713785

==== PAGE 1 ====

Appeal: AP25/0026

                           Planning Application:  25/90302/B

__ __

1

Report on a Planning Appeal by the Written Procedure

Site Inspection: Monday 27 October 2025

Appeal made by Ms Michelle Richardson against the refusal of a planning application for approval for conversion of first floor space above existing double garage to create new flat tied to existing house at East Craige, St Judes, Isle of Man, IM7 2EW. __

Description

The appeal building is within the curtilage of East Craige, which is situated at the St Judes Cross Roads junction of Andreas Road and the A13 Jurby Road.

The garage building is situated just north west of the main dwelling. There are two garage door openings to the front of the appeal building alongside a stairway entrance leading to first floor. There are two parking spaces to the side of the main house and a further three in front of the garage building.

The garage and store were initially approved together with, and ancillary to a replacement dwelling, under approval Ref 06/00470/B. Under a later approval, Ref 22/00994/C, the ground floor of the building was approved for part use as a dog grooming parlour.

The conversion of the first-floor storage area into a one-bedroom flat with kitchen-living room and bathroom has been completed, without external changes to the building.

It is now the stated intention of the Appellant that the flat remain tied to the main dwelling but offered to the public for permanent habitation on the rental market.

Procedural Matters

The fact that the residential conversion of the first floor of the building has now become retrospective has no effect on the consideration of the development as proposed in the original application. Nor is any question of immunity from enforcement a matter for this appeal.

In connection with the appeal, the Appellant makes clear that, although the flat would remain tied to the main house in that it shares its services, access and parking space, there has never been any claim that the rented flat would be ancillary to the principal dwelling in terms of planning law.

Planning Policy, Guidance and Case Law

The site is in open countryside within an area of recognised woodland and partially within a Registered tree area. However, it is not subject to any other restrictive designation.

Planning policy relevant to this appeal is contained within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP), wherein strategic and spatial policies maintain a general presumption against new dwellings outside defined settlements.

==== PAGE 2 ====

Appeal: AP25/0026

                           Planning Application:  25/90302/B

__ __

2

GP3 of the IMSP provides for exceptions to the general presumption against new rural dwellings, including by conversion of suitable redundant buildings or previously developed land (PDL). Housing Policy 11 (HP11) provides criteria for residential conversions where permitted. General Policy 2 (GP2) sets broad criteria for all development, supported by adopted residential design guidance (RDG). Transport Polices (TP) 4 and 7 protect road safety and require adequate off-street car parking space.

Under the Gravesham and Fountain House judgments, cited by the Planning Authority, an independent living unit, as now proposed, is regarded as a separate dwelling and whether an outbuilding is to be considered ancillary is not merely a question of function but whether it is subordinate to the main dwelling and incapable of operating independently. These principles were applied in UK Appeal Ref APP/R4408/D/19/3219956, for example, wherein it was found that a proposed annexe with full living facilities and potential for independent occupation could not be considered ancillary, despite enjoying shared services.

The Case for the Appellant - Ms Michelle Richardson

The material points are:

Current Use

The current Appellant purchased the property in 2022, by which time the upper floor of the garage had been converted into living space with an ensuite bathroom and had therefore not been used for as storage for at least eight years, beyond the legal limit for enforcement. The conversion of the upper floor pre-dated the previous owner who bought the property in 2017. This is borne out by particulars published by the estate agent at the time.

The current Appellant changed the use of the ground floor of the garage building to accommodate a dog grooming parlour, under approval Ref PA22/00994/C in 2022.

The present proposal is, in effect, to change the use of the upper floor of the garage from storage to a 48sqm one-bedroom flat that can be offered on the rental market for permanent occupation by one or two people.

It was not considered appropriate to submit an application for the removal of a condition for storage use, or for retrospective permission for the conversion of the first floor into living accommodation, as this would not address the intention to let the flat to the general public.

The apartment is served by the same electricity and water supplies as the main house and uses the same sewage treatment plant. Vehicle access and parking are the same as for the main house and dog grooming parlour and were deemed acceptable in connection with those planning approvals.

The current retrospective proposal for the conversion of the storage space above the dog-grooming premises into a flat involves no alterations to the appearance of the building.

==== PAGE 3 ====

Appeal: AP25/0026

                           Planning Application:  25/90302/B

__ __

3

Relevant Policy

The strategic, general and housing policies of the IMSP encourage optimising the re- use of under-used and redundant buildings on previously developed land. East Craige has five bedrooms and three reception rooms. The Appellant has no personal need for additional living accommodation above the garage, which is presently unused.

