Inspector's Report

Appeal No: AP25/0007 Application No: 24/91306/B _______________________________________________________________

Report on Planning Appeal – Written Representation ________________________________________________________________ Site visit undertaken: 14 April 2025 _____________________________________________________________

Appeal by: Resident/Owner of The White House, Braaid Road, Braaid1

Appeal against the decision of the Planning Authority to approve the erection of a new farmhouse and agricultural barn at Fields 321756, 321755 & 321758, Braaid Road, Braaid ________________________________________________________________

Introduction

• 1. This report provides a brief description of the appeal site and its surroundings; the proposal which is subject to the appeal; any procedural matters and relevant policy. The cases for the appeal parties are then summarised, fuller details being available for reference in the appeal case documents. My assessment and recommendation follow.

Site and surroundings

• 2. The appeal site lies on the edge of the village of Braaid accessed from the main road (A26) via an established gated access with a banked-up frontage from the roadway. The land is currently undeveloped and is laid to pasture with the surrounding landscape being characterised by gently undulating open countryside. There is an existing track running along the northern boundary giving access to the fields behind the frontage section of the site.
• 3. Grouped along both sides of the main road and at the junction of the A26 and A24 are a variety of homes of varying sizes and designs which cumulatively contribute to the small scale, isolated character of Braaid, typical of many other such settlements on the Island.
• 4. Holmlea is a detached house, including some outbuildings, standing on an adjoining site just to the south of the appeal site. On the opposite side of the main road is White House, again a detached house with a large double garage.

The proposed development

• 5.The appeal proposes the erection of an agricultural workers dwelling with attached garage and store, frontage parking, along with an associated detached agricultural barn. The existing access would be widened and relocated slightly to the south. Procedural matter
• 6. Planning permission was approved, and the decision notice issued for the proposed erection of a new farmhouse and agricultural barn on 14 February 2025, subject to conditions. This is an appeal to the Minister by the residents

• 1 The name of the appellant and his supporters have all been redacted from the relevant documentation.

of The White House, Braaid Road, Braaid against the granting of that permission. Their case is set out below within this report. The residents of Deerae, Braaid Crossroads, Holmlea, Braaid Road and Bluebell House, Braaid Road, Braaid have also made objections, and these are also summarised.

Planning history

• 7. The following planning applications on the appeal site are of material planning relevance to the proposed development:

• - 24/00001/B - The erection of a new farmhouse and agricultural barn Refused 15 November 2024. The essence of the reason for refusal was in relation to the siting of the proposed agricultural barn being at too great a distance from the proposed dwelling and existing dwellings within the village. 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.
• - 22/01148/B - To widen an existing vehicle entrance and associated works - Permitted 9 August 2023
• - 21/01444/B - Erection of 4-bedroomed bungalow, (agricultural worker's dwelling), and erection of agricultural barn and the construction of a private access road. Refused 9 August 2022. The main reasons for refusal centre on an essential need for an agricultural workers dwelling has not been established. Given the limited amount of acreage owned by the applicant, the fact that the occupant would be a tenant farmer with limited term security of tenure and where the tenant farmer would not appear to be in need of a dwelling, in addition to the fact that there have been farm dwellings previously associated with some of the farmland being farmed by the applicant, the proposal would fail to accord with General Policy 3, Paragraph 8.9.3, and Housing Policy 7. No justification has been made in the application to explain why an additional agricultural workers dwelling should be provided to service the farms currently operated by the applicants, given that significant proportions of the acreage available to the applicant are already associated with farm dwellings. In the absence of agricultural need sufficient to justify the proposed development, the proposed dwelling and barn, and particularly the proposed access lane leading to them and hardstanding area of farm yard would introduce built development in an area not currently so characterised, in conflict with the Landscape Character Appraisal for Braaid (D10) contained within the Area Plan for the East - which refers to the need to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area, with its open large pastoral fields. Also, the proposed isolated position of the dwelling within the countryside is not considered appropriate and would harm the character and quality of the landscape.

Relevant policy2

• 8.The appeal site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the East as land not zoned for a particular purpose. It is accepted that the land lies outside of any recognised settlement in policy terms and so within the countryside.
• 9.The planning policies most relevant to the appeal are contained within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP). The strategic aim of the plan is to plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community's needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability, whilst at the same time preserving, protecting, and improving the quality of the environment, having particular regard to the uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage.
• 10. General Policy 2 (GP2) sets out the considerations required for development to be permitted and includes that proposals should not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality3, and provide satisfactory amenity standards including convenient access for all highway users, parking and manoeuvring space4. Policy compliant development should respect the size and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and should incorporate where possible landscape features, particularly trees5.
• 11. General Policy 3 (GP3) identifies a presumption against development in the countryside but includes building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry as being an exception6.
• 12. Housing Policy 7 (HP7) makes it clear that new agricultural dwellings will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where real agricultural need is demonstrated.
• 13. IMSP paragraph 7.13.3 clarifies that in considering new agricultural dwellings, permission will not be granted unless real agricultural need is demonstrated and will, in every case, be assessed in terms of need, sensitive siting, design, and size, and be subject to an agricultural occupancy condition7. Such new development should be compatible with the character of the surrounding area, and the need for new buildings in the countryside will be balanced against the harm that development may have on the particular environment within which it is proposed.
• 14. Housing Policy 9 (HP9) sets out that 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

