Officers Report

Application No.: 25/90302/B Applicant: Ms Michele Richardson Proposal: Conversion of first floor space above existing double garage to create living accommodation Site Address: East Craige St Judes Isle Of Man IM7 2EW Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken: 30.04.2025 Site Visit: 30.04.2025 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 14.07.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The proposed development is contrary to Housing Policy 11(a), (b), (c), and (e), General Policy 3, Strategic Policy 2, and Spatial Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. The application fails to demonstrate that the building is redundant for its original use, as required by HP11(a), and no structural report has been submitted to confirm that the building is capable of conversion, contrary to HP11(b). The building is modern and lacks the architectural, historic, or social interest required under HP11(c). Furthermore, the proposed flat includes all facilities for independent living and is intended for rental use, which undermines the claim that it would be ancillary to the main dwelling, contrary to HP11(e) and General Policy 3. The site lies outside a defined settlement boundary, and the proposal does not meet the exceptional criteria for residential development in the countryside, conflicting with the spatial strategy set out in Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policy 5.

_________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: o DOI Highways - as they have no objections. _________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is within the curtilage of East Craige, St. Judes, which is situated at the St.Judes Cross Road. The site has significant mature landscaping along its boundaries with the A13 (Jurby Road) and Andreas Road which screens most of the site area from the adjoining highways.

1.2 The garage building which is the subject of the application sits to the northwest of the main dwelling on the broader site area. This two storey Manx stone building has its roof finished in slate. There are two garage door openings to the front of the property situated to the right of the entrance to the stairway. The site has two parking spaces to the side of the dwelling and further parking provisions situated northwest of the garage building.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Conversion of first floor space above existing double garage to create living accommodation. - 2.2 The proposed conversion of the first floor from storage over garage to living accommodation would not involve external changes to the property. However, there would be internal alterations to enable the creation of a one-bedroom apartment. The unit would have an open plan living and kitchen area, a bathroom, and a bedroom. These would be served by the stairway which would be access via the pedestrian door by the side of the double garage doors on the ground floor. There are two parking spaces by the side of the garage, as well as three additional parking situated directly northeast of the garage, adjacent the field to the north. - 2.3 The applicant has stated on the form that the new flat would be tied to existing house (see page 3). However, the agent has stated in their cover email dated 21 March 2025 and confirmed via email dated 19 June 2025 that the client's intention is to be able to rent the flat as per the previous planning application 23/00285/B (which was withdrawn). This suggests that the new flat could exist as an independent unit of accommodation on site. - 2.4 There would be no changes to surface water and sewerage management for the building.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 Site Specific:

• 3.1.1 The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'woodland' under the adopted Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area nor within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. The property is not prone to Flood Risks and there are no registered trees on site, although the eastern boundary of the site, and parts of the southern section are within a registered tree area.

3.2 National: STRATEGIC PLAN

• 3.2.1 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application;

• 1. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations
• 2. General Policy 3 - Exceptions to development in the countryside
• 3. Strategic Policy 2 - Priority for new development to identified towns and villages
• 4. Strategic Policy 4(b) - Protection of built heritage and landscape conservation
• 5. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact.
• 6. Strategic Policy 10 - Sustainable transport
• 7. Spatial Policy 5 - New development will be located within the defined settlements or permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3.
• 8. Environment Policy 1 - Protection of the countryside and ecology.
• 9. Environment Policy 3 - Protection of trees and woodland
• 10. Environment Policy 4 - Wildlife and Nature Conservation.
• 11. Paragraph 8.10 - Conversion of Rural Buildings to Dwellings.
• 12. Housing Policy 4 - Sets criteria for new Housing in the Countryside
• 13. Housing Policy 11 - Conversion of rural buildings to dwellings.
• 14. Transport Policy 4 - Highway safety
• 15. Transport Policy 7 - Parking provisions

• 16. Section 1.6: Planning Guidance from the UK and the EU "1.6.1 The Island has a close relationship with the UK, within which there are land-use planning systems which have the same general purpose as, and much in common with our own system. We also have indirect links with the European Union. Accordingly, where unusual matters arise, or where there is no Manx guidance, it will often be appropriate and helpful to have regard to legal judgments or advice published in the UK or the EU."