The appeal site meets the IMSP definition of PDL and the use of the upper floor of the subject building is redundant for storage use, having long been converted for living accommodation. Thus, the proposal complies with the two exceptions of GP3(b-c) and therefore complies with the overall IMSP spatial strategy. Moreover, the flat meets all amenity and space requirements and housing standards. There would be no external alterations to the building and therefore no impact on the appearance of the countryside or the wider environment.

With respect to GP2(h-j), HP11(f) and TPs 4 and 7, the existing building is already served by the necessary utilities, and the access and parking arrangements are already in place and have planning approval. The vehicle access has already been deemed acceptable in two previous planning applications and DoI Highways raise no concerns about the proposal now in dispute. There is sufficient space for the single parking bay required for a one-bedroom flat.

There is a strong political imperative for additional homes, with which this proposal is aligned. The development would contribute another dwelling towards the Government target of 770 additional houses in the north of the island.

Favourable consideration should be given to the creation of flats above commercial premises, noting that the ground floor of the appeal building has been a dog grooming parlour since 2022.

The officer report on the application makes no mention of any of these favourable consideration, even though they were raised in pre-decision correspondence.

Conclusions

The proposed development would optimise the use of a redundant space above commercial premises on previously developed land, in compliance with GP3 of the IMSP.

The development would have no visual impact on the wider environment.

The flat is in an eighteen-year-old building of modern construction, has existed as living space for at least eight and potentially eighteen years and would comply with all relevant amenity space and safety requirements set by planning policy and housing, fire and building regulations.

The appeal building already enjoys shared services as well as access compliant with DoI Highways standards. Also, the site is located on the bus route from Jurby to Ramsey.

The development would contribute an additional affordable rental unit to the housing stock in the north of the Island, in support of Government policy.

==== PAGE 4 ====

Appeal: AP25/0026

                           Planning Application:  25/90302/B

__ __

4

The Appellant would have no objection to a condition restricting the sale of the flat independently from the main house.

Any deliberations about the status of the flat as ancillary are irrelevant to this appeal.

It is submitted that this appeal should be upheld and the refusal overturned.

The Case for the Planning Authority

The material points are:

Issues

The issues are: the principle of the proposed use; impact on neighbouring amenity; and potential highway and parking matters.

Principle

The conversion of redundant rural buildings may exceptionally be permitted under GP3(b) and governed in detail by HP11 of the IMSP. The policy aim is to prevent speculative residential development in the countryside by ensuring that conversions are genuinely necessary and not opportunistic.

Although the proposal relates only to the conversion of the upper floor of a garage building, the development would constitute a residential conversion of a rural structure and is therefore subject to the full provisions of HP11.

Under HP11(a), the Appellant must demonstrate that the building is redundant for its original use. This is particularly important given the proposed change to a self- contained dwelling, which introduces new functional and safety requirements. The garage, approved in 2006, remains capable of fulfilling its intended function, including storage on the first floor. No evidence has been submitted to demonstrate redundancy, and the proposal therefore fails to meet this core requirement.

Under HP11(b), the building must be substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation. While the garage appears to be in good external condition, no structural report has been submitted to confirm its suitability for residential occupation. Given that the building was not originally designed for habitation, and considering the proposed change in use to a self-contained dwelling, the absence of structural evidence is a material concern. Visual inspection alone is insufficient to satisfy this policy requirement, particularly where residential safety and long-term performance are at stake.

HP11(c) requires that the building be of architectural, historic, or social interest. This is not discretionary. It is a gateway requirement for rural conversion under the IMSP. The building in question, as approved in 2006, is of modern construction and does not exhibit the vernacular detailing, craftsmanship, or contextual relevance that the policy seeks to protect. Although the garage adopts a traditional Manx stone finish and barn- style features, it is a modern structure and does not possess the architectural or historic significance envisaged by the policy. The policy does not support conversion based solely on appearance; it requires genuine heritage value. The absence of such significance, combined with the lack of demonstrated redundancy, places the proposal in clear conflict with the policy framework.

==== PAGE 5 ====

Appeal: AP25/0026

                           Planning Application:  25/90302/B

__ __

5

The unit would not be ancillary in planning terms, but rather a separate dwelling. and this places the proposal in conflict with HP11(e) and GP3 of the IMSP, which require compatibility with surrounding land uses and policy designations.

The proposal also raises broader land-use concerns. The IMSP spatial strategy prioritises development within defined settlements and reinforces restrictions against new housing conversions, unless exceptionally permitted under GP3. The proposal also conflicts with the aim to control rural expansion and direct development toward town centres. Increased activity and movement associated with independent residential use could have further impact on rural character, undermining the environmental protections embedded in the spatial strategy.

