**Document:** DEFA Planning Officer Statement of Case
**Application:** AP25/0016 — Appeal against the refusal for conversion of existing redundant storage barn to provide a residential dwelling
**Decision:** Appeal accepted - PA APPROVED
**Decision Date:** 2025-10-17
**Parish:** Lezayre
**Document Type:** appeal / appeal_statement
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/88418-lezayre-barn-adj-to-conversion-dwelling/documents/1141964

---

# DEFA Planning Officer Statement of Case

Please reply to the signatory

Tel: (01624) 685910

Fax: (01624) 686443 Email: chris.balmer@gov.im

Our Ref: 24/00534/B Your Ref: Jennifer Chance, M.R.T.P.I. Director of Planning & Building Control Lorna Milestone, Planning Appeals Administrator, Chief Secretary's Office, Government Offices, Buck's Road, Douglas, IM1 3PN.

18 June 2025

PA No: 24/00534/B Proposal: Conversion of existing redundant storage barn to provide a residential dwelling. Address: Barn Adj To Field 134413, Churchtown, Ramsey, Isle of Man Please find a statement that sets out the position of the Department in respect of the above planning application.

The application was determined by the Planning Committee on 28th April 2025. This statement relies upon the Planning Officer’s original report which is online and forms part of the planning file, and the minutes from the Planning Committee meeting which is provided at the end of this statement. The enclosed statement comprises the following parts:

- 1. A Statement of Case (Appendix 1) outlines the reasons the Planning Committee refused the application. This should be read in conjunction with the original Planning Officer's report, as it details the site description, policy framework, representations, and assessment of areas considered acceptable, which are still relevant.
- 2. A set of conditions in the event that the appointed Planning Inspector is minded to recommend that the application be approved (Appendix 2).
- 3. Minute extract of the Planning Committee meeting (Appendix 3). Yours sincerely,

Paul Visigah, B.Tech (Hons), MSc, RTP, MRTPI Senior Planning Officer

### Appendix 1 – Statement of Case

STATEMENT OF THE

Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture

## Planning & Building Control Directorate

Planning statement on behalf of the Department relative to:

Conversion of existing redundant storage barn to provide a residential dwelling. Barn Adj To Field 134413, Churchtown, Ramsey, Isle Of Man PA Reference: 24/00534/B Prepared on behalf of the Planning Department by Senior Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah, B.Tech (Hons), MSc, RTP, MRTPI

- 1.0 Appeal against refusal for PA 24/00534/B The reasons for refusal were:

- 1. General Policy 3 (GP3) establishes strict exceptions for countryside development, ensuring that proposals outside settlement boundaries adhere to specific housing and environmental policies. The proposal fails to satisfy GP3's requirements as it does not meet the provisions of Housing Policy 11 (HP11) or Housing Policy 4 (HP4), both of which regulate rural housing and conversion projects. The barn requires significant reconstruction, contradicting GP3's principle of retaining original structures without excessive intervention. The lack of architectural, historic, or social significance further undermines compliance, reinforcing that the development does not qualify as an acceptable countryside conversion.
- 2. Housing Policy 11 (HP11) requires that redundant rural buildings be substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation without excessive rebuilding. However, the barn exhibits severe structural deficiencies, including leaning walls, inadequate foundations, and saturated soil conditions, necessitating major reconstruction beyond policy thresholds. Additionally, HP11 mandates that qualifying buildings possess architectural, historic, or social interest, yet the structure holds no architectural, heritage or communal value. Paragraph 8.10 of HP11 explicitly prohibits the rebuilding of ruins or the erection of replacement structures disguised as conversions, reinforcing that the extent of intervention required far exceeds permissible policy limits, leading to clear noncompliance.
- 3. Housing Policy 4 (HP4) establishes a spatial strategy for sustainable housing development, restricting new housing in the countryside unless it meets strict exceptional circumstances. The policy prioritizes housing within existing towns and villages to ensure sustainable growth, protect rural landscapes, and prevent uncontrolled development in open countryside. Proposals for new housing outside designated settlements must fully comply with specific policy exceptions, including the conversion of redundant rural buildings under Housing Policy 11 (HP11). In this case, the proposal fails to meet HP4's requirements as the barn does not qualify for conversion under HP11 due to structural deficiencies and lack of architectural, historic, or social interest. HP4 reinforces HP11's provisions by ensuring that rural housing is permitted only where policy-defined needs exist, such as agricultural worker housing or conversions that maintain rural heritage. As the proposal does not meet these exemptions, it contradicts HP4's strategic objectives for controlled countryside development.