• 2 Policies of most relevance.
• 3 IMSP Policy GP2 (g).
• 4 IMSP Policy GP2 (h).
• 5 IMSP Policy GP2 (b).
• 6 IMSP Policy GP3 (f).
• 7 IMSP Policy HP8.

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.

• 15. Environment Policy 1 (EP1) requires that the countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. 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.
• 16. Environment Policy 15 (EP15) identifies that where the Department is satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building (including a dwelling), sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside, and that the impact of this development including buildings, accesses, servicing etc. is acceptable, such development must be sited as close as is practically possible to existing building groups and be appropriate in terms of scale, materials, colour, siting and form to ensure that all new developments are sympathetic to the landscape and built environment of which they will form a part.

Where new agricultural buildings are proposed next to or close to existing residential properties, care must be taken to ensure that there is no unacceptable adverse impact through any activity, although it must be borne in mind that many farming activities require buildings which are best sited, in landscape terms, close to existing building groups in the rural landscape.

Case for the Planning Authority8

• 17. The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are as follows:

• - Principle of development and justification of need (SP5, GP3, EP1, HP7)
• - Design and visual impact (GP2, EP15)
• - Impact upon neighbouring amenity (GP2, g)
• - Highways and parking (TP4,7).

Principle of Development

• 18. The starting point for any development within the countryside (i.e. not zoned for development) is IMSP Policy GP3, which allows an exemption for essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work, along with essential agricultural buildings and those required for interpretation of the countryside. The previous planning application, refused in 2024 (24/00001/B) accepted that the principle of developing a new farm dwelling and barn on the site was acceptable, but the landscape impact of the then proposed barn and its siting was not found to be acceptable.
• 19. IMSP Policy HP7 states that new agricultural dwellings will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where real agricultural need is demonstrated. Likewise, IMSP Policy EP15, which states that where the Department is satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building/s,

• 8 Source the Planning Officer’s report upon which the Department confirmed they relied.

such development must be sited as close as is practically possible to existing building groups and be appropriate in terms of scale, materials, colour, siting and form to ensure that all new developments are sympathetic to the landscape and built environment of which they will form a part.

• 20. As noted in the officer report for the previous application9, it was considered that 'there is no dispute, on the basis of the evidence submitted, that the farm operation is substantial and sufficient to require a number of full-time agricultural workers to facilitate the daily running of the farm. This, however, is not the fundamental test, as there are many people (indeed, probably the majority) that are employed far from their place of residence. The main issue is whether or not it is essential that the applicants reside at the proposed location which is positionally detached from the majority of the farm sites they operate.'
• 21. From review of the current submission, it is notable that changes have been made to the siting of the proposed agricultural barn, which are a direct response to the reason for refusal of 24/00001/B. Other matters, including the assessment of agricultural need, stand labour requirements of the holding and functional need remain unchanged.
• 22. With respect to the arguments presented in favour of the development in the context of agricultural need, it is accepted that these largely reflect those presented and assessed as part of the previous planning application.
• 23. Nevertheless, further information has been provided as to the nature of the agricultural tenancies, the length of time which such land has been rented by the applicant, together with greater clarity having been provided over the exact location and quantum of land farmed as part of the wider agricultural holding. This information was assessed by the Agricultural Policy Team and reported in the planning officer report to committee for application 24/00001/B. The Agricultural Policy Team deemed that the proposals had been fully justified in the context of agricultural need and there has been no material change in circumstance since.
• 24. In particular, the Policy Team noted that the agricultural operations associated with the business equate to 3.06 full-time labour units, which is well in excess of the requirement of 1 full-time labour unit. The proposed business, therefore, justifies the need for at least one agricultural dwelling based solely upon the labour requirement calculation.
• 25. Moreover, it is recognised that the applicants currently face logistical challenges, especially during lambing season, due to the distance between their current residence and their broken-up farming land. An on-site dwelling with a sufficient livestock housing base would allow for immediate and effective care of livestock, enhancing animal welfare and operational efficiency. The addition of a new agricultural barn would further centralise the storage of farm materials and maintenance of equipment, which is currently scattered across rented locations. Centralising these facilities would reduce travel time at key handling times, whilst the on-site barn would

• 9 24/00001/B.

provide improved facilities for livestock management during key handling times.

