planting beds are located to North-East of and are screened by the dwelling at Edd Beg. The 2 No. raised planting beds are located close to and on the North-East side of the greenhouse and shed respectively. The site remains as agricultural land.

9.2.2 These structures are clearly domestic in form, scale and nature, and as such would extend the domestic curtilage of the dwelling into the countryside away from the immediacy of the dwelling, with no element of these proposals seeking to extend the residential curtilage of Edd Beg to accommodate this domestic form of development. It is considered that whilst there are effective elements of screening in the form of the hedge to the South-East, Any screening from the Garage, carport and shed attached to the rear of the carport should be discounted on

==== PAGE 13 ====

                                      23/01384/B                                     Page  13  of  15

the grounds that these structures have been unlawfully erected on, in part, adjoining agricultural land.

9.2.3 Therefore, the visual impact arising from their domestic scale and nature is considered to be unacceptable in this countryside location and their presence is considered to be visually harmful to the open, rural character and nature of the countryside, and as such unacceptable. The proposals to retain the shed, greenhouse and planting beds are contrary to the provisions of Policies SP2, EP1, and GEN2 b) and c) in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

9.3 IMPACTS ON NEIGHBOURING AMENITY

9.3.1 With regard to impact on neighbouring dwellings, the site is in an isolated position in the countryside. There are no neighbouring or nearby residential properties within close proximity to the site, and no neighbours amenities would be affected as a result of the proposed development. This accords with Policy GEN2 g) of the Strategic Plan.

9.4 HIGHWAY IMPACT

9.4.1 With regard to Highway impact, the scheme does not propose any alterations to the means of access to the site or parking within the site. Highway Services has raised no objection to the proposals, and as such, it is considered that there would be no adverse impacts on parking or highway safety resulting from the proposal. This accords with Policies T4 and T7 of the Strategic Plan.

9.5 IMPACT ON SITE ECOLOGY

9.5.1 The application is for the retention of the greenhouse, shed and raised beds on part of the field sited to the North-West of the dwelling at Edd Beg. It seeks retrospective planning permission for the retention of the development already undertaken in this situation. There would be no adverse impacts on ecology or biodiversity within the site, as a result. This accords with Policies GEN2 d) and EP4 of the Strategic Plan.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 Overall, it is considered the proposal represents domestic development on agricultural land for which no proposals to extend the residential curtilage of the dwelling have been submitted. The proposal represents an unacceptable form of development in the countryside and fails to comply with the relevant policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. The proposals are contrary to the provisions of Policies SP2, EP1, and GEN2 b) and c) in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. Therefore, it is recommended that the application be refused.

Reason for Refusal:

The application is for the retention of the greenhouse, shed and raised beds on part of the field sited to the North-West of the dwelling at Edd Beg. Planning permission for these structures is required because the land area on which they are sited is agricultural land and they are to be used for the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse and not for agricultural purposes. Furthermore, the proposals do not seek planning approval for a change of use of this part of the field for it to fall within the domestic curtilage of Edd Beg. Whilst they could be used for agricultural purposes, the site is not a registered agricultural land holding and does not enjoy agricultural permitted development rights on account of their domestic nature and appearance and due to the fact the site is not a registered agricultural holding for which agricultural permitted development rights would apply. Overall, the proposal represents domestic development on agricultural land for which no proposals to extend the residential curtilage of the dwelling have been submitted. The proposal represents an unacceptable form of development in introducing a domestic element and unlawful extension of the residential curtilage of Edd Beg into the

==== PAGE 14 ====

                                      23/01384/B                                     Page  14  of  15

countryside. This proposal for the retention of the greenhouse, shed and raised beds fails to comply with the provisions of Policies SP2, EP1, and GEN2 b) and c) in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

11.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 11.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (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.

11.2 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 above who should be given Interested Person Status

11.3 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 the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : ...Permitted... Committee Meeting Date:...24.06.2024

Signed :...H LAIRD... Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.

==== PAGE 15 ====

                                      23/01384/B                                     Page  15  of  15

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 24.06.2024

Application No 23/01384/B Applicant Mrs Carole Berry Proposal Erection of detached greenhouse, shed and raised beds (retrospective) Site Address Field 430886 Edd Beg Kerrowkeil Road Grenaby Malew IM9 3BB Planning Officer Hamish Laird Presenting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer Report

The initial consideration of the application was at the Committee's sitting 20th May, 2024, where determination was deferred pending a site visit.

The Site Visit was carried out on 13th June, 2024,

A subsequent consideration was presented 24th June 2024, where the Committee declined the Officer recommendation (to refuse the proposal) and approved the application.

In approving the application the Members considered that:

The extent of the development was minor;

The impact was limited;

It was appropriate to owner;

The limited visual impact and nature of ongoing projects was considered acceptable;

It involved no extension to residential curtilage of Edd Beg.

The application was approved subject to the following condition:

1. The development, hereby permitted for the retention of the greenhouse, shed and raised beds, shall not involve any extension to the residential curtilage of Edd Beg.

Reason: The site comprises agricultural land and any extension of the curtilage in this location would represent an unwarranted enlargement of the residential curtilage of Edd Beg contrary to the provisions of Policies Env 1, and Gen 2 b) and c) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.