**Document:** AP250007 Uplift Planning Appeal Statement on Behalf the Appellants
**Application:** AP25/0007 — Appeal against the approval for the erection of a new farmhouse and agricultural barn
**Decision:** Appeal dismissed - PA APPROVED
**Decision Date:** 2025-09-19
**Parish:** Marown
**Document Type:** appeal / appeal_statement
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/88406-braaid-fields-321756-324673-dwelling-outbuilding/documents/1142063

---

# AP250007 Uplift Planning Appeal Statement on Behalf the Appellants

STATEMENT OF CASE

Appeal against the approval of Planning Application 24/91306/B, which grants permission for the erection of a new farmhouse and agricultural barn at Fields 321756, 324673, and 324674, Braaid Road, Braaid, Isle of Man, IM4 2AN.

Submitted by Steven Stanley MRTPI, Uplift Planning Limited On behalf of the Appellants:

Redacted

White House Braaid Road Braaid Isle of Man IM4 2AW

## And the following neighbours who are Interested Persons:

•

•

•

Redacted

Deerae Braaid Crossroads Braaid IM4 2AW

Redacted

Holmlea Braaid Road Braaid IM4 2AW

Redacted

Bluebell House Braaid Road Braaid IM4 2AW

## 1. Introduction

This Statement of Case is submitted in support of an appeal to overturn the decision to approve Planning Application 24/91306/B, which permits the erection of a new farmhouse and agricultural barn at Fields 324673, 321756 & 324674, Braaid Road, The Braaid. It sets out the grounds on which the approval is fundamentally flawed in policy and planning terms, and why the development should not be allowed to proceed. The appellant contends that the Planning Committee’s decision to grant permission was incorrect and contrary to the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and other material considerations.

In summary, the approved proposal fails to meet the strict requirements for new agricultural workers’ dwellings in the open countryside, resulting in a development that conflicts with established planning policies and precedents. It would introduce an unjustified dwelling and large barn in an isolated rural location, causing unacceptable harm to the character of the Braaid countryside and the amenity of local residents. Key strategic policies – including General Policy 3 (Development Outside of Zoned Areas), Housing Policy 7 (Essential Dwellings for Agricultural Workers), Housing Policy 9 (Siting of Agricultural Dwellings), Housing Policy 10 (Design of Agricultural Dwellings), and Environment Policies 1 and 15 (Protection of the Countryside) – have not been properly applied. The approval also disregards a recent refusal on this very site (PA 21/01444/B in 2022) for a virtually identical proposal, as well as other past decisions, thereby setting a dangerous precedent.

This document will demonstrate, with reference to relevant planning policies, the Planning Officer’s report, the decision notice, and detailed objections from local residents, that the proposed development is fundamentally at odds with policy and should be refused. The appellant respectfully requests that the Inspector gives due weight to these matters and upholds the appeal by overturning the approval.

## 2. Failure to Properly Apply Housing Policy 9 and Related Housing Policies

Housing Policy 9 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 governs the siting criteria for any new agricultural worker’s dwelling. It states in full: “Where permission is granted for an agricultural dwelling, the dwelling must be sited such that; (a) it is within or immediately adjoining the main group of farm buildings or a group of farm buildings associated with that farm, (b) it is well set back from any public highway, and (c) it is approached via the existing farm access.”

These three tests are cumulative – a proposal must satisfy all limbs (a), (b) and (c) to comply with Policy 9. In the present case, the approved development manifestly fails each of these criteria, indicating that Housing Policy 9 was not properly applied in

granting permission:

- • Fails Policy 9(a) – Not within or adjoining a farm group: The proposed farmhouse is to be built on an open greenfield site where there are currently no existing farm buildings or established farmstead. It is not adjacent to any “main group of farm buildings” associated with the farm. In fact, the applicants’ farm operations are scattered on various land parcels in Santon, Onchan, and elsewhere, and the Braaid site consists only of empty fields with no structures. The dwelling would plainly be a standalone residence in the countryside, unconnected to any farm building group, contrary to limb (a) of Policy 9. This was a concern in the previous 2022 application, when objectors and the Planning Committee noted that the dwelling would appear as “a separate entity unconnected to any existing farm holding”. The approval ignores this fundamental siting requirement.
- • Fails Policy 9(b) – Not well set back from the highway: The Strategic Plan requires new farm dwellings to be well set back from public roads, to reduce visual prominence. The approved plans show the house located only about 9.2 metres from Braaid Road, which is a minimal setback offering little screening. This is not “well set back” in the context of a large open field. The dwelling’s height, akin more to a three-storey height due to its design, will make it dominate the road despite the modest setback. Thus, the proposal fails limb (b) of Policy 9 by positioning a substantial house close to the highway, rather than discreetly away from public view.
- • Fails Policy 9(c) – Not using an existing farm access: Instead of using an established farmyard entrance, the development relies on a newly created field access onto Braaid Road. The access in question was only recently constructed under a separate permission (PA 22/01148/B) to improve a field gateway. It is emphatically not an “existing farm access” serving a group of farm buildings, but merely a gate to an otherwise undeveloped field. As the White House objectors observed, calling this a “farm access” is misleading – it was a field access installed a few months ago and even that has not been fully completed in compliance with conditions. The development would in effect create a new access drive across a field, rather than approach via an established farmyard, failing limb (c) of Policy 9.

By failing all three limbs of Housing Policy 9, the proposal is in clear conflict with the Strategic Plan’s requirements for siting agricultural dwellings. Yet the approval was granted as if Policy 9 did not apply or could be set aside. This represents a serious misapplication of policy. The importance of Policy 9 is underscored by Paragraph 8.9.5 of the Strategic Plan, which advises that if a farm worker cannot live in the nearest village, any new dwelling in the countryside “should self-evidently form part of the farm

group”. The approved dwelling patently does not form part of any farm group – it is isolated on a hillside – so refusal is justified on this ground alone.

Housing Policy 7 and the “Essential Need” Test: In addition to siting, the proposal does not satisfy the fundamental requirement that new dwellings for agricultural workers in the countryside are only allowed where an essential functional need is demonstrated. General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan strictly presumes against development outside zoned settlement areas, except in special cases such as essential agricultural housing. Housing Policy 7 (which operates under GP3) provides that new agricultural workers’ dwellings may be permitted only if there is a proven essential need for a worker to live on-site. In the previous application (21/01444/B), it was determined that “such an essential need has not been demonstrated” and the proposal was therefore contrary to GP3 and Housing Policy 7.