• 26. The Policy Team further considered that many farmers manage numerous dispersed parcels of land all across the island and do not reside directly onsite, instead utilising remote CCTV, changes to farming practices, such as changing lambing patterns and block sizes, and using out-of-hours contracted labour. However, most do still operate from a single base or farmyard which nearly always includes livestock handling facilities and a central livestock shed capable of meeting the farms stocking requirements at key times, e.g. lambing time. The applicants proposed barn, and housing will enable this to be done from a central location.
• 27. Finally, the Policy Team considered that the financial viability and security of the applicants' farming business are evident from their detailed planning statement and the long-term commitment to agriculture. In particular, Department records indicate the applicants have been active farmers for most of their working lives, demonstrating experience and dedication to farming. They indicate they own a section of their farmed land which is the location this planning application relates to. The applicants have further indicated to the Department that they have a clear succession plan, with their son poised to take over farming operations when they retire. This ensures the long-term viability of the farm, as future generations are already involved and committed to agriculture. From the information provided therefore, the proposed farmhouse and barn will support the expansion and centralisation of farming operations, making the business more efficient and sustainable.
• 28. Whilst the points raised by objectors to the proposals over the lack of agricultural need are acknowledged, the previous assessment and conclusions provided by the Agricultural Policy Team to the refused application 24/00001/B are a strong material planning consideration which weighs heavily in favour of the current proposals, and indeed represents a significant change to their stance relative to the previous application.
• 29. Likewise, whilst the concerns raised in relation to the previous application over the fact that the majority of the farmed land is done so on the basis of tenancy agreements, as opposed to being directly owned, this does not in itself undermine the long-term security of the enterprise moving forward. There is no commentary within the Strategic Plan that land farmed should be owned directly by the applicant, and in this particular case it is noteworthy that the rented land in question is split between 9 different landowners and is geographically dispersed. This provides a much greater degree of security compared to if the land in question was owned by a single landowner in a single location, for example, or if indeed the vast majority of the land was owned by a single landowner. That is, however, not the case in this instance. It should also be borne in mind that even if the majority of the land was owned directly by the applicant, they would be within their rights to sell the land in the same vein as seeking to not renew a rental agreement.

• 30. Turning to the issue of available buildings they do not have suitable buildings available to them to conduct lambing and provide suitable storage provision for equipment and feed. Indeed, there is notably no buildings which are suitable for this purpose which are available to the applicant within close proximity to their current residence, and therefore the consolidation of their living accommodation and dedicated barn for lambing/storage purposes into a central location would clearly provide much greater stability and practicality for the business moving forward.
• 31. It is further apparent that no buildings are available or suitable for purchase or use as a dwellinghouse on land which they rent. Whilst of course recognising that the application site is not zoned for development, it is nonetheless noted that the site does fall within an existing hamlet and would not represent the development of an isolated dwelling in the countryside in the literal sense.
• 32. In summary, therefore, it is recognised that the principle of development, particularly in the context of the assessment and decision relative to the previous application is finely balanced. Nevertheless, given that the agricultural need and functional requirement has been accepted previously and remains equally valid to this application, that in combination with the additional information provided, including the clear pathway for succession of the agricultural business from the applicants to their son, the proposals are on balance deemed to comply with IMSP Policies HP7 and EP15 insofar as a functional and realistic agricultural need has been demonstrated to justify the erection of the proposed dwelling and agricultural barn in this location.

Design and Visual Impact

• 33. The design of the dwelling closely reflects the requirements of Planning Circular 3/91 for a traditional styled dwelling in the countryside. In particular, the proposed two-storey dwelling would incorporate a traditional 3 x 3 fenestration configuration on the front elevation, with a centrally located gable front porch and wide flank chimney breasts. 7.3.2 It is acknowledged that the proposals would not technically accord with the key requirements of Housing Policy 9 which states that new agricultural dwellings must be sited within or immediately adjoining a main group of farm buildings, or a group of farm buildings associated with that farm, whilst being well set back from the public highway. Environmental Policy 15 further adds that only in exceptional circumstances will buildings be permitted in exposed or isolated areas or close to public highways and in all such cases will be subject to appropriate landscaping. It is recognised that the dwelling would be sited within close proximity to the highway and therefore clearly visible within this context, but together with the agricultural barn, the buildings will sit between existing built form. The dwelling will provide an active frontage onto the highway which given its design approach, is considered to be appropriate and in keeping with the character of the area.
• 34. Notwithstanding the above, the set of circumstances which surround the proposals are fairly unique, particularly given the site is presently undeveloped and the wider agricultural holding is geographically dispersed. It