- 2.0 Legal and Policy Position In accordance with S10 of the Town Country Planning Act the application has been considered; S(4) In dealing with an application for planning approval or an application under subsection (3), the Department shall have regard to —

- (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application; (ab) any relevant national policy directive under section 2A;
- (b) any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3;

- (b) such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and
- (c) all other material considerations.

There is a statutory duty to take into account the above, and while it is recognised that weight to be given is a matter for the decision maker.

That being said, it shall be noted that the Development Plan and other Adopted Policies do not have primacy as they do in the UK. The Isle of Man is also different from the UK as there is no presumption in favour of development as set out in the NPPF, and there is no 5-year land supply requirement.

In this application, the most weight has been given to the Strategic Plan and the 1982 Development Plan, as they have been through a statutory process, which includes evidence base and public consultation process, and are adopted by Tynwald.

Other material considerations referred to in the officer report include Planning Circular 3/91 - Guide to the residential development in the countryside, and Residential Design Guide (RDG) which followed targeted consultation and adoption by the Minister and has therefore been afforded greater weight, and the IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025.

- 3.0 Response to Reasons for Appeal This statement addresses those issues directly which were highlighted as a basis for the appeal. For a full assessment of the initial application, please refer to the original Officer’s Report, which would have been supplied with the initial documentation.

It would, however, be important to reiterate that this document provides a comprehensive assessment of the appellant’s appeal, incorporating all discussions and analyses from the Officer’s Report whilst expanding on specific elements in order to fully address the reasons for appeal. It aims to critically evaluate each point raised by the appellant, with reference to relevant planning policies, the applicant’s submitted documents, the Officer’s Report, and the Reasons for Refusal.

- 3.1 There appear to be two main issues raised by the appellants. The issues include:

- 1. The structural report clearly states that the building is capable of repair and the planning determination was weighted against approval on the grounds that refurbishment was not possible due to the structural condition of the existing building. The structural report clearly demonstrates that “the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation”. In addition to this the re-roofing and repair works completed under PA 14/00054/B clearly demonstrate that the existing building should not be considered as a ruin. The original barn dates back to the 1950s and is recorded on the 1957 ordnance survey map. The barn's unusual construction, given its type and location, provides architectural and historic interest.
- 2. As demonstrated, the existing barn is in a reasonable condition, having benefited from routine repair works under PA 14/00054/B. The structural report confirms that the building is clearly capable of conversion, and, as set out above, it possesses some architectural and historic interest. We therefore consider the proposal to be in accordance with Housing Policy

11. In meeting criteria set out by HP11, the proposal also aligns with the wider policy framework of General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 4, which control the sensitive conversion of rural buildings.

- 3.2 FOLLOWING SECTION ADDRESSES THOSE ISSUES DIRECTLY

- 3.2.1 General Policy 3 (GP3) – Countryside Development Exceptions Appellant’s Argument

- 3.2.1.1 The appellant asserts that the proposal meets the conditions of GP3(b), relying on compliance with Housing Policy 11 (HP11) and Housing Policy 4 (HP4) as justification. It is further claimed that the barn’s presence on the 1957 Ordnance Survey Map, its continued physical condition, and previous refurbishment under PA 14/00054/B support its suitability for conversion.

Response

- 3.2.1.2 GP3 permits countryside development only in strictly defined exceptions, one of which is the conversion of redundant rural buildings that exhibit architectural, historic, or social interest. The barn does not meet any of these criteria. As confirmed by the Registered Buildings Officer, the structure lacks the architectural value and built heritage character required by GP3(b). It does not exhibit traditional Manx vernacular features such as local slate, rubble stone, or detailing that contributes meaningfully to rural character.