In conclusion on the issue of principle, the proposal fails to meet the key policy tests set out in HP11 and GP3 of the IMSP. It also conflicts with the overarching objectives of the IMSP to direct development to sustainable locations and prevent the erosion of rural character. The proposed unit would constitute a separate dwelling. Therefore, the retention and rental of the flat cannot be supported in principle.

Neighbouring Amenity

The proposal involves the continued use of the ground floor of the garage for dog grooming and the conversion of the upper floor to a one-bedroom residential unit. This introduces a mixed-use arrangement within a rural setting. While the scale of both uses is modest, the cumulative impact on neighbouring amenity must be carefully considered in accordance with GP2(g) of the IMSP.

The site is located adjacent to an existing highway, where a degree of traffic and footfall is already present. This context helps to absorb some of the anticipated movement associated with the proposed residential use. The nearest neighbouring dwelling, Craig Cottage, lies approximately 30m to the south west, separated by the A17 highway. Given this separation and the existing background noise levels, any direct impact on residential amenity is likely to be limited.

GP2 (g) and (h) require that development maintains satisfactory amenity standards, including safe access, adequate servicing, and protection from noise and disturbance. The RDG reinforces these principles an encourages a good internal living environment. In this case, the site benefits from existing access arrangements and sufficient off-road parking. The internal layout of the proposed flat includes a bedroom, bathroom, and open-plan living-kitchen area, which appears to meet the minimum spatial expectations for a one-bedroom, two-person unit.

On balance, the proposal is not expected to result in unacceptable impacts on neighbouring amenity. The residential use would be modest in scale, subject to appropriate management and adherence to stated operating practices, it is considered that the development now proposed would comply with the amenity protection requirements of GP2 and align with the principles of the RDG.

Highways and Parking

The proposed development involves the continued use of the ground floor for dog grooming and the conversion of the upper floor to a one-bedroom residential unit. The DoI Highways Division has confirmed that the proposal would have no significant negative impact on highway safety, network functionality, or parking provision. The

==== PAGE 6 ====

Appeal: AP25/0026

                           Planning Application:  25/90302/B

__ __

6

existing highway network is considered sufficient to accommodate the modest level of traffic associated with both the residential and modest commercial uses.

The site benefits from suitable off-street parking, with five spaces available to serve both the dog grooming business and the proposed flat. The dog grooming operation is small in scale, operating on a one-dog-at-a-time basis, and includes staggered appointment times. The business also offers a pick-up and drop-off service, which further reduces the number of client visits to the site. These operational characteristics help to minimise traffic generation and ensure that parking demand remains within site capacity.

In accordance with GP2(f) and TP7 of the IMSP, the development is not expected to compromise highway safety or result in inadequate parking or servicing arrangements. The scale and nature of the uses are such that they are compatible with the rural setting and are unlikely to result in adverse impacts on the local road network.

Conclusion

In summary, the proposal represents an unjustified intensification of use in the countryside.

The proposal would provide a modest residential unit within the upper floor of an existing garage and would utilise space that the Appellant, through their agent, describes as unused, though no evidence has been provided to support this. The site benefits from existing infrastructure, including off-street parking and access to the local road network. The scale of both the residential and dog grooming uses is limited, and the Highway Authority has raised no objections in terms of highway safety or parking. From an amenity perspective, the development is unlikely to result in significant harm to neighbouring properties, and the internal layout appears to meet the expectations of the RDG.

Crucially however, the proposal fails to meet several key policy requirements of HP11 and GP3. It conflicts with the spatial strategy of the IMSP, fails to meet the policy thresholds for rural conversion, and cannot be supported under the current planning framework. The application does not demonstrate compliance with the exceptional circumstances required for countryside development and is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of the IMSP as a whole.

On balance, whilst the proposal presents some practical benefits, it does not comply with the core policy framework governing residential conversions in the countryside. The application is therefore not supported in principle and this appeal is recommended for dismissal.

Assessment by the Inspector

Planning Issues

This appeal turns mainly on the principle of retaining the flat already created by conversion of the upper floor of the appeal building and its proposed rental on the open property market. The effects on the character and amenity of East Craige and its surroundings and regarding highway safety are also for consideration.

==== PAGE 7 ====

Appeal: AP25/0026

                           Planning Application:  25/90302/B

__ __

7

Appraisal

Although remaining tied to the main house of East Craige by its shared curtilage and services, under established planning law the proposed rental flat would become a new unit of residential accommodation in the countryside, where such development is resisted by the spatial strategy of the IMSP.

GP3(b-c) and HP11 of the IMSP make exception for conversion of redundant buildings and PDL, including domestic curtilages. HP11 provides further that such buildings must be structurally capable of renovation, of architectural, historic or social interest and large enough to form a dwelling compatible with adjoining uses without harm to character.