• would therefore not be physically possible to site the dwelling within close proximity to existing farm buildings associated with the holding, with the promises effectively comprising the development of a new 'headquarters' to serve the wider holding.
• 35. Moreover, the siting of the dwelling within close proximity to the highway in this instance would be the most appropriate solution as it would effectively constitute the continuation of an existing row of linear development within the hamlet, whilst being sited directly opposite a further row of existing dwellings. As a result, the resultant dwelling would not appear geographically isolated or imposing within the context of the wider landscape as it would sit relatively comfortably within the context of surrounding dwellings in an established, albeit small, settlement. On this basis therefore, the proposed siting of the new dwelling is considered to be appropriate.
• 36. The siting of the proposed barn has now been revised and reflects the location of the original submission for 24/00001/B, which was subsequently amended to move the barn further away from the dwellinghouse. This was, ultimately, the reason that the previous scheme was refused. The new agricultural barn, which in itself is of a generally modest scale and footprint, whilst being of a conventional design which would not appear alien in the context of the wider landscape now that it is to be located adjacent to the dwellinghouse, and a third party owned barn to the north. The siting will ensure that the barn is within sight and sound of the farm dwelling which is a critical consideration during the lambing season.
• 37. The proposed barn is no longer located in an isolated landscape setting away from existing/proposed buildings. Topographically it will also be on lower land and will be less prominent as a result. The visual impacts associated with the new barn, which are undeniable, are reduced significantly in respect of this amended siting. The proposed barn will relate well to built form and would not constitute an isolated, incongruous feature within the rural landscape. Existing and proposed landscaping will help soften the impact of the development as a whole and as such will reduce the visual impact from public vantage points. The applicants point that there is to be no removal of hedgerow or trees is noted and agreed with, though the removal of a section of Manx bank along the road frontage will cause some minor harm.
• 38. It is also recognised that the quality of finishes for the dwelling will be very important from a visual standpoint, together with a comprehensive landscaping scheme to complement the proposed level of built development.
• 39. To summarise, the development as proposed would clearly result in a material visual impact which is to be expected with the introduction of built development on a presently undeveloped greenfield site. That being said, the proposals are considered to be well designed and meet the relevant policy and guidance tests for design, resulting in an acceptable impact from a visual aesthetic standpoint.
• 40. The impact of the development upon the character and appearance of the wider landscape, particularly in relation to the relocated barn, is considered to be limited to the immediate setting due to the application site falling within an

existing settlement and following an established building line of development. The proposals will not give rise to wider landscape impacts and on balance therefore, the proposals are considered to be acceptable from a design, visual and landscape impact perspective. The proposals therefore comply with IMSP Policies GP(b) and (c) and EP15.

Impact on neighbouring amenity

• 41. Objections have been received from neighbouring residents over concerns that the development will adversely impact upon residential amenity of neighbouring properties.
• 42. The impact upon amenity was found to be acceptable previously and the only material change is the location of the proposed barn.
• 43. Whilst the barn will now be closer to residential properties, its siting is still well separated from nearby dwellings and gardens. The seasonal use of the barn for lambing will not give rise to any significant unacceptable impacts from noise or odour as a result of the siting and separation distances.
• 44. It is considered that the proposed dwelling would be sited a sufficient distance from the adjacent property of Holmlea to the south-west to prevent any realistic overlooking afforded from windows in the southern flank elevation of the proposed dwelling. Likewise, properties located immediately opposite the site would also be ensured a sufficient degree of separation to ensure their amenities would be safeguarded.
• 45. The proposals are assessed as complying with IMSP Policy GP2 (g). Highways and parking
• 46. The application will relocate an access off the A26 slightly south along the western boundary. Submitted plans indicate the extent of visibility splays that will be provided, together with finished surfacing, boundary treatments and parking/turning provision within the site.
• 47. Notwithstanding public concerns raised in regard to highway safety, the principle of a new access was found to be acceptable under the previous grant of permission and the position of this amended access improves visibility along the site frontage. DOI Highway Services do not object to the proposed development and consider the transport impacts to be acceptable, subject to conditions.
• 48. The development provides sufficient on-site parking for 2 vehicles for the new dwelling, whilst the existing access track would be maintained in its current form. The proposals are therefore considered to be acceptable from a highway safety standpoint and comply with IMSP Policies TP4 and 7 together with GP2 (h) and (i).

Other matters

• 49. It is noted from the content of some representations received that the current access has been widened with gates installed and that such has not

• been undertaken in full accordance with the approved plans relative to PA 22/01148/B. It is claimed that this represents a breach of planning control. The Department's enforcement team is fully aware and such matters are currently subject to a live enforcement investigation. It should however be made clear that the current proposals, if approved, would not regularise the alleged breach of planning control which differ from the works which appear to have been undertaken on site to date.
• 50. The point raised by DOI Highways Drainage are noted, though the proposals relate to the use and upgrading of an existing hard surfaced access and so drainage regimes are unlikely to change significantly. This matter can be controlled through the required S109 (A) Highway Agreement.