- 3.2.1.3 Reliance on the 1957 Ordnance Survey Map and anecdotal references to its post-war use do not amount to evidence of architectural or cultural merit. Mapping confirms age, not significance. GP3(b) demands that a structure contribute to landscape or heritage, not merely that it exists.
- 3.2.1.4 Importantly, the structural report identifies extensive works, including wall reconstruction, roofline adaptation, and drainage intervention. Paragraph 4.5 of the report advises that it “may be more economical to rebuild rather than rehabilitate”, an approach that directly conflicts with the purpose of GP3 and the restrictions set out in Paragraph 8.10 of the Strategic Plan and HP 11, which prohibits rebuilding disguised as conversion.
- 3.2.1.5 In conclusion, the proposal fails to meet the fundamental thresholds set out in GP3. It neither protects or retains built heritage, nor does it involve a structure capable of conversion without substantial intervention. As such, it is not an acceptable form of countryside development under policy.

- 3.2.2 Housing Policy 11 (HP11) – Structural Integrity and Heritage Value Appellant’s Argument

- 3.2.2.1 The appellant argues that the barn is structurally sound and capable of renovation without full reconstruction, asserting that leaning walls, foundation concerns, and water ingress can be addressed through minor works. They also suggest that the barn’s post-war origins, appearance on the 1957 Ordnance Survey Map, and “unusual” construction confer architectural and historic interest under HP11(c). Reference is also made to refurbishment works previously approved in 2014.

Response

- 3.2.2.2 Housing Policy 11(b) requires that a building be “substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation”, a standard that the barn does not meet. The appellant’s own structural report documents significant deficiencies: a. Wall lean of up to 6.5% on the northern elevation (Para 3.11), with reconstruction recommended; b. Saturated soils and active water ingress, particularly in the lean-to, compromising wall footings (Paras 3.20–3.21); c. A rudimentary 100mm-thick concrete slab foundation (Para 3.22), inadequate for residential use; d. Soil-based or uneven floors requiring full reconstruction (Para 3.19); e. Absence of tanking, damp-proofing, or insulation, necessitating invasive retrofitting (Para 4.6).
- 3.2.2.3 These are not superficial or routine maintenance works; they represent fundamental structural interventions that go beyond the scope of renovation envisaged by HP11. Crucially, the report states: “It may be more economical to rebuild rather than rehabilitate sections” (Para 4.5).

- This contradicts the principles of HP 11 which expressly prohibits rebuilding disguised as conversion. The scale of intervention required confirms that the proposal does not comply with HP11(b).
- 3.2.2.4 In terms of heritage value under HP11(c), the barn fails to meet the required thresholds for architectural, historic, or social interest. Constructed from plain concrete, blockwork infill, and corrugated metal sheeting, the building exhibits no traditional detailing, craftsmanship, or vernacular character. It offers no aesthetic, technological, or design merit.
- 3.2.2.5 The barn’s inclusion on the 1957 Ordnance Survey Map confirms only its age, not its significance. As outlined in Paragraph 8.10.1 of the Strategic Plan, age alone is not sufficient to justify retention. No cultural narrative, architectural distinction, or community association has been identified.
- 3.2.2.6 The suggestion that the structure’s “unusual construction” adds value is unsubstantiated. Departure from typical form, in this case, reflects utilitarian post-war construction rather than any architectural innovation or cultural significance. Policy requires demonstrable contextual, technical, or cultural significance. The barn exhibits none of these qualities.
- 3.2.2.7 The Registered Buildings Officer confirmed on 15 April 2025 that the barn “is not of historic or architectural interest” and that there was “no information that would give the building social interest.” No further evidence has been submitted.
- 3.2.2.8 Refurbishment works approved under PA 14/00054/B involved only basic roof repairs and door alterations, rather than a full conversion, and predate the current Strategic Plan. As such, they cannot be interpreted as demonstrating policy compliance under Housing Policy 11. Furthermore, despite these works having been completed post-approval in 2014, the structural report confirms that the building remains in a condition that cannot be readily adapted for residential use without significant intervention.
- 3.2.2.9 In summary, the barn fails both elements of HP11. It is neither structurally intact nor of verifiable architectural, historic, or social interest. The extent of intervention required exceeds the policy definition of conversion, and the proposal therefore does not qualify under Housing Policy 11.