The current application offered additional information, but it still falls short of proving an essential on-site presence is indispensable. The applicants currently reside in a nearby area (it was noted they live in a leased property in the vicinity). Other than the desire to own a farmhouse on their own land, no evidence shows that their existing living arrangements are untenable or that farm operations are suffering for lack of an onsite dwelling. As the local Marown Commissioners pointed out in their consultation response, “the family live in a nearby property which is not stated as being unsuitable aside from that it is leased rather than owned. There is no right to ownership of a property… There is therefore no requirement for an additional dwelling in the countryside.” In other words, personal preference or security of tenure is not sufficient justification to erect a new dwelling in protected countryside. Many agricultural enterprises function with rented land and housing; that alone does not create an exceptional circumstance.

No robust agricultural justification has been provided to prove that a full-time farm worker must live at Braaid to tend to livestock or crops there. In fact, the bulk of the applicants’ 600 acres of farmland and 480 ewes are elsewhere on the Island. The Braaid site itself is only about 5 acres of owned land, which by any measure is too small to sustain a standalone farm operation. It is submitted that the real intent is to establish a residential base or hub for the wider farming business, rather than to meet an essential need on this land. The previous refusal reason R3 highlighted that significant portions of the land farmed by the applicant already have farm dwellings associated with them and questioned why another dwelling was needed for the same farming enterprise. That question remains unanswered. It appears the applicants simply wish to centralise their activities at the Braaid for convenience, but convenience is not “essential need.” Indeed, the 2022 Committee concluded that an additional dwelling was not warranted given the limited owned acreage, the applicants’ tenant farmer status (with no security

of tenure on most land), and the existence of other farm dwellings in their operation. Nothing material has changed since that refusal – the essential need is still unproven.

Furthermore, even if one were to accept some need for closer supervision of animals (e.g. lambing), the proper test is whether that need could be met by existing accommodation in the area. The applicants have not demonstrated that there were no alternative houses or farmsteads available for purchase or rent in the locality (for example, within nearby villages or settlements) that could meet their needs. The Strategic Plan expects applicants to explore living in a nearby village as a first option. Instead, the applicants focused on the fact that they failed to purchase one particular farm tenancy house in Greeba some years ago. This anecdote does not equate to an exhaustive search or lack of any options. There have been many opportunities to buy a house within Braaid, Stuggadhoo and wider St Marks area, including most notably the White House being on the market many times in 2020, 2022 and 2023 and Balladhoo Croft, Clanna Road, Braaid for sale in 2024 (which also had an acre of land). The Commissioners noted that several dwellings built for agriculture have been sold off after having their agricultural occupancy conditions removed – indeed the applicant cited such examples . Had those properties remained tied to agriculture, the applicants might have been able to occupy one of them. This underscores that the policy mechanism of agricultural occupancy ties must be upheld, rather than circumvented by building new houses. The approval of a new dwelling here, when other tied dwellings have been lost to the open market, sends the wrong message and undermines the integrity of the system.

Harmful Policy Precedent: By approving this application, the Department sets a harmful precedent that threatens to erode established countryside protection policies. The Braaid hamlet and surrounding area have a long history of applications for dwellings being refused in order to uphold the Strategic Plan. Objectors with decades of local knowledge attested that previous attempts to develop these same fields and others in the Braaid have consistently been refused by both the Planning Committee and on appeal. Notably, application 21/01444/B (a very similar proposal on this site) was refused in August 2022 for failing to meet the essential need and other policy tests, and that refusal was not appealed (or any appeal was dismissed). Planning Application 13/00925/A was another similar application in Braaid for an agricultural dwelling. This was refused for the very similar reasons to those we consider should apply to this application (24/91306/B). Planning Application 13/00925/A was refused on the basis that, among other things, it would be contrary to GP 3, EP 1 and 15, HP 7 and 9 and, in particular, the reasons for refusal noted “the proposed dwelling would not be sited so as to be part of the existing group of main farm buildings” and “the proposal would necessitate the need for visibility splays that would have a significantly detrimental effect on the character and quality of the landscape”. Even older proposals from the late 1990s (refs. 97/01184 and 98/02201) for development in Braaid were turned down. To

now approve what is essentially the same development flips the policy on its head and encourages others to try again. As one objection letter warned, if this application succeeded it “would set a very dangerous precedent giving hope to previous unsuccessful applications… as well as encouraging new applications to seek development opportunities in Braaid. If approved it would set a precedent for future developments of green fields in the surrounding area.”. In short, it opens the floodgates for speculative building in the countryside, because it signals that the Government will relax the rules for those persistent enough to reapply. This directly conflicts with the Strategic Plan’s core aim to “protect the countryside for its own sake” (Environment Policy 1) and to strictly control sporadic housing development in rural areas.

In conclusion on this point, the proposal does not meet the established requirements for new agricultural worker dwellings. Housing Policy 7’s essential need test is not met, and Housing Policy 9’s siting criteria are blatantly breached. The prior refusal reasons on these exact grounds (R1 and R3 of the 2022 decision) remain as valid as ever. By failing to properly apply these policies, the decision to approve was flawed. The development should have been refused in line with the Strategic Plan and the approach taken on previous applications.

## 3. Unacceptable Visual Impact on the Countryside

Allowing a new large farmhouse and barn in this location will cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the countryside at the Braaid. The site lies in a prominent, undeveloped rural landscape which the Strategic Plan and Area Plan seek to protect. According to the Isle of Man Area Plan for the East (2020), this area (Landscape Character Area D10 “Braaid”) has a strategy to “conserve and enhance… the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area, with its open large pastoral fields, … its scattered farm houses fringed by trees, … and its enclosed rural road network”. The proposed development directly contradicts this strategy by introducing a substantial new building complex into an open field, in a manner that is neither scattered nor screened by tree cover. There are currently extensive uninterrupted views across these fields – a defining feature of the locale – which would be marred by the insertion of a 2-storey (or effectively 3-storey height) house and barn.

Impact on Landscape Character: The Braaid hamlet is characterised by its small cluster of dwellings and farmsteads surrounded by large expanses of open land. Indeed, the Planning Committee on previous occasions noted that “the character of the Braaid is largely formed by the undeveloped and random appearance of the hamlet.”