Conclusion

• 51. In summary, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in principle having demonstrated a clear agricultural need for the new dwelling and barn, without sufficient detriment to the visual amenities of the immediate locality and wider landscape.
• 52. The amended application and new location of the agricultural barn address the reason for refusing application 24/00001/B and the development now ensures that there will be no significant adverse impact upon visual amenity or the character of the landscape that would warrant refusal.
• 53. The proposals are therefore considered to be in accordance with IMSP Policies SP5, SpP5, TP4 and 7, GP2 and 3, and EP1 and 15 and HP7-9. The issued Planning permission should be upheld.

Assessment of the Agricultural Policy Manager of the Agriculture & Food Directorate based on the calculation of standard labour unit requirements, functional requirements for the proposed dwelling, and business requirements for the proposed agricultural development – dated 4 July 2024

• 54. Ian and Carol Kelly Labour Requirement

Assessment - does the existing/proposed business justify at least 1900 man hours per year per agricultural dwelling using standard labour data? Based on the worksheet for the calculation of standard labour unit requirements, the Kellys' farming operations justify the need for a new agricultural dwelling. The calculation details the following; Total Livestock Hours: 3,570.8 hours per year

• • Total Crops Hours: 468.0 hours per year
• • Overhead Assumption: 201.9 hours (assuming 5% overheads allowance)
• • Total Standard Man Hours per Year: 4,240.7 hours

Darren Kelly, the applicant’s son will also reside and operate his farming business from the proposed development.

Total Livestock Hours: 1,600.9 hours per year

• • Total Crops Hours: 195.1 hours per year
• • Overhead Assumption: 89.8 hours (assuming 5% overheads allowance)
• • Total Standard Man Hours per Year: 1885.80 hours Combined Total:
• • Total Standard Man Hours per Year: 6,126.5 hours

This calculation confirms that the Kellys' agricultural operations equate to 3.06 full-time labour units, exceeding the minimum requirement of 1 fulltime labour unit (1900 hours/year). Thus, the proposed business justifies the need for at least one agricultural dwelling based only on the labour requirement calculation.

Functional Requirement Assessment - what reasoning is there for the house being on the agricultural unit itself rather than a nearby village/town? The proposed farmhouse and barn would service the functional requirements for the Kellys' farming operations, which include:

• • Proximity to Livestock: The applicants currently face logistical challenges, especially during lambing season, due to the distance between their current residence and their broken-up farming land. An on-site dwelling with a sufficient livestock housing base will allow for immediate and effective care of livestock, enhancing animal welfare and operational efficiency.
• • Efficient Operations: The new agricultural barn will centralise the storage of farm materials and maintenance of equipment, which is currently scattered across rented, locations. Centralising these facilities will reduce travel time at key handling times.
• • Security and Welfare: The on-site barn will provide better facilities for livestock management during key handling times.

Many farmers manage numerous dispersed parcels of land all across the island and do not reside directly on-site, instead utilising remote CCTV, changes to farming practices e.g changing lambing patterns and block sizes, and using out-of-hours contracted labour, however, most do still operate from a single base or farmyard. In my experience this nearly always includes livestock handling facilities and a central livestock shed capable of meeting the farms stocking requirements at key times, e.g. lambing time. The Kellys’ proposed barn and housing will enable this to be done from a central location.

Assessment - Business Requirement

Is there evidence of the business/proposed business being financially secure and viable? This would normally only be considered if the other two considerations appeared marginal.

The financial viability and security of the Kellys' farming business are evident from their detailed planning statement and the long-term commitment to agriculture. Key points include:

• • Historical Context: Department records indicate the Kellys have been active farmers for most of their working lives, demonstrating experience and dedication to farming. They indicate they own a section of their farmed land which is the location this planning application relates to.
• • Succession Planning: The Kellys have indicate to the Department that they have a clear succession plan, with their son poised to take over farming operations when they retire. This ensures the long-term viability of the farm, as future generations are already involved and committed to agriculture.
• • Operational Expansion: From the information provided proposed farmhouse and barn will support the expansion and centralisation of farming operations, making the business more efficient and sustainable. Conclusion Assessment - the validity of the application:

Noting only a small element reaching approximately 5 acres or 3 fields of the applicant's holding is situated adjacent to the site the planning application relates to I still consider the farming enterprise as a whole business unit as it is operated under one farm holding business number and has one livestock holding number associated to it, because of this the application indicates this will function as the primary farming location for the whole business.

The application meets the key requirements of the Departments considerations for the proposed development which states businesses are expected to justify at least 1 full time labour unit (=1900 hours/annum, equivalent to 39 hours per week) for each dwelling house, whilst also taking into account all of the dwellings currently available to the business.