- 3.2.3 Housing Policy 4 (HP4) – Spatial Strategy for Rural Housing Appellant’s Argument

- 3.2.3.1 The appellant contends that the proposal is compliant with Housing Policy 4(b), which permits the conversion of redundant rural buildings where HP11 is satisfied. They argue that the barn is in reasonable condition and that the scheme aligns with HP4’s framework for controlled rural housing.

Response

- 3.2.3.2 HP4 permits conversion only where all criteria under HP11 are met. As outlined in Section

- 3.2.2, the proposal fails HP11(b) and HP11(c). Paragraph 7.2.13 of the officer’s report confirms that failure under HP11 renders the proposal ineligible under HP4(b).

- 3.2.3.3 HP4 also supports Strategic Policy 2 by directing new housing toward established settlements. The appeal site lies in open countryside, outside zoned development areas, and within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value.
- 3.2.3.4 The proposal does not meet HP4’s limited exemptions. No agricultural, functional, or heritage justification has been presented. Paragraph 7.2.12 of the officer’s report confirms that this proposal does not fall within HP4’s permissible exceptions.
- 3.2.3.5 The scale of structural works, wall rebuilding, foundation concerns, and subfloor replacement, contradicts HP4’s intent to support only modest, conservation-led change. As set out in Paragraph 7.2.14 of the officer’s report, the proposal constitutes uncontrolled rural intensification.
- 3.2.3.6 In conclusion, the proposal fails to meet HP11 and therefore does not qualify under HP4. It also fails to satisfy HP4’s broader criteria for location, sustainability, and landscape protection. The proposal is not consistent with the Island’s spatial strategy and should be refused under Housing Policy 4.

- 3.3 CONCLUSION

- 3.3.1 The Officer’s Report presents compelling evidence that the proposal does not satisfy the relevant policy framework. Notably, the appellant’s own structural report confirms significant deficiencies, leaning walls, substandard foundations, saturated ground conditions, and floor failure, that necessitate substantial rebuilding. These requirements clearly exceed the allowances under Housing Policy 11(b), as recognised in Paragraph 7.2.5.2 of the Officer’s Report. Crucially, the Structural report itself suggests that “it may be more economical to rebuild rather than rehabilitate

sections,” which places the proposal in direct conflict with Paragraph 8.10 of the Strategic Plan. Reconstruction, where retention is expected, is expressly prohibited. In terms of heritage value, the Registered Buildings Officer confirmed the absence of architectural, historic, or social interest, noting that the barn’s utilitarian character fails to meet Housing Policy 11(c), as set out in Paragraph 7.2.6.3.

3.3.2 The proposal fails to meet the requirements of Housing Policy 11 in full and, as such, cannot qualify for an exception under Housing Policy 4(b), as outlined in Paragraph 7.2.13 of the Officer’s Report. Nor can the development be supported under General Policy 3, which relies on HP11 and HP4 in determining the acceptability of rural conversions. The scale of structural intervention required, coupled with the absence of demonstrable heritage merit, places the proposal firmly outside the policy scope for countryside development. Accordingly, the appeal seeks to introduce residential use into the open countryside without meeting the essential structural and policy thresholds required for such development. It should therefore be dismissed.

### Appendix 2 – Recommended conditions

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.

C2: Access, Parking and Turning Areas Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, all access arrangements, including the garage, parking and turning areas, shall be provided in full accordance with Drawing No. 003 and shall thereafter be retained. These areas shall not be used for any purpose other than for purposes associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction at all times.

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

C3: Materials Details Within three months of the commencement of development, a schedule of materials and finishes, including samples of the materials to be used in the construction of all external surfaces (including brickwork, mortar, and roofing), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall thereafter be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details and retained as such.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out to the highest standards of materials, in the interests of the appearance of the development and the visual amenities of the area.

C4: Remove PD (All) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling, and no garages or other free standing buildings shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwellings hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, without the prior written approval of the Department.

Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.