This proposal would fundamentally alter that character by formalizing development in a currently open area, effectively extending the hamlet. The dwelling and barn would sit high on the hillside (the application site is elevated relative to some surrounding areas) and would be visible from all directions.

Neighbours have pointed out that the site is exposed and can be seen from surrounding roads and even from distant viewpoints such as Chibbanagh Plantation and the heritage site, The Braaid (remains of an Iron Age roundhouse and Viking longhouses). The visibility will increase further with the loss of mature trees – for example, the owners of Bluebell House noted they must fell approximately 10 diseased ash trees on their property, which currently provide some screening; once those are gone, the new buildings “will become even more visible” in the landscape.

Crucially, the agricultural barn is sited on higher ground, away from other buildings, which exacerbates its visual impact. The Planning Committee itself apparently recognised this in its decision notice, stating: “The proposed agricultural barn… would be sited at too great a distance from the proposed dwelling and existing dwellings within the village, contrary to the provisions of Environment Policy 15… which requires new agricultural buildings to be sited as closely to existing building groups as practical. The proposed barn would further be sited in an exposed and elevated location with the potential to result in an obtrusive feature in the context of the wider landscape.”. This explicit finding – that the barn’s siting is unacceptable and contrary to policy – underscores the visual harm. Environment Policy 15 of the Strategic Plan is designed to avoid exactly this scenario by clustering new farm buildings near existing ones, to limit intrusion. Approving such a layout contradicts Policy 15 and good practice.

The overall development would appear as a new homestead complex in the middle of open countryside, where currently there is none. It would introduce a house of considerable bulk (a six-bedroom, multi-level farmhouse with an attached garage wing) and a large agricultural shed with yard area. The visual contrast between this development and the existing landscape would be stark. As stated in the earlier refusal reason R2 for the 2021/22 application, “the isolated position of the dwelling within the countryside is not considered appropriate and would harm the character and quality of the landscape… representing an unwarranted development that is detrimental to the amenity of the countryside”. That refusal reason concluded the proposal was contrary to Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan, which protects the countryside for its own sake, and to Housing Policy 9 (which requires new development to be next to existing farm development). Similarly, refusal reason R4 emphasised that without a justified need, the development (house, barn, and new access road) would “introduce built development in an area not currently so characterised,” conflicting with the Area Plan’s Landscape Character Appraisal goal to preserve open pastoral fields, and breaching Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 15 which prioritise protecting landscape character and grouping new buildings with existing ones. All of these points remain directly relevant to the approved scheme – it suffers the same fundamental flaw of being an unwarranted intrusion into open countryside.

A previous application 21/01444/B from the same applicant at this site was only for a 4bedroom bungalow which was refused. Now the applicant is seeking a much larger development, a 6-bedroom house which is two stories (over three floors including the bedrooms in the attic space) together with a garage. There appears to be no clear explanation for this and is a substantial change in the development and out of keeping with the requirements for an agricultural dwelling.

Visual Intrusion and Prominence: Multiple neighbours described the likely visual impact in strong terms. The occupiers of The White House (directly opposite the site) stated that the development would “significantly change our outlook” and be detrimental to their enjoyment of their property. They are only about 5 metres away from the site (across the road), so they will experience the sudden appearance of a large building mass where there was none, dominating their front view. Another neighbour noted that currently their outlook is across open fields, which would change to looking at a three-storey gabled house. The height and scale of the farmhouse (reported as roughly comparable to the adjacent Holmlea, one of the tallest in the hamlet) will make it stick out above hedge lines. Even with conditions requiring some landscaping, the officer’s report and objectors highlight that insufficient landscaping was proposed to mitigate the impact. There is no significant planting of trees or woodland around the buildings to blend them into the landscape – only some boundary hedges are indicated. Planning Circular 3/91 (on design in the countryside) Policy 2 advises that new buildings in prominent locations should only be considered if they are satisfactory in all respects and include comprehensive landscape proposals. Here, the buildings are in a prominent spot but do not include adequate landscaping (and ironically, any tall planting near the road could conflict with required highway visibility, as the plan even showed new hedging within the visibility splay). This shortfall contravenes basic rural design guidance and adds to the concern that the development will be visually stark.

Furthermore, the required access improvements will themselves harm the rural character. To achieve sightlines for the new entrance, a significant length of traditional Manx hedge-bank along Braaid Road must be altered or removed. The White House owners quantified the loss: about 750mm (0.75m) will be shaved off the height of the roadside earthen bank, and several trees will be removed to create the visibility splay. This alteration will urbanize the road edge, opening up views of the new driveway and buildings and reducing the rural, enclosed road feel that is characteristic of the Braaid (the LCA notes the importance of sunken lanes and hedgerows). One objection notes that “there will be a significant loss of established Manx hedge due to the entrance”, which in turn is detrimental to the landscape and to the natural screening of the site. The hedge and bank are not only aesthetic features but also part of the ecological fabric of the countryside. Environment Policy 1 seeks to protect such features as part of the countryside’s value. By approving a development that necessitates their removal, the decision again undermines policy aims.

It is also worth noting the cumulative visual effects: The farmhouse and barn are accompanied by ancillary development – a new driveway, a yard/hardstanding, parked vehicles and machinery, external lighting, etc. Little detail was provided about these in the application (a concern raised by objectors regarding lack of clarity on surfaces, finishes, fencing, gates, lighting, etc.). However, inevitably a new farm complex will introduce features like security lighting on the barn, domestic lighting around the house, possibly fuel tanks or silage clamps, and parked tractors or trailers. At night, light emanating from a dwelling and barn in this currently dark field will contribute to light pollution, altering the nighttime character; yet the application gave no lighting scheme or assessment. These factors would further detract from the rural tranquillity and scenery of the area.

In summary, the development’s visual impact is unacceptable and in direct conflict with the policies that protect the countryside. The approval failed to properly consider Environment Policy 1 (“the countryside… will be protected for its own sake”), Environment Policy 15 (new farm buildings to be near existing ones to protect landscape), and General Policy 2 criteria aimed at safeguarding visual amenity and character. The Planning Committee itself cited visual harm from the barn’s location in its refusal reason (for the barn), yet the overall development was still approved – a contradiction that illustrates the unsoundness of the decision. Prior decisions (including the 2022 refusal) clearly found the landscape harm to be a reason for refusal. The same conclusion should have been reached here. The Inspector is urged to give substantial weight to the damage this proposal would do to the character and appearance of the Braaid countryside, and to refuse the development in line with Strategic Plan policies and the development plan.