In the Kellys’ case, they achieve a total of 6126.5 hours based on the 2024 agricultural census returns received by the Department in May 2024.

A farmhouse with an attached garage and an agricultural barn is in line with the Agriculture and Food Directorate’s calculation for need based on standard labour units and agricultural practices.

Case for the Applicant10

Alleged Incorrect Application of Housing Policy 9 (HP9)

• 55. The appellants question whether our application aligns with Planning Policy HP9 regarding farm dwellings in the countryside. We have comprehensively addressed this matter in our submissions for both the current and previous planning applications. As most of the land we farm is tenanted, we do not have the option to construct buildings close to existing groups of structures, as we do not own any.
• 56. Over the years, we have actively sought to purchase land from our landlords; however, our efforts have been unsuccessful. Furthermore, we have highlighted the significant disparity between land values and its potential earning capacity, which has become increasingly imbalanced.

Alleged Insufficient Consideration of Residential Amenity Impact

• 57.It is difficult to comprehend how a small hamlet situated in the countryside, comprising seven dwellings and surrounded by farmland, can be classified as a "residential area." Historically, the hamlet contained a working farm (The Braaid Farm) and a blacksmith's smithy, both of which were integral to the local landscape for centuries. However, in recent years, the farm has been fragmented, and the farm steading has been converted into a luxury dwelling, now known as Bluebell House, leading to the loss of its original identity as a farm. Additionally, the smithy was demolished to facilitate the construction of Holmlea House.
• 58.It should be noted that, in our initial planning application, we had originally proposed siting the barn approximately 100 meters away from the house. However, at the request of the Planning Committee, this location was amended.
• 59.We have collaborated with the Manx Wildlife Trust to develop a comprehensive landscaping plan that will enhance and support local biodiversity. Additionally, it is important to note that Manx National Heritage has raised no objections or comments regarding our application. Similarly, the Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and the Environment, as well as the Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society, have neither opposed nor commented on the application. The absence of objections from these key organizations suggests that the proposal does not present significant concerns from a heritage, environmental, or historical perspective.
• 60.Furthermore, it is pertinent to highlight that the appellants and others previously objected to planning applications numbered 24/00001B and 22/01148B. Their statements indicate that they were fully aware of the likelihood of a subsequent application being submitted before purchasing their property and relocating to the hamlet.

• 10 Source the Statement of Case of the Applicant and Rebuttal and documents and plans accompanying the planning application.

• 61.The context in which these objections have been raised should therefore be carefully considered. The absence of opposition from recognized heritage and environmental organizations, combined with the prior knowledge of the objectors regarding potential future applications, should be taken into account when evaluating our planning submission.
• 62.During last year’s lambing season, we encountered extremely challenging weather conditions. On the night of April 12th, we endured relentless heavy rain and cold temperatures, leading to the unfortunate loss of numerous lambs. The following morning, we were faced with the souldestroying task of collecting the deceased lambs for disposal at the animal waste facility. A photograph of the lambs before their transportation to the facility has been attached for reference.
• 63.We deeply regret the necessity of submitting such a graphic image to the Planning Department. We had hoped that a reasoned explanation would suffice to convey the necessity of the barn; however, it appears that certain parties have failed to grasp the severity of our circumstances. This is the stark reality of farming without a proper base equipped with essential facilities.
• 64.We are perplexed by continued objection to this application, particularly given his professional role as a veterinary surgeon. Notably, his colleague, Mr. Marty Viljoen BVSc, has submitted a letter in support of our application, emphasizing the necessity of the development on the grounds of animal welfare. The Isle of Man Government Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture has also formally supported our application.
• 65.It is difficult to reconcile opposition to the construction of a barn intended to enhance the welfare of our livestock with his professional and ethical responsibilities as a veterinary surgeon.
• 66.Our application has been favourably assessed by two independent planning officers, Mr. Toby Cowell and Mr. Russell Williams, both of whom provided reports recommending approval.
• 67.On November 11, 2024, our application was presented to the Planning Committee with a recommendation for approval. However, the committee members expressed concerns regarding the proposed siting of the barn and, following a non-unanimous decision, refused the application. Subsequently, the committee requested a revised plan to position the barn closer to the dwelling. This amended application was resubmitted and received unanimous approval from the Planning Committee on February 10, 2025. We appreciate your time in reviewing our response and trust that the points outlined above will be duly considered in the evaluation of our application.

Case for the Appellants11

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.

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

• 11 Source - the Appellant’s Statement of Case and rebuttal. More details of the case for the appellants can be found in the full statement of case and rebuttal.

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 on-site 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.

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 farmhouses 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 11 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.”

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 12 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 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.

Additional Planning Considerations

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 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.

Conclusion

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.

Other Parties12 Summary of objections from neighbours13

• 68. 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.

• 12 In full at Planning Officer’s report section 5.0.
• 13 Source Appellants’ Statement of Case.