C5: Residential Curtilage Definition Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, the residential curtilage shall be laid out strictly in accordance with Drawing No. 003. The boundary shall be defined using either a nativespecies planted hedge, a traditional Manx hedge (in accordance with Planning Circular 1/92), a postand-wire fence, or a combination thereof. The boundary shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the curtilage is defined in a manner appropriate to the rural setting.

C6: External Lighting Scheme Prior to the installation of any external lighting, a detailed low-level lighting scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The scheme shall be designed in accordance with the BCT and ILP Guidance Note 8: Bats and Artificial Lighting (12 September 2018), and include details of luminance, mounting heights, hours of operation, and mitigation against light spill. The approved scheme shall be implemented and thereafter retained.

Reason: In the interests of protecting ecological species and to prevent light pollution.

C7. Surface Water Management Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, a scheme for the management of surface water and any active spring sources within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation and thereafter retained as such.

Reason: To prevent runoff from adversely affecting neighbouring land and to safeguard amenity of future occupiers of the approved dwelling.

C8: Bird Box Provision Within three months of the commencement of development, details of a bird box suitable for use by house sparrows or starlings, including its type, materials, design, and exact position on the northern elevation of the dwelling, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The approved bird box shall be installed prior to first occupation of the dwelling and thereafter retained.

Reason: In the interests of enhancing biodiversity at the site.

C9: Landscaping Scheme Notwithstanding the details that have been submitted, the development hereby approved shall not commence until a detailed landscaping plan, has first been submitted to the Department in writing to be agreed.

The detailed landscape plan shall include a detailed landscaping layout, details of planting (no nonnative species), hard surfacing materials, site levels, and details of the landscape features (hedges and trees) marked to be retained on site.

Soft landscaping works shall include: planting plans (at a scale not less than 1:100), written specification of planting and cultivation works to be undertaken and schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities and a programme for the implementation, completion and subsequent management of the proposed landscaping.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and shall be retained as such thereafter.

All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of any unit, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which die or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: To ensure that the development achieves a high standard of design, layout and amenity and makes provision for hard and soft landscaping which contributes to the creation of a high quality, accessible, safe and attractive environment.

### Appendix 3 - Minutes of Planning Committee Meetings

|Item 5.3<br><br>Barn Adj To Field 134413 Churchtown Ramsey Isle Of Man<br><br>PA24/00534/B|Conversion of existing redundant storage barn to provide a residential dwelling<br><br>Applicant: Mr Cleveland Perry Case Officer: Paul Visigah Recommendation: Refused|
|---|---|

The Case Officer reported on the matter and summarised the key issues as set out in the report and with reference to the visual presentation. He read out the reasons for refusal and pointed out that there were 3 clear reasons for refusal.

The Highway Services representative reported that they did not oppose to the layout access and parking.

The Applicant’s Agent was registered to speak and expressed the following:

 “The application whilst not directly meeting the criteria for relevant policy associated with refurbishment in the countryside does reflect the intent of the policy. We have been unable to establish any historical context for the property however the design respects the existing features and constraints presented by the building. It is redundant for its current use and following refurbishment by a previous owner involving replacement roof and support masonry in the form of buttressing this provides a canvas for us to have designed a well thought out solution which respects neighbours in terms of privacy and allows a poor building to be brought back into meaningful use. The proposal is for residential use by a direct family member to allow for the elderly applicant and his wife to remain in the main house in their dotage. The accommodation is modest and will ensure this property in the countryside does not become a further derelict in the landscape. The design is unashamedly modern using a sympathetic palette of materials which can be sourced locally. It is single storey, accessed from an existing driveway and providing car parking to service the property. The proposal represents significant planning gain. Supporting statements have been provided to assist the officer in their assessment and whilst the structure requires attention it is capable of full refurbishment. The use is compatible with all surrounding properties. I submit that whilst outside the main settlement boundary of Ramsey the site is within the wellestablished area known as Churchtown where there are 16 residential properties and one barn, the subject of the application. It was added that that DoI highways have no objection, Lezayre Parish commissioners support the application unanimously and that DEFA Ecopolicy Team has no adverse comments. The building is redundant.”