## 4. Impact on Residential Amenity

The approved development would adversely affect the amenity and living conditions of nearby residents in the Braaid hamlet. The application site is immediately adjacent to existing homes – notably “Holmlea” and “The White House” on the opposite side of Braaid Road, and close to “Bluebell House, Braaid Farm” just to the south. These are not distant third parties, but neighbours in very close proximity (the White House boundary is essentially the edge of the road, only ~5m from the new buildings). The introduction of a two-family dwelling and an agricultural enterprise at this location stands to create several amenity issues: loss of privacy, loss of outlook/light, noise disturbance (day and night), increased traffic and highway danger, and general loss of tranquillity. Many of these concerns were voiced in the objection letters from the affected neighbours. The approval did not adequately account for these impacts, some of which also tie into policy conflicts.

Privacy and Overlooking: The new farmhouse will overlook adjacent properties, given its scale and siting. Bluebell House (across the road) explained that their previously

private outlook across open fields will be altered such that the windows of the new house will face toward their home, overlooking their driveway, entrance hall, and gardens. The farmhouse is designed with multiple storeys, so upper-floor windows will have sightlines over boundary hedges. What was a quiet field will effectively become an occupied plot with direct views into neighbouring yards. This loss of privacy is a material planning concern, especially in a rural area where residents expect a degree of seclusion. The objectors at Bluebell House explicitly cited privacy as an issue, noting the new house “will be visible from our south/south-west windows” and that their property “will be completely overlooked by the new house’s East/North facing windows.”

They also fear reduced daylight in their garden due to the height and proximity of the house. Holmlea, which is immediately adjacent (sharing a field boundary), can be expected to experience similar overlooking and dominance.

The White House, directly across the road, will also have their front aspect fundamentally changed – instead of looking across a rural road to greenery, they will face a house and the entrance to a farmyard. They have stated this will “significantly change our outlook” and be detrimental to the enjoyment of our property. Such effects on visual amenity and privacy could have been avoided if the dwelling were situated next to an existing farm group away from other houses (as policy intends), but in this case the chosen site maximises the impact on neighbours.

Noise and Disturbance: The development brings the potential for significant noise, both from the agricultural operations and the residential use, which would disturb nearby residents. The proposed barn is intended for housing livestock (e.g., lambing of sheep) and possibly other farming activities. By its nature, this can create noise at odd hours – sheep bleating, tractors starting early in the morning, dogs barking, etc. The White House objectors specifically raised that “we will be disturbed by noise during the night when lambing or calving in the shed is taking place”. Lambing season often requires attention throughout the night, which could include vehicle movements, lights, and noise on-site. Such agricultural noise was previously not present here (since no farm buildings exist on the land currently). Introducing it so close to existing dwellings is bound to disrupt the quiet rural enjoyment that the neighbours currently have.

Moreover, the applicant has indicated an intention to use the property for dog training (training sheepdogs, as referenced in supporting information). Neighbours are understandably concerned about this – one letter notes that “the proposed dog training business would create unacceptable noise pollution; the Braaid valley naturally amplifies sound and carries far and wide.”. Multiple dogs barking or being whistled at in a training session would echo across the valley, affecting not only immediate neighbours but potentially the broader area. This kind of disturbance is at odds with the

peaceful rural character and could be viewed as a quasi-commercial use on the site (dog training for others) that intensifies the impact.

General residential activity from two households (the applicant and his son’s family) living on site will also increase noise and comings/goings compared to an empty field. While normal residential noise is usually not a ground for refusal, here it is coupled with farm noise and traffic in a formerly undeveloped spot, making the change more pronounced. The cumulative activity – families, farm operations, dog training – led one couple to describe the proposal as bringing “noise pollution caused by heavy agricultural machinery and the anti-social hours involved in the proposed farming activities”, which they and their neighbours would have to endure.

Traffic, Highway Safety, and Disturbance: Braaid Road (A26) adjacent to the site is a busy through-road, and the nearby Braaid Roundabout (junction of A26/A24) is a known accident spot. Introducing a new access and significantly increasing use of this junction creates safety hazards and disturbance for residents who also use this road daily. The White House, being immediately opposite the new driveway, is particularly concerned that a dwelling for two families will generate traffic that interferes with road safety “especially when we and visitors are entering and leaving our house.”

At present, these neighbours pull out onto Braaid Road with relative ease given minimal to no traffic from the field; with a developed site, there will be regular ingress/egress of cars and farm vehicles that could conflict with neighbours’ movements. There is fear of collisions or near-misses impacting their access.

Highway safety concerns are elaborated in Section 5 below, but from an amenity perspective the issue is the increase in traffic and activity on what was a quiet field entrance. Bluebell House noted the applicant’s statements that he will be transporting sheep back and forth from rented land across the island, which “will generate an unacceptable level of traffic on this stretch of road.”

They listed that two households’ cars, plus farm tractors and trailers, plus vehicles towing livestock, will all use this entrance, far exceeding the current usage. The resulting noise (engines, gates, etc.), dust, and headlight glare at night would affect the houses adjacent. This kind of disturbance – essentially converting a pasture into a hub of activity – is a significant change for residents. It is also noted that the roads in the Braaid hamlet are narrow; large farm vehicles turning in and out could create noise and disruption. The Bluebell House objection predicts a “dramatic increase in vehicle activity (tractors/trailers/cars etc.) onto the A26” and emphasizes that slow-moving farm traffic near the roundabout is not only dangerous but also disruptive.

Additionally, light pollution from vehicles and buildings is a concern. With an access road opposite The White House, for example, any car coming out at night will cast headlights directly towards that home. External lighting on the barn or yard (for security

or evening work) will shine in what was previously a dark field. Bluebell House noted that the application gave no details on external lighting, leaving them worried about how much lighting would be installed around the house and barn. Unchecked lighting can cause glare and loss of rural dark skies, affecting residents’ sleep and the ambiance of the area.

In planning policy terms, developments should not unduly harm the amenity of neighbouring properties. General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan includes criteria to protect existing residents from adverse effects (such as noise, loss of privacy, or safety issues). The approval of this application appears to give insufficient weight to these amenity protections. The objections from multiple immediate neighbours illustrate the real and specific harms they anticipate from loss of privacy and outlook to noise at night and safety hazards for their families. These are not abstract concerns, but practical ones grounded in local knowledge (for instance, the detail about how sound carries in the valley, or how difficult the access turns are for farm trailers).