• 69. 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.

• 70. 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, 4- bedroom” 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.
• • 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 22 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.

• 71. 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, 23 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.

Other representations14

• 72.The representations received at the application stage are as follows:

• • Marown Parish Commissioners: 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.
• • Highway Services – Final revisions of the previous planning application were acceptable to Highways. The site already benefits from an existing access, however access is to be taken from a new position along the field. The principle of access to the site has been established, but with the proposed development bringing intensification of use, the relocation of the access has been included to demonstrate betterment of access arrangement and visibility. The proposal raises no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues. Accordingly, Highway Services Development Control raises no objection to the proposal.
• • Ecosystem Policy Team – no objection. Assessment by the Inspector

• 73. Section 10(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act states in dealing with an application for planning approval the Department shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as is material to the application; any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3; such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this

• 14 Source Planning Officer Report.

subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and all other material considerations. The planning history of a site, in terms of recent planning permissions granted as well as assessments previously accepted in the balance of a decision are material considerations which need to be given appropriate weight by the decision-maker. It is recognised that the weight which is to be given to the various elements in the balance of the decision is a matter for the decision maker.

• 74. The main issues in this case are as follows:

• - Whether there is a justified case of need for the dwelling and barn to support an established agricultural unit safeguarding its prosperity into the future.
• - The effect of the proposal on the landscape character and appearance.
• - The impact on the living conditions of neighbouring residents.
• - Whether the proposal would impact on highway safety and the flow of traffic in the immediate vicinity.
• - And, whether any identified harms would be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme.

Need

• 75. IMSP Policy GP3 identifies essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work as being an exception to policy for the control of development outside of areas zoned for development. Therefore, the determination of whether there is an essential need for the appeal proposal is at the centre of the consideration of this matter15.
• 76.The Appellants promote the case that no robust agricultural justification has been provided to prove that a full-time farm worker must live at Braaid to tend livestock or crops there.
• 77. The assessment of the Agricultural Policy Manager of the Agriculture & Food Directorate (the assessment) sets out that it is not uncommon for farming businesses on the Island to have relatively widely dispersed pockets of land which make up their holding. This may include a mix of land owned or rented by the business. It is not necessarily the case that the agricultural worker should live directly on-site and with the farm being unconsolidated in terms of land location, a farm dwelling would be best located where the need is greatest for the operational efficiency for the running of the farm.
• 78. As part of the scheme a barn is proposed to provide a lambing shed, feed store and workshop. This would allow the Appellant to care for their flock during lambing, away from the potential rigours of the Island weather.

• 15 IMSP Policy GP3(a).

Whilst the barn and the house would both be new buildings on the appeal site, they would establish a focus for the Appellant’s farming business providing an on-site presence to secure the well-being of livestock going forward. It would also allow for the centralised storage of necessary farm machinery which would reduce potential travel time between land holdings.

• 79. The Appellant’s family have been established farmers on the Island for some time illustrating a commitment to agricultural activities as well as to the agricultural economy of the Isle of Man.
• 80.The assessment sets out clearly that across the totality of the Appellant’s farming business and, with particular reference to the element of the business to be operated from the appeal site, the labour requirement would justify a new agricultural workers dwelling. No convincing evidence has been submitted which would place the expert assessment of the Agricultural Policy Manager in question.
• 81.I am conscious that the previous proposal 24/00001/B for the erection of a new farmhouse and agricultural barn, was refused solely on the ground that the proposed barn was to be sited at too great a distance from the proposed dwelling and existing dwellings in the village, presenting a visually obtrusive feature in the wider landscape16. The agricultural need assessment for the new agricultural dwelling and creation of the new farm centre was accepted as justifying the then proposal. No substantive reasons have been promoted as to why circumstances have changed from that earlier assessment of need17 to warrant taking an alternative contradictory view.
• 82.I therefore attribute considerable weight to the conclusion that the proposed farmhouse with an attached garage and an agricultural barn is in line with the Agriculture and Food Directorate’s calculation for need based on standard labour units and agricultural practices. In this regard I am satisfied that a real agricultural need is demonstrated18. Character and appearance
• 83. The proposed house and barn are set on the edge of the very small village of Braaid. The house has been designed to reflect traditional features of Manx homes, some of which are characteristic of the nearby village houses along the main road19. The proposed barn is a simple utilitarian design recognisable across the Island as an agricultural building.

• 16 The siting of the new barn proposed has been amended from that refused to bring it closer to the proposed house and within the wider grouping of the village.
• 17 November 2024.
• 18 IMSP Policy HP7.
• 19 IMSP Policy HP10.