The Case Officer reiterated the section of his report under 7.2.4 in relation to all of the issues with the structure of the building that would conflict with the provisions of Housing

Policy 11 (part b). He also reinforced the fact that the scheme also failed to comply with Part C, which requires that the building to be converted have architectural value, be historic and also possesses social value, attributes which the current building did not have. Furthermore, he emphasized that the goal of HP 11 was not to enable the conversion of any building in the countryside, but those that held the values noted in parts in Part C, whilst noting that HP 11 does not provide for partial compliance with its parts, but that all elements need to be satisfied.

On the need to retain the building, the Case Officer noted that not all buildings are suitable for conversion and highlighted that this is the reason conditions are imposed on agricultural buildings that they be removed when they are no longer required. He emphasised that this building fits the type of building that should be removed as it offers no unique qualities to warrant retention.

In clarification of the key issues the Members enquired as to commissioners mentioned that there was a second entrance. That does not have planning approval. This was confirmed by the Case Officer and Applicant’s Agent that it is not an access and is a shared driveway.

The Member queried about a spring on the site, this was discussed, and it was highlighted to be addressed in the drainage.

The Members also then queried the structural integrity of the existing building, and the possibility of a structural report requiring demolition.

On this matter, the Case Officer reiterated that his recommendations on the structural capability of the building are based on the facts within the report which casts doubt on the suitability of the building for conversion, and that these have been adequately assessed in the report.

The Head of Development Management outlined that the planning here is for the conversion of the existing building and not the full demolition and replacement. If the building is to be wholly demolished, then a new planning application would be required.

DECISION

The Committee, with the exception of Mr Young, Mr Whiteway and the Chair, accepted the recommendation of the Case Officer and the application was refused for the following reason(s).

- R 1. General Policy 3 (GP3) establishes strict exceptions for countryside development, ensuring that proposals outside settlement boundaries adhere to specific housing and environmental policies. The proposal fails to satisfy GP3's requirements as it does not meet the provisions of Housing Policy 11 (HP11) or Housing Policy 4 (HP4), both of which regulate rural housing and conversion projects. The barn requires significant reconstruction, contradicting GP3's principle of retaining original structures without excessive intervention. The lack of architectural, historic, or social significance further undermines compliance, reinforcing that the development does not qualify as an acceptable countryside conversion.
- R 2. Housing Policy 11 (HP11) requires that redundant rural buildings be substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation without excessive rebuilding. However, the barn exhibits severe structural deficiencies, including leaning walls, inadequate foundations, and saturated soil conditions, necessitating major reconstruction beyond policy thresholds. Additionally, HP11 mandates that qualifying buildings possess architectural, historic, or social interest, yet the structure holds no architectural, heritage or communal value. Paragraph 8.10 of HP11 explicitly prohibits the rebuilding of ruins or the erection of replacement structures disguised as conversions, reinforcing that the extent of intervention required far exceeds permissible policy limits, leading to clear noncompliance.
- R 3. Housing Policy 4 (HP4) establishes a spatial strategy for sustainable housing development, restricting new housing in the countryside unless it meets strict exceptional circumstances. The policy prioritizes housing within existing towns and villages to ensure sustainable growth, protect rural landscapes, and prevent uncontrolled development in open countryside. Proposals for new housing outside designated settlements must fully comply with specific policy exceptions, including the conversion of redundant rural buildings under Housing Policy 11 (HP11). In this case, the proposal fails to meet HP4's requirements as the barn does not qualify for conversion under HP11 due to structural deficiencies and lack of architectural, historic, or social interest. HP4 reinforces HP11's provisions by ensuring that rural housing is permitted only where policy-defined needs exist, such as agricultural worker housing or conversions that maintain rural heritage. As

the proposal does not meet these exemptions, it contradicts HP4's strategic objectives for controlled countryside development.

### Interested Person Status

It was decided that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

Broadlands, Churchtown, Lezayre, Ramsey, as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status.

It was decided that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

The Rectory, Churchtown, Lezayre, Ramsey, as they are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy.

---

*Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).*
*Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/88418-lezayre-barn-adj-to-conversion-dwelling/documents/1141964*