Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No.: 24/91323/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Glyn Hoosen-Owen Proposal: Demolition of stable block and adjacent buildings and construction of annexe. Site Address: Meadow View Cranstal Road Bride Isle Of Man IM7 4BN Planning Officer: Russell Williams Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 23.01.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The application site is located within an area of 'white land' not zoned for development, under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. In such locations development proposals must demonstrate compliance with, amongst other policies, General Policy 3 of the IoM Strategic Plan. Whilst the need for ancillary accommodation for an elderly relative is acknowledged, the extent of the proposed accommodation, which is described as an annexe, is tantamount to a self-contained 2-bedroom dwellinghouse and there is concern that there would be no functional link between the principle dwelling and annexe either immediately upon occupation or in the future. The proposals therefore create a new dwelling in the open countryside and would form an unsustainable and unjustified development. The proposals are therefore assessed as being contrary to Strategic Policies 1 and 2, Spatial Policy 5, Housing Policy 4 and General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. _________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DOI Highways - no objection

_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 Meadow View is a detached two bedroom, 2 storey dwellinghouse located to the northern side of Cranstal Road, between the settlements of Bride and Cranstal. The property

• was built in the 1980's and does not currently have a positive relationship with the landscape setting, being rather aged in its general appearance.
• 1.2 The dwelling has rooms within a vaulted roof that are served by dormer windows. The building is finished externally in unpainted pebbledash render beneath a slate roof with 2 no. dormer windows to the south elevation. Windows and doors are of timber. Permission was granted in 2024 for a large extension to the original dwelling, creating a 4 bed house once constructed.
• 1.3 The dwelling is centrally positioned within the western part of the property with gardens all around. There is a driveway to the side with off road parking provision, together with a single garage that is used for storage. There are a number of detached outbuildings within the eastern garden area, of which one is the now kennels that will be demolished and replaced.
• 1.4 The site is located within flood zone 1 and does not contain any heritage assets.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for the demolition of a detached former stable building now used as kennels and the erection of a single storey building to create a 2 bedroom, selfcontained annexe. The annexe will also have a bathroom, and open plan kitchen, living and dining space. - 2.2 The extension will provide a new entrance hallway with kitchen, dining and family space at ground floor, together with a new WC. At first floor a new home office/study will be provided, with a small balcony to the rear. - 2.3 The existing dwelling will be reconfigured to provide a new ground floor bedroom, bathroom and a dog room. - 2.4 The proposed annexe will be finished in natural cedar cladding and render to the walls, natural roofing slates, dark grey uPVC fenestration and grey uPVC rainwater goods. - 2.5 The application states that the annexe will be occupied by the applicant's mother-inlaw, who has health issues having suffered a stroke and bleed on the brain. The applicants and owners of Meadow View would be providing care for the elderly relative.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'white land' not zoned for development, under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area; however the site is within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance and an area of Nature Conservation Zones, Nature Reserves & Sites of Ecological Importance for Conservation. - 3.2 Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: - 3.3 Strategic Policy 1: "Development should make the best use of resources by:

• (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and underused land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials;
• (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space(1) and amenity standards; and
• (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."

3.4 Strategic Policy 2: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside."

3.5 Spatial Policy 5: "New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3." - 3.6 Housing Policy 4: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:

• (a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10;
• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and
• (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14."

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

• (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
• (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
• (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
• (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
• (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

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

• (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10);
• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11);
• (c) previously developed land(1) which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment;
• (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14);
• (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services;
• (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry;
• (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and
• (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage."

3.9 Environment Policy 1 states: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside

• the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative."
• 3.10 Environment Policy 2 states: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:

• (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or
• (b) the location for the development is essential."

4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS - 4.1 The Residential Design Guide July 2021 is a material consideration.

5.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 5.1 The application site benefits from the following planning history:

20/00965/B Alterations and erection of extension to side elevation linking dwelling to detached garage and erection of dormer to rear elevation - Permitted - 9 October 2020

24/00411/B Demolish existing detached garage, erection of a two-storey extension, door/window alteration and installation of a dormer window - Permitted - 19 June 2024

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 6.1 The following Statutory Consultees have been consulted and their responses can be summarised as follows: Bride Parish Commissioners - No comments received. DOI Highway Services - No objection:

• o After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as the proposals would have a similar or less parking demand to the existing situation. Ecosystem Policy Team - No objection:
• o The applicant should ensure to make thorough checks for bats and birds in and around the building prior to its demolition. If bats or birds, or evidence of bats and birds, such as nesting material or piles of droppings, are discovered, all work must stop and advice be sought from the DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team on 01624 651577. The presence of bats and birds will not stop the demolition from taking place, but provision must be made for their ongoing protection.