3.3 Area: AREA PLAN FOR THE NORTH AND WEST

• 3.3.1 It must be noted that at the time of writing, the Draft Area Plan for the North and West is not formally adopted and is only, at this stage, a broad direction of how planning policy is reviewing the areas. Their proposals can still be challenged at a public enquiry where an inspector could reach a different opinion to the drafts. The final draft would also need to be ratified by COMIN. This means that the 1982 development plan remains the correct land use designation, and no material weight is given to the Draft Area Plan for the North and West.
• 4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDE (2021) This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction. - 4.2 HISTORIC UK CASE LAW/APPEAL - ANCILLARY USE AND SEPARATE DWELLINGS

• 4.2.1 Gravesham Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1984] 47 P&CR 142 This foundational case established that a building used for independent day-to-day living constitutes a separate dwellinghouse, regardless of whether it is located within the curtilage of a main dwelling. The court held that the presence of facilities for independent living (e.g. kitchen, bathroom, sleeping area) is determinative. Key Legal Finding: A self-contained unit with all the facilities for independent living is a separate planning unit requiring its own planning permission.
• 4.2.2. R (Fountain House Residents' Association) v Westminster City Council [2025] EWHC 896 (Admin) This High Court case reaffirmed that the test for ancillary use is not merely functional connection, but whether the use is subordinate and incapable of operating independently. The court emphasised that where a unit is capable of functioning as a separate dwelling, even if physically attached or sharing services, it cannot be considered ancillary. Key Legal Finding: The presence of independent facilities and the potential for separate occupation override claims of ancillary status.
• 4.2.3. Appeal Ref: APP/R4408/D/19/3219956 (Planning Inspectorate) In this appeal, the Inspector found that a proposed annexe with full living facilities and the potential for independent occupation could not be considered ancillary, despite shared access and services. Key Legal Finding: Ancillary status depends on the actual use and degree of independence, not just physical proximity or shared infrastructure.

- 5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 The site has been the subject of the following applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of the current application:

• 1. PA 06/00470/B for Demolition of existing dwelling and derelict barn and erection of a detached dwelling and double garage with store over - Approved. The garage, whose first-floor storage is the subject of the current application was approved as part of the above development.

• o Condition 7 of the approval required that the garage and storage area shall be used
• only for a purpose ancillary to the residential use of the application property.

• Condition 12 also stipulated that: The residential curtilage of the replacement dwelling is defined by the red line as shown on drawing number PW-01 Rev C.

• 2. PA 22/00994/C for Additional use of garage as a dog grooming parlour - approved. This application enabled the use of part of the ground floor of the garage as a dog grooming parlour. Condition 3 of that approval is particularly relevant. Its states: The parking areas shown on the Proposed Plan (Drawing No. 2203/PL1000 rev A) shall be provided in accordance with the approved plan and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times. Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking in the interests of highway safety. Note: The above condition allowed for the adjustment of the residential curtilage to include an area measuring about 105sqm for car parking for the curtilage.

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

6.1 (DOI Highways find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as there is suitable off-street parking available for the dog grooming business and flat over, and existing (14 April 2025).

6.2 Andreas Parish Commissioners have not made any comments on the application although they were consulted on 3 April 2025. - 6.3 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties.

- 7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of the current planning application are:

• 1. The principle of the proposed use;
• 2. Impacts on neighbouring amenity; and
• 3. Potential Highway Impacts/Impacts on parking