There is no documentary evidence that the building is structurally sound or that the storage use the first floor is redundant. The mere fact of its long-term conversion to living accommodation is no direct confirmation of this. However, given its relatively recent date and, from inspection, its modern construction and standard of maintenance, it is apparent that its storage use is more than adequate for a property of the size of East Craige and that it was structurally capable of conversion. Importantly, the latter is also a matter for separate building control legislation in any event.

I accept that the building is of no particular architectural, historic or social interest but I am satisfied that the upper floor of the appeal building is suitable to serve as an independent dwelling without harm to its appearance, given there is no change to it externally.

The appeal building is separated from the main dwelling by its shared internal driveway within a relatively generous curtilage. Given the limited scale of the dog- grooming business on the ground floor of the building, I do not consider that the separate flat would, individually or cumulatively with the low-key dog grooming business, be incompatible with the adjoining domestic use or harm the character or amenity of East Craige as whole or of nearby East Craige Cottage or of any other property.

There is ample parking space within the shared curtilage and the access from the highway appears adequate for the current approved uses on the site. I do not consider that the separate occupation of the modest, two-person appeal flat would generate a significant increase in vehicle movements or pose an unacceptable risk to highway safety. I therefore concur with DoI Highways that there is no objection to the appeal on road safety grounds.

I summary, I find that the retention and separate occupation of the appeal flat would cause no significant planning harm in terms of its practical effects and would thus comply with relevant development management policies, including GP2 and TP4-7 of the IMSP.

Nevertheless, there remains a degree of conflict in principle with the strict terms of the locational policies of the IMSP relating to the creation of new dwellings in the countryside, including by conversion.

I give due weight to those provisions. However, as I am reminded by the Planning Authority itself, on the Isle of Man adopted development plan policies do not have legal primacy, leaving scope for judgement alongside other material considerations.

==== PAGE 8 ====

Appeal: AP25/0026

                           Planning Application:  25/90302/B

__ __

8

Even though the appeal building lacks particular interest and despite the absence of a structural survey and documentary proof of redundancy, I consider that the degree to which the conversion and separate domestic rental of the upper floor of the appeal building would conflict in principle with the relevant planning policies to be of little consequence in this case.

On balance, I give a greater measure of weight to the benefit of an otherwise policy- compliant affordable dwelling being contributed to the Island housing stock.

In view of the existence of the flat, no time limit for commencement is necessary but one condition is appropriate, as suggested without prejudice by the Department, to ensure that designated parking space is maintained for the flat. Suggested conditions to removing permitted development rights and to define a curtilage for the flat are not necessary as the buildings on the site are not affected externally and clearly share a defined curtilage in any event.

Conclusion

The retention and separate occupation of the first floor flat above the garage-dog grooming premises would have no adverse planning impacts on the character, appearance or amenity of the site or surrounding area and would provide material planning benefit in contributing a new dwelling to the Island housing stock. In this particular case, I find that the modest benefit of the development outweighs the small degree of conflict with the strategic and spatial policies of the IMSP.

For the reasons I have explained and subject to the conditions I have outlined above, I have reached the conclusion that this appeal should be allowed, the refusal of the application overturned and the planning approval sought granted.

Recommendation

I recommend that the appeal be allowed, and planning approval granted for conversion of first floor space above existing double garage to create new flat tied to existing house at East Craige, St Judes, Isle of Man, IM7 2EW, as shown on Drawings Nos 23/3182/01 Revision E, and 23/3182/02 Revision B, and subject to the conditions and for the reason set out in the Appendix to this Report

If accepted, this recommendation would have the effect of overturning the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application.

B J Sims

Brian J Sims BSc (Hons) CEng MICE MRTPI Independent Inspector

10 November 2025

==== PAGE 9 ====

Appeal: AP25/0026

                           Planning Application:  25/90302/B

__ __

9

APPENDIX

Schedule of Recommended Planning Conditions and Reason for Approval

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. Prior to the first occupation of the flat hereby approved, details of designated off-street parking provision for the new one-bedroom unit shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The approved parking space shall be provided prior to first occupation and shall be retained thereafter, free of obstruction and solely for parking purposes.

Reason: To ensure that the IoM Strategic Plan 2016 car parking standards are met, in the interests of highway safety.

Reason for Approval

The retention and separate occupation of the first floor flat above the garage-dog grooming premises would have no adverse planning impacts on the character, appearance or amenity of the site or surrounding area and would provide material planning benefit in contributing a new dwelling to the Island housing stock, outweighing, in this particular case, a small degree of conflict with the strategic and spatial policies of the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 regarding the location of new dwellings in the countryside outside defined settlements.