6.2 No representations have been received from members of the public.

7.0 ASSESSMENT - 7.1 The key considerations in the determination of the application are:

• o Principle of development
• o Design & Impact upon the character and appearance of the area/landscape

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

7.2 It is noted the application site is located in an area not zoned for development where there is a presumption against development in the countryside. Notwithstanding, regard must

• be given to the impact of the design, scale and siting of the proposed building and as a whole. Consideration of the suitability of the ancillary accommodation is also required.
• 7.3 In this instance, the proposed new building would generally utilise the existing footprint of the former stable building, though its full footprint would be larger. The design and appearance of the proposed annexe is relatively simple and in keeping with the site and host dwelling, which has an extant permission for a large extension and general modification.
• 7.4 The permitted extension effectively allowed for the remodelling of the original dwelling and an extra bedroom and living space to be created, link attached to the original building.
• 7.5 Regarding the proposed annexe accommodation, as designed, the accommodation is tantamount to a self-contained 2 bedroom dwellinghouse with all necessary facilities for day to day living including bathroom and living space with a small kitchenette. The building will measure approximately 9.7m x 6.9m with GIA of 66.9m2.
• 7.6 If the annexe were to be severed from the main dwellinghouse then this would result in a separate self-contained dwelling being created within the open countryside, contrary to policy.
• 7.7 In this regard there is case law that has accepted that self-contained accommodation as being ancillary to the principal residence; such cases include when the unit would be occupied by a dependant relative and who might pay the bills etc. However, in most instances the test of whether a development comprises a separate planning unit rests upon its severability. i.e. if the ancillary accommodation could practically and viably operate on its own were the primary use of the premises cease or cease to be in the ownership of the same person.
• 7.8 In this instance, it entirely realistic and achievable for the annexe to be severed from the principle dwelling with vehicular access shared. Due to the location of the annexe and its detached nature, it curtilage could be severed into two units in order to provide separate gardens, parking and turning spaces for both dwellings.
• 7.9 It is acknowledged that the proposed annexe will offer accommodation for an elderly relative of the applicants and that care will be provided by the applicants. That said, the annexe is entirely independent of the principle dwelling and there is no functional link between the two other than ownership. The occupant(s), for example, would not need to utilise the main dwelling in order to live or carry out their daily activities. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated why the main dwelling, if/when extended, cannot satisfy the stated need for ancillary accommodation for a relative. An alternative option would be to provide an annexe that is genuinely ancillary to the role and function of the main dwelling, with one bedroom and some form of functional link between the annexe and principle dwelling. But the application must be determined on its own merits.
• 7.10 Given the above, there is an in principle objection to the proposed annexe, which is considered to be tantamount to a new dwellinghouse in the open countryside. IMAPCT UPON CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE LANDSCAPE
• 7.11 The application site is located in a remote countryside location north of Bride and comprises of the dwellinghouse, outbuildings and gardens which can be seen from the public highway.
• 7.12 The proposal seeks to replace a former stable building with a larger, new building that will form a 2 bed self-contained annexe. The building is a simple, linear form with external materials that are suitable for the site and surrounding area.

7.13 The proposed annexe will create a contemporary appearance to the building which is not considered to have a significant harmful impact upon the character or appearance of the site or wider landscape setting, when regard is had to the existing built form to be demolished and other buildings/approved works within the property. - 7.14 Thus, although the development would inevitably render the appeal site more urban, it would integrate reasonably into the local landscape, showing respect to local character in its scale and design. It is considered the degree of harm to the landscape of the AHLV and any consequent conflict with GP3, StrP4 or EP1-2 of the IMSP would be no more than moderate. The scheme would also comply with the several criteria of GP2. OTHER MATTERS - 7.15 Regarding other material considerations, the proposed development is located away from any nearby or neighbouring dwellinghouses. As a consequence, the proposals will not give rise to any material impact upon the amenity of properties in the area. Similarly, the site is not located within a Conservation Area or in immediate proximity to Registered Buildings such that the development would impact upon the setting of protected areas. - 7.16 The Ecosystem Team are satisfied that the development is unlikely to impact upon bats, birds or other wildlife species within the site. Conditions are available that would provide protection and enhancement of wildlife and their habitats should a positive recommendation be forthcoming. Otherwise, the development would comply with Environment Policy 1 in regard to biodiversity impacts.

8.0 CONCLUSION - 8.1 Given the concerns set out at 7.7 above, the fact that the proposed annexe is tantamount to an independent 2 bedroom dwelling that could be readily severed from the principle dwelling to create a separate planning unit, and there being a lack of compliance with General Policy 3, there is an in-principle objection to the proposed development which would effectively create a new dwelling in an area where zoning and Strategic Policy does not support such proposals. - 8.2 While the above concludes that the building in and of itself would only have a moderate impact in terms of conflict with the AHLV and referenced policies, the development is considered to constitute an unsustainable development in the open countryside contrary to the development plan policies that seek to deliver new residential development in the most sustainable locations, including Strategic Policies 1 and 2, Spatial Policy 5 and Housing Policy 4. - 8.3 It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused.

9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE - 9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted). - 9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:

• o Applicant (in all cases);
• o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and
• o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.

9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10.

9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):

• o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant);
• o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area;
• o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and
• o in the case of a petition, a single representative.

9.5 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given the Right to Appeal.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status, and/or rights to appeal.

Decision Made : Refused Date : 28.01.2025 Determining Officer

Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management

Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.