7.2 PRINCIPLE (GP3, HP 11, STP2, and SP5)

• 7.2.1 The application site lies outside a defined settlement boundary and is therefore subject to countryside development restrictions under Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, and General Policy 3. These policies collectively direct new housing toward existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, sustainable urban extensions identified in adopted Area Plans. Development in the countryside is only permitted in exceptional circumstances, one of which is the conversion of redundant rural buildings, as set out in General Policy 3(b) and governed in detail by Housing Policy 11.
• 7.2.2 Although the proposal relates only to the conversion of the upper floor of a garage, it constitutes a residential conversion of a rural structure and is therefore subject to the full provisions of Housing Policy 11. Under HP11(a), the applicant must demonstrate that the building is redundant for its original use. The garage, approved in 2006, remains capable of fulfilling its intended function, including storage on the first floor. No evidence has been submitted to demonstrate redundancy, and the proposal therefore fails to meet this core requirement.
• 7.2.3 Under HP11(b), the building must be substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation. While the garage appears to be in good external condition (as noted during the site visit), no structural report has been submitted to confirm its suitability for residential occupation. Given that the building was not originally designed for habitation, and considering the proposed change in use to a self-contained dwelling, the absence of structural evidence is

a material concern. Visual inspection alone is insufficient to satisfy this policy requirement, particularly where residential safety and long-term performance are at stake.

• 7.2.4 HP11(c) requires that the building be of architectural, historic, or social interest. Although the garage adopts a traditional Manx stone finish and barn-style features, it is a modern structure and does not possess the architectural or historic significance envisaged by the policy. The policy does not support conversion based solely on appearance; it requires genuine heritage value. The absence of such significance, combined with the lack of demonstrated redundancy, places the proposal in clear conflict with the policy framework.
• 7.2.5 The applicant has stated that the proposed flat would be tied to the main dwelling. However, the agent has confirmed that the client intends to rent the unit when not occupied by a family member. This raises a critical issue regarding the true nature of the use, whether it is genuinely ancillary or, in practice, a separate residential unit. Section 1.6 of the Strategic Plan allows for reference to UK case law where Manx guidance is absent or limited. In this context, UK judgments provide a useful framework for interpreting the concept of ancillary use.
• 7.2.6 In Gravesham Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1984] 47 P&CR 142, the court held that a building used for independent day-to-day living, even if located within the curtilage of a main dwelling, constitutes a separate dwellinghouse. Similarly, in R (Fountain House Residents' Association) v Westminster City Council [2025] EWHC 896 (Admin), the High Court reaffirmed that the test for ancillary use is not merely functional connection, but whether the use is subordinate and incapable of operating independently. Where a unit has all the facilities for day-to-day living and is intended for rental, it is likely to constitute a separate planning unit.
• 7.2.7 These principles were also applied in Appeal Ref: APP/R4408/D/19/3219956, where the Planning Inspectorate found that a proposed annexe with full living facilities and potential for independent occupation could not be considered ancillary, despite shared services. In the present case, the proposed flat includes a kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, and living area, and is intended to be rented out. These characteristics strongly indicate that the unit would not be ancillary in planning terms, but rather a separate dwelling. This undermines the applicant's claim that the unit would be tied to the main house and places the proposal in conflict with HP11(e) and General Policy 3, which require compatibility with surrounding land uses and policy designations. It is also noted that Condition 7 of PA 06/00470/B restricts the use of the garage and storage area to purposes ancillary to the main dwelling. The proposed use as a self-contained flat intended for rental occupation would directly conflict with this condition, further undermining the applicant's claim that the unit would remain ancillary.
• 7.2.8 The proposal also raises broader land-use concerns. Spatial Policy 5 prioritises development within defined settlements and reinforces restrictions against new housing conversions unless explicitly permitted under General Policy 3. The creation of a new residential unit within a modern building contradicts HP11(a) and HP11(c), as redundancy has not been established and the building lacks the architectural or historic merit required. The proposal also conflicts with Strategic Policy 2, which seeks to control rural expansion and direct development toward town centres. Increased activity and movement associated with independent residential use could further impact rural character, undermining the environmental protections embedded in the spatial strategy.
• 7.2.9 In conclusion, the proposal fails to meet the key policy tests set out in Housing Policy 11, particularly parts (a), (b), (c), and (e), as well as General Policy 3(b). It also conflicts with the overarching objectives of Spatial Policy 5 and Strategic Policy 2, which seek to direct development toward sustainable locations and prevent the erosion of rural character. The use of UK case law, as permitted under Section 1.6 of the Strategic Plan, reinforces the conclusion that the proposed unit cannot be considered ancillary and would constitute a separate dwelling. As such, the proposal cannot be supported in principle.