In summary, the development would unacceptably diminish the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers through overlooking, noise (including nighttime agricultural noise), increased traffic and associated dangers, loss of visual amenity, and potential light pollution. These impacts further demonstrate that the chosen site and design are inappropriate. The Inspector is asked to consider that a development causing such a range of neighbour objections is likely not in the public interest, and that a refusal is merited on amenity grounds in addition to the policy conflicts discussed elsewhere.

## 5. Additional Planning Considerations

Beyond the core policy issues above, there are several additional planning concerns that weigh against the approved development. These relate to the applicant’s landholding and the agricultural justification for the barn, highway safety deficiencies, and infrastructure issues (drainage, access design, etc.). Each of these factors provides further reason why the approval should not stand.

Applicant’s Landholding and Agricultural Justification: As noted, the applicants own only a very small portion of the land they farm – roughly 5 acres at Braaid – with the remainder (on the order of 600 acres) being tenanted fields spread across multiple locations. This fragmented landholding raises legitimate questions about the necessity and sustainability of building a new farmhouse and barn on this particular site. The previous application’s refusal reason R3 highlighted the limited amount of owned land and the existence of other farm dwellings on the farms being worked, concluding that “no justification has been made… to explain why an additional agricultural worker’s dwelling should be provided” given these circumstances. In other words, if the applicants are already farming land that has associated farmhouses (presumably

occupied by others or rented out), why create another dwelling instead of utilizing or improving existing accommodations? The approval did not address this discrepancy.

Furthermore, the scale of farming operations vs. the utility of this site is questionable. The applicant proposes to lamb a flock of 480 ewes here, yet the available grazing at Braaid would be extremely limited after building a house, barn, and driveway on the 5-acre parcel. This calls into doubt how “integral” this site truly is to the farm business – it suggests that most of the flock and activities would still have to occur on remote rented fields, with Braaid acting mainly as a base. One objection letter put it succinctly: “The proposed site is not big enough to be run as a farm (5 acres); the intention and danger in our opinion is that it will be used instead as a residential dwelling and a central hub/base for the applicant’s wider farming activities.”. This view is reinforced by the applicants’ own support letters which stress the convenience of having a centralised location (e.g. to avoid driving 7.2 miles to tend sheepdogs twice a day). While convenience is understandable, planning policy requires functional need, not just efficiency gains. The concern is that the barn and farmhouse will serve as a depot for a dispersed farming operation, meaning more traffic as equipment and livestock are shuttled in and out – effectively hubbing the farming activities in a spot that is not an established farmstead. This is an inefficient and potentially unsustainable pattern of development, as it could invite the need for even more buildings or expansions on the site in future to support the wider farm (e.g., silos, bigger sheds if livestock numbers grow, etc.). The Strategic Plan generally discourages such piecemeal development in the countryside that is not tied to the scale and nature of the land on site.

Additionally, no robust justification for the new barn was provided in isolation. The Commissioners’ comments noted “there is no justification shown for the barn”. If the primary use of the barn is lambing, it is questionable whether existing buildings elsewhere (either on the applicants’ rented land or through rental of nearby farm buildings) could serve that purpose. The applicant even acknowledged that they have use of one rented barn (albeit with limitations like no electricity). It has not been clearly explained why upgrading an existing building or securing a different barn was not pursued instead of building new in this sensitive location. The risk is that the barn, once built, could be underused for agriculture and potentially used for other purposes. A cautionary example was raised by residents: a large agricultural barn on Braaid Road that was permitted in recent years for cattle shelter is now being used for multiple other purposes, with a significant impact on the countryside and environment. This suggests that even with good intentions, agricultural buildings can end up as general storage or business units, which would be an undesirable outcome here. The approval should have considered these aspects, possibly requiring conditions (as it did, limiting the barn to agriculture only and requiring removal if not needed). However, enforcing such

conditions is a challenge and does not erase the immediate landscape and amenity impact.

In summary on this point, the need for this particular development is not convincingly supported by the applicants’ landholding situation. The prior refusal recognized that the applicants are tenant farmers with no long-term security on most of their land, meaning circumstances could change and leave a new farmhouse redundant. Without owning a viable farm unit at Braaid, the new farmhouse appears speculative. Approving it effectively grants a new open-market dwelling under the guise of agriculture (especially if an occupancy condition is later removed – a concern the Commissioners expressly had). This undermines the integrity of policy and is another reason the decision to approve was misguided.

Highway Safety and Access Design: The creation of a new access and the intensification of use on Braaid Road raise significant highway safety issues that were not properly resolved before approval. The application intends to utilise the improved field access (from PA 22/01148/B) for daily residential and agricultural traffic. However, the earlier access approval was granted on the basis that it did not entail intensification of use – it was just to improve an existing field entrance, with Highway Services noting acceptance only because there was “no intensification or change in use” at that time. Now that a farmhouse and barn are proposed, the situation is different, and the adequacy of the access must be reconsidered from scratch.

The visibility splays at the access are substandard for the volume and type of traffic now expected. Under the Manual for Manx Roads standards (and in line with safety best practices), a 40mph road typically requires around 70m visibility in each direction; if parts of the road are national speed limit (derestricted, 60mph), splays of 120m can be needed. According to the information from objectors, the visibility to the north-east of the access (toward Braaid roundabout direction) is constrained and was not improved fully in the last application. The approved drawings from 22/01148/B showed visibility to the road’s centreline rather than the nearside edge, and Highway Services acknowledged the leftward splay “did not meet the full requirement” but let it pass since use was limited. Now, however, with daily use by residents and farm vehicles, failure to meet standard splays is a serious hazard. The current application apparently did not even include a plan demonstrating the achievable visibility, likely because the applicant does not control the land to the north-east beyond his boundary to cut back the hedge further. In other words, there may be a hard limit to how much visibility can be obtained in that direction. The White House submission points out that the bank to the north-east is in an unrestricted speed zone and argues the splay should be 120m, which is likely impossible without third-party land. This is a major safety red flag.