• 84.The establishing of the farm centre on the appeal site would, without a doubt, change the character and appearance of this currently undeveloped field merely by the introduction of buildings and associated activities.
• 85.However, the siting of the house fronting the main road, mirroring the linear frontage layout of the neighbouring properties, along with the houses’ traditional design would extend the boundary of the village, but would not be out of keeping with the general layout and character of the settlement. To do otherwise in terms of siting, such as setting the buildings back from the public highway, would have greatly harmed the character and appearance of the existing village grouping20 as well as presenting an obtrusive feature in the landscape21.
• 86.IMSP Policy HP9 sets out criteria for the siting of an agricultural workers dwelling. These include that the new dwelling should be within or immediately adjoining the main group of farm buildings, or a group associated with that farm, it should be well set back from any public highway and approached via the existing farm access.
• 87.The proposal is to establish a new farm centre, including a new livestock barn, in circumstances where the farmland holding is disparate across the Island. The circumstances of the business have been accepted as justifying a need for the agricultural dwelling and whilst this does not strictly fit in with the terms of IMSP Policy HP9 (a), the site being greenfield, this case presents itself as being exceptional circumstances which is not considered to undermine the policy aims and objectives of the IMSP as a whole. The new dwelling, with closely associated barn, would create a group of farm buildings in the spirit of the requirements of Policy HP9 whilst also respecting the character of the adjoining village22.
• 88. I do not consider the proposal would create a precedent for similar development. Particular circumstances based on agricultural needs must be established as a starting point for consideration and the specific merits of each case must be considered in the round. Living conditions
• 89. Privacy and overlooking – the Appellant and others are concerned that the proposed new dwelling would overlook the houses on the opposite side of the main road intruding into their privacy.
• 90.The proposed new agricultural workers dwelling is two storey with rooms in the roof space served by rooflights. It has been sited square onto the main road but off-set so that the house would be opposite the detached garage of White House with White House itself facing onto the side land of the new dwelling. From the first-floor central landing window and two front bedroom windows it would be possible to look at a slight oblique angle to see the parking area and driveway of White House. This frontage

• 20 IMSP Policy HP9 (b).
• 21 This was a concern in the consideration of the previous planning application (24/00001/B) where the barn was set in an isolated location in the countryside landscape.
• 22 IMSP Policy EP1.

area is already open to view from those using the main road either walking or in fleeting views driving past. The off-setting of the proposed siting of the new dwelling in relation to White House would serve to limit overlooking and thereby loss of privacy both on the drive area as well as in the frontage rooms.

• 91.Holmlea, to the south of the proposed siting of the new dwelling, has a couple of timber sheds on the common side boundary with the appeal site and four side windows on the upper floors facing towards the new dwelling. The design of the new house includes two side windows on the first floor which are secondary windows serving bedrooms. There would be a significant spacing between the new dwelling and the main side wall of Homelea. I do not consider that there would be an unacceptable degree of overlooking or loss of privacy in the circumstances of the nature of the proposed windows or the separation between the new dwelling and Homelea.
• 92.In respect of other neighbouring homes there would be sufficient distance between properties so as not to result in any significant overlooking or loss of privacy.
• 93.The residents of the White House are concerned that vehicles manoeuvring in and out of the appeal site would shine headlights directly into their house causing disturbance. However, the proposed entrance to the parking area, garage and barn does not open out directly opposite White House. It would be opposite the land to the northeast of the detached garage of White House at some distance to the main house itself.
• 94.In respect of the installation of external lighting a condition should be imposed to control its location and type of installation. Outlook
• 95.Concern has also been expressed in relation to the potential intrusion of the appeal proposal into the outlook of neighbouring properties. I agree where there is currently a view of open fields for neighbouring residents, this view would change to one of a traditional Manx house with associated barn set in an open field. The view of open countryside beyond the buildings would still persist. There is no entitlement to a view and there would be sufficient separation between properties that the new dwelling and barn would not intrude into the outlook of the residents of the neighbouring houses in respect of overdominance or overshadowing. Noise
• 96. Neighbours are concerned about possible disturbance from activities in relation to the use of the barn as a lambing shed, especially at night. The relationship of the agricultural workers dwelling housing the shepherd, with the activities of housing livestock in the barn, would be likely to reduce noise and disturbance as the barn would only be a few steps from the house negating the need for vehicular movements or similar. It would

• be difficult to keep farm animals quiet in the barn, although I note the barn is not open sided, with double doors being the main entrance. In poor weather when lambing may be underway the doors are likely to be kept closed to conserve heat for the animals. In the summer the stock would be likely to be out in the fields.
• 97.In addition, Braaid is surrounded by open pastureland upon which animals could be set out to graze. In such a countryside location the noise of farm animals grazing in the fields would not be an uncommon nor unexpected noise to experience.
• 98.Similarly, the sound of farm machinery whether in the fields, travelling on the road or in the farmyard itself would not be unexpected in a rural setting.
• 99. On sheep farms the presence of a well