7.3 NEIGHBOURING AMENITY (GP2 & Residential Design Guide 2021)

• 7.3.1 The proposal involves the continued use of the ground floor of the garage for dog grooming and the conversion of the upper floor to a one-bedroom residential unit. This introduces a mixed-use arrangement within a rural setting. While the scale of both uses is modest, the cumulative impact on neighbouring amenity must be carefully considered in accordance with General Policy 2, which requires that development does not adversely affect the amenity of nearby occupiers.
• 7.3.2 The site is located adjacent to an existing highway, where a degree of traffic and footfall is already present. This context helps to absorb some of the anticipated movement associated with the proposed residential use. The nearest neighbouring dwelling, Craig Cottage, lies approximately 30 metres to the southwest separated by the highway (A17). Given this separation and the existing background noise levels, any direct impact on residential amenity is likely to be limited.
• 7.3.3 The dog grooming activity is described as operating on a one-dog-at-a-time basis, with appointments lasting between 1.5 to 2 hours and concluding by 6pm. This level of activity is comparable to domestic pet ownership and is unlikely to generate unreasonable noise or disturbance. The limited scale and controlled hours of operation help to ensure that the use remains compatible with the surrounding residential environment.
• 7.3.4 General Policy 2(g) and (h) require that development maintains satisfactory amenity standards, including safe access, adequate servicing, and protection from noise and disturbance. The Residential Design Guide (2021) reinforces these principles by encouraging layouts that minimise conflict between residential and non-residential uses and promote good internal living conditions. In this case, the site benefits from existing access arrangements and sufficient off-road parking. The internal layout of the proposed flat includes a bedroom, bathroom, and open-plan living/kitchen area, which appears to meet the minimum spatial expectations for a one-bedroom, two-person unit.
• 7.3.5 On balance, the proposal is not expected to result in unacceptable impacts on neighbouring amenity. The residential use is modest in scale, and the dog grooming activity is limited in intensity and duration. Subject to appropriate management and adherence to stated operating practices, the development is considered to comply with the amenity protection requirements of General Policy 2 and aligns with the principles of the Residential Design Guide.

- 7.4 HIGHWAY IMPACTS/IMPACTS ON PARKING (TP 7 & GP2)

• 7.4.1 The proposed development involves the continued use of the ground floor for dog grooming and the conversion of the upper floor to a one-bedroom residential unit. The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division has confirmed (14 April 2025) that the proposal would have no significant negative impact on highway safety, network functionality, or parking provision. The existing highway network is considered sufficient to accommodate the modest level of traffic associated with both the residential and commercial uses.
• 7.4.2 The site benefits from suitable off-street parking, with five spaces available to serve both the dog grooming business and the proposed flat. The dog grooming operation is small in scale, operating on a one-dog-at-a-time basis, and includes staggered appointment times. The business also offers a pick-up and drop-off service, which further reduces the number of client visits to the site. These operational characteristics help to minimise traffic generation and ensure that parking demand remains within the site's capacity.
• 7.4.3 In accordance with General Policy 2(f) and Transport Policy 7, the development is not expected to compromise highway safety or result in inadequate parking or servicing arrangements. The scale and nature of the uses are such that they are compatible with the rural setting and are unlikely to result in adverse impacts on the local road network.

- 8.0 CONCLUSION

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

8.2 Conversely, the proposal fails to meet several key policy requirements. It does not demonstrate redundancy for the building's original use as required by Housing Policy 11(a), nor does it meet the architectural or historic significance threshold under HP11(c). The absence of a structural report raises concerns under HP11(b), and the intended rental use of the flat undermines the claim that it would be ancillary to the main dwelling, conflicting with HP11(e) and General Policy 3. Furthermore, the proposal conflicts with Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policy 5, which seek to direct new housing toward defined settlements and limit incremental rural development. - 8.3 On balance, while the proposal presents some practical benefits, it does not comply with the core policy framework governing residential conversions in the countryside. The application is therefore not supported in principle and is recommended for refusal.

- 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. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner 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: 17.07.2025 Determining Officer

Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner

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.