Even to the south-west, while that direction is into the 40mph zone approaching the roundabout, one must consider the danger of vehicles turning out so close to the roundabout. The objectors note that the Braaid Roundabout and the A26/A24 junction have a history of accidents. Increasing turning movements just a short distance from the roundabout could exacerbate this, as drivers may be accelerating out of the junction and not expect a tractor pulling onto the road. The appellants from Bluebell House expressed concern that the access for farm vehicles would be “very dangerous given the current 40-mile speed limit and the close proximity of the proposed entrance to the roundabout”.

On balance, the highway safety concerns are serious enough that, had the application been properly reviewed, further information or improvements should have been required before any approval. The decision to approve as-is, presumably conditioned on a future highway agreement puts the onus on post-planning processes to resolve critical safety matters. The appellant contends that this is not good practice. Planning permission should only be given when it’s clear that safe access can be achieved. Here, it is far from clear – in fact, evidence suggests it cannot meet normal standards without third-party land or extensive alterations. This is another ground on which the approval is faulty.

In conclusion, these additional considerations all point to a development that is not properly planned or justified. The approval seems to have glossed over or deferred solutions to several of these problems, whereas a robust assessment would have maintained that refusal (or at least deferral) is the prudent course until they are resolved. The appeal should succeed on the basis that these planning issues render the proposal unacceptable and contrary to policy (e.g., General Policy 2(b) requires adequate access and services, which are in doubt).

## 6. Other Relevant Arguments

In addition to the main grounds above, there are further arguments and evidence from the case that support overturning the approval. These include concerns about the design of the dwelling (compliance with design guidance), the risk of abuse of any planning conditions, and the general consistency of decision-making. While some of these points may not individually be decisive, collectively they reinforce the conclusion that this development is ill-conceived and detrimental.

Design and Policy Compliance (Housing Policy 10 and Circular 3/91): The design of the proposed farmhouse does not adequately reflect the traditional character of Manx rural dwellings, contrary to Housing Policy 10 of the Strategic Plan. Housing Policy 10 states that “Where permission is granted for an agricultural dwelling, the dwelling should normally be designed in accordance with policies 1–7 of Planning Circular 3/91”. Planning Circular 3/91, “Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the

Countryside,” lays out principles to ensure new farmhouses are modest and in keeping with vernacular architecture. The previous application was criticized for its design under these guidelines – Refusal Reason R5 explicitly cited that the design did not reflect the policies 1-7 of Circular 3/91 and thus failed to comply with Housing Policy 10. The applicants made some changes in the new proposal, but objectors and the evidence indicate that significant design issues remain.

For instance, Circular 3/91 Policy 2 says new buildings should be integrated with the landscape and, if isolated, must be satisfactory in all respects with proper landscaping (as discussed earlier, this has not been met). Policy 3 and related guidance emphasize that the shape of small/medium country dwellings should follow the size and pattern of traditional farmhouses – generally rectangular, simple, with appropriate proportions. However, the proposed farmhouse is notably larger and more complex than a typical traditional farmhouse. The White House objection analysed the plans and found that while a traditional Manx farmhouse might have plan dimensions around 11m x 5.5m, the proposed dwelling’s main section is about 13m x 7.5m, with an additional substantial annex wing of 6.5m x 7.3m. This is far in excess of the recommended size and creates a sprawling footprint rather than a compact form. The massing is broken into a main house and a side garage/annex, which the objectors note is “not recognised within the examples” of traditional layouts. The front elevation proportions also deviate – windows on the ground floor are wider horizontal rectangles, whereas vernacular farmhouses have a vertical emphasis (tall, narrow windows). The garage wing has a full duo-pitch roof which looks like a modern add-on, rather than the traditional approach of a lean-to roof off the gable.

These design choices mean the house will not appear as a natural part of the rural scene but rather as a modern suburban-style house transplanted into a field. Taking these observations into consideration, the White House letter concluded that “the design of the proposed dwelling does not comply with the requirements laid down in PC 3/91 and as such the application does not satisfy Housing Policy 10.”. The appellant agrees with this assessment. If Housing Policy 10 had been correctly applied, the proposal’s design shortcomings would be another reason to refuse or require redesign. By approving the application without addressing these, the decision once again sidelined a relevant policy.

Support for Agriculture vs. Planning Harm: The applicant garnered some letters of support (including from a Member of the House of Keys for the area and other farmers) emphasising the need to support the next generation of Manx farmers and the welfare of animals. While agricultural succession and animal welfare are important considerations, they should not override planning policies. The Strategic Plan policies themselves balance the needs of agriculture with protection of the countryside by allowing exceptions only when strict criteria are met. Approving an unjustified dwelling

is not a requisite for supporting agriculture in general – many farmers operate within the existing policy framework successfully. Animal welfare can often be addressed by improving facilities at existing farms or using technology (alarms, cameras for lambing sheds, etc.) rather than building new dwellings in every location. The support letters did not speak to the specific planning merits of this site; they were more about general sympathy for farmers. The Inspector should give greater weight to the clear, site-specific planning objections rather than to generic support.

## 7. Conclusion

For all the reasons detailed above, the appellant respectfully submits that the appeal should succeed, and the approval of Planning Application 24/91306/B should be overturned. The proposed development is fundamentally at odds with the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Area Plan for the East, and it would cause significant harm to the public interests those plans protect. In particular:

- • Policy Non-Compliance: The proposal conflicts with key Strategic Plan policies designed to restrain unwarranted development in the countryside. It fails General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 7 by not demonstrating an essential need for a new agricultural dwelling. It egregiously fails Housing Policy 9 on all counts by placing the dwelling in an isolated position, close to the road and via a new access. It does not meet Housing Policy 10 as the design disregards established rural design criteria. It violates Environment Policy 1, which seeks to protect the character of the countryside for its own sake, and Environment Policy 15, which requires new ag buildings to be sited with existing ones (the barn is not). These policy breaches were precisely the reasons the previous application was refused in 2022, and no genuine material changes have occurred to merit a different outcome now.
- • Harm to Countryside Character: The development would introduce an unwarranted and obtrusive complex into a landscape characterized by open fields and scattered farmsteads. It would diminish the scenic quality of the Braaid area, contradicting the “conserve and enhance” objectives of the local Landscape Character plan. The Planning Committee’s own reason for refusing the barn (exposed, elevated, obtrusive) attests to this harm. By eroding hedgerows and adding large buildings and hardstandings, the proposal would irreversibly alter the rural character. Environment Policy 1 and related policies emphasize that such harm is not acceptable, especially for development lacking strong justification. The visual amenity of both the general public (viewing the area) and the immediate neighbours would be seriously impacted, making this an unsustainable development.

- • Adverse Impact on Neighbours: The appeal has shown that local residents’ amenity would be unacceptably affected. Issues of privacy loss, increased noise (including at night), traffic dangers, and light pollution are all anticipated by those who know the area best. These are legitimate planning concerns that should have carried great weight. Approving a development that causes several neighbours to fear for their safety and comfort is not in line with good planning practice or policy (General Policy 2 criteria). Dismissing these concerns was a mistake; the Inspector is urged to acknowledge the substantial evidence of likely harm to residential amenity and give it due consideration in favour of refusal.
- • Precedent: Overturning this approval is also crucial to uphold the integrity of planning policy and prevent a precedent that others could exploit. If this development were allowed to stand, it would send a message that persistence and minor tweaks can override fundamental policy objections. It would make it harder for the Department to resist similar applications on other “white land” (unzoned countryside) parcels, as applicants would point to this case as an example. Conversely, a decision to refuse (or to allow this appeal) would reinforce the Strategic Plan’s authority and the consistent approach the Department has taken in the past. It would show that the system supports farmers only within reason and that conservation of the countryside remains paramount unless a clear need is shown. Given that past appeals on this site and area have been dismissed to protect the Braaid’s character, the same outcome should result now to maintain consistency.

The appellant emphasises that this appeal is not an anti-farming stance – it is about appropriate development. The Isle of Man’s planning policies do provide for new farm dwellings and buildings when genuinely needed and suitably sited. This proposal, however, fails those tests. It represents development in the wrong place for insufficient reasons.

Request to the Inspector: In light of the above, the Inspector is respectfully requested to recommend that this appeal be allowed, thereby refusing permission for the proposed farmhouse and barn at Braaid Road. This would uphold the Strategic Plan and prevent a damaging development.

## 8. Appendix: Summary of Objections from Neighbours

(This appendix summarises the main points of the objections submitted by local residents during the planning application process.)

Holmlea, Braaid Road (immediately adjacent to site): The residents of Holmlea are directly abutting the application field. In an email dated 28 January 2024, they indicated they would “be strongly opposed” to the proposal and sought Interested Party status.

They noted the development is “extremely close to our property”. Although their full list of objections was to be submitted later, it can be inferred that their concerns include the proximity of the house and barn (only a few metres from their boundary) and the impacts on their privacy, outlook, and tranquillity. Being so close, they would experience construction disturbance and ongoing noise from the farm. Holmlea’s owners essentially share all the general concerns raised by others – that a large new farmhouse and barn in such close proximity would adversely affect their residential amenity (privacy, noise, light, etc.) and that the development is inappropriate in this location.

The White House, Braaid Road (directly opposite site): The owners of The White House submitted a detailed objection letter on 30 January 2024. Their property lies immediately across Braaid Road from the proposed house – essentially as close as Holmlea, separated only by the width of the highway (~5m). Key concerns they raised include:

- • Road Safety and Access: They believe a new residence for two families will create a traffic hazard when they or visitors are entering/leaving their own driveway. They note the intensification of use of the access will be detrimental to safety. They also highlight deficiencies in the access visibility and design: the required lowering of the hedge bank by 0.75m and removal of trees for the visibility splay will harm the area and still impact their enjoyment. They mention that the access as built is not fully compliant (the bank had not been reduced to the approved height, etc.) and that adequate sightlines cannot be achieved to the north-east.
- • Residential Amenity: The White House residents are concerned about loss of outlook and amenity, stating the development will significantly change their view and enjoyment of their home. The new buildings will be roughly 5m from their front boundary, dominating their immediate environment. They specifically cite the removal of the hedge and trees (for the splay) as detrimental to their outlook and amenity. They also anticipate being disturbed by noise, especially at night from lambing or calving activities in the barn so nearby. Additionally, having a farm entrance right across the road could lead to headlights shining into their property and general disturbance at odd hours.
- • Policy and Precedent: They point out the site is not zoned for development under the Development Plan (they reference the 1982 order) and thus the proposal is “contra policy”. They reference the previous refusal (21/01444/B) on the site and assert that “the facts remain the same” so this application should also be refused. They argue it should have been rejected outright as a similar application, reflecting a concern about precedent if such repeat applications are entertained.

- • Housing Policy 9 Siting Tests: The White House letter provides a thorough analysis of how the proposal fails Housing Policy 9. They quote the policy criteria (a), (b), (c) in full and explain that: (a) there are no farm buildings on or near the site (the farm’s land is elsewhere), so the dwelling is not part of a farm group; (b) the dwelling is only 9.2m from the road, not “well set back,” thus failing that test; (c) the access is a new field access, not an existing farm access, so it fails that as well.
- • Landscape and Design: They express that the proposal shows a “real lack of regard to the landscape and rural character” of the area. They note the absence of meaningful tree planting to screen the development, contravening Planning Circular 3/91 guidelines. They further critique the design of the house: its proportions far exceed traditional farmhouse sizes (citing the dimensions), the facade proportions (window shapes) are not in keeping, and the garage annex design is out of character. They conclude the design fails to comply with Circular 3/91 policies and thus Housing Policy 10.

Overall, The White House’s objection is one of the most comprehensive, touching on nearly every issue: policy, precedent, safety, amenity, landscape, and design. They “strongly oppose” the application and explicitly “request that the application be refused.”

Their concerns directly support the arguments made in Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this Statement, especially regarding Policy 9, visual impact, and neighbour amenity.

Bluebell House, Braaid Farm (opposite field, slightly south): The residents of Bluebell House submitted multiple letters, including a detailed objection on 6 February 2024 and attached their previous objections to the 2021 and 2022 applications. Bluebell House is located just south of the site, on the opposite side of Braaid Road, facing the open field where the development would go. Their main points include:

- • Scale and Dominance: They note the proposed farmhouse is a “3-storey, 4bedroom” dwelling with a height comparable to Holmlea, and “this will dominate the landscape/views, currently open fields.”. They are concerned that such a tall structure will be highly visible and overbearing when viewed from their property and from around the area.
- • Loss of Privacy and Light: Bluebell House’s south and southwest-facing windows currently overlook open land; with the development, “this will change” as the house will be visible and overlooking them. They specifically mention their driveway and entrance hall will be overlooked by the new house’s windows, and that their gardens (currently private) will lose privacy. They also fear that daylight to their property will be “adversely affected due to the height of the proposed house.”. This highlights concerns of overlooking and shadowing.

- • Traffic and Highway Safety: Bluebell House is very concerned about the safety of the A26 Braaid Road access. They describe it as a “busy and fast” road and say they have “real safety concerns” about the entrance. In particular, they doubt the road “will cope with the extra traffic” from two families’ cars plus agricultural vehicles. They echo that the applicant stated he will be moving sheep in and out, which “will generate an unacceptable level of traffic on this stretch of road.”. They likely experience traffic issues themselves and foresee this development exacerbating them. (This corresponds with the highway concerns in Section 5).
- • Light Pollution: Bluebell House points out that the application gave no details on external lighting for the house or barn. They raise this as an issue, implying that unregulated lighting could cause light pollution affecting them and the area. In a rural area with dark nights, sudden introduction of floodlights or yard lighting is a significant change.
- • Removal of Hedgerow: They note “There will be a significant loss of established Manx hedge due to the entrance.”. This speaks to both the environmental impact and the change in rural character. As immediate neighbours, they value these hedges and see their removal for development as negative.
- • Precedent and Inappropriate Development: Bluebell House strongly emphasises that currently the land is undeveloped and if this is approved it “would give a precedent to landowners to develop the surrounding area.”. They clearly fear a domino effect (as discussed in Section 2’s precedent argument). They say approving this would “give hope to previous unsuccessful applications… and encourage new applications… It would set a precedent for future developments of green fields in the area.”.
- • Harm to Hamlet Character: They state, “the development of a 3-storey house and large agricultural barn in an open field would have a detrimental effect to the Braaid hamlet.”. They note that once their diseased ash trees are removed, the development will be even more visible, impacting views from roads and the local area. This aligns with the visual impact arguments in Section 3.
- • Lack of Detail / Site Infrastructure: Bluebell’s letter points out uncertainties in the plans: “It is unclear what surfaces, gateway, vehicle access and ground finishes are proposed… [also] yard size/lighting around buildings etc.”. This indicates the plans were not fully detailed, causing concern about what exactly will be built (echoing Section 5 about lack of detail on external works).
- • Noise (Dog Training): They mention the applicant’s dog training activities and say this “would create unacceptable noise pollution; the Braaid valley naturally

- amplifies sound and carries far and wide.”. They have experience of how noise travels there and are worried about barking dogs and whistles.
- • Repeat Application Issues: Bluebell House reminds that a similar application was refused only 18 months prior and expressed bemusement that the new one “was not refused outright” given its similarity. They cite the Development Procedure Order’s provision on similar applications, effectively arguing the application should have been summarily rejected.

In conclusion, Bluebell House’s objections cover visual impact, amenity (privacy, light, noise), traffic, precedent, and procedural concerns.

Deerae, Braaid Crossroads (long-time residents in hamlet): The occupants of “Deerae” at Braaid Crossroads (who have lived in the area ~49 years) submitted an objection letter dated 31 January 2024. Their perspective is valuable as they recount the planning history and community character:

- • They recall that historically all applications regarding these fields have been refused by Committee and even at appeal. They cite that at previous hearings, the Committee stated “the Hamlet of the Braaid is largely formed by the undeveloped and random appearance of the hamlet” - and they feel this is still true and that the proposal would be detrimental to that character. This reinforces the landscape/character arguments (Section 3).
- • They reference the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982, saying it protects the countryside from development, and urge the Committee to refer to their refusal of 21/01444/B in August 2022. This emphasizes that the site is “white land” (unzoned) where development is not normally allowed. They clearly support the prior refusal as precedent.
- • They note the new proposal is for a “6-bedroom 2 storey substantial farmhouse, garage and Barn” on a site that is open countryside “therefore not zoned for development”.
- • On agricultural justification, they point out the applicant’s claim of 600 acres and 480 ewes, and say “this does not seem viable to the acreage which will be available after the building of the proposed development upon the site.”. In other words, they doubt that so many animals can be supported or need to be cared for on this 5-acre site, implying the development is not truly necessary for the farming operation (aligning with Section 5’s arguments on landholding).
- • They also mention the environmental impact on neighbours: “increased movement of all vehicles, noise pollution caused by heavy agricultural machinery and the anti-social hours which are involved in the proposed farming activities.”. This captures concerns about traffic and noise at unsociable times,

- which they and others nearby would experience (supporting Section 4 and 5 points).
- • Importantly, they highlight a recent example on Braaid Road where a “large agricultural barn was granted permission” purportedly for cattle shelter, but “is now being used for multiple purposes” with huge impact on the countryside. This serves as a warning that even if this barn is approved for lambing, it could later be used in more intensive or different ways, causing broader impact.

Deerae’s position is clearly that the application should be refused again. They value the undeveloped character of Braaid and see this as an unjustified incursion. Their

concerns feed into the arguments on landscape character, lack of need, and amenity. Corvalley House, Braaid (vicinity of site): A resident of Corvalley House submitted a

brief online comment on 3 February 2024. By registering an objection, they signalled disapproval of the development – likely echoing the broader concerns of harm to the area’s character and precedent. Their involvement shows that opposition was not limited to immediate neighbours but also those in the wider Braaid community who value the area’s current state.

Marown Parish Commissioners: Although not a “neighbour” in the residential sense, it’s worth noting the stance of the local authority for the area. Marown Commissioners (who were copied on many objections) submitted a consultation response opposing the application. They argued the dwelling is “not essential”, noting the applicant already has a nearby house albeit rented, and stressing no automatic right to build a new one. They insisted that if any dwelling were permitted it must have an agricultural occupancy condition. They essentially supported refusal on grounds of lack of need and policy conflict. The Commissioners’ view aligns with the residents’ objections and adds weight that the community’s representatives found the proposal contrary to planning principles.

Conclusion of Appendix: The objections from neighbours were strong, specific, and well-founded in planning policy and facts. Every household in the immediate vicinity (Holmlea, The White House, Bluebell House) and long-standing community members (Deerae, Corvalley) opposed the development. Their concerns ranged from personal impacts to broader policy issues, and there was a common thread that the proposal is against the established planning framework and harmful to the Braaid.

---

*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/88406-braaid-fields-321756-324673-dwelling-outbuilding/documents/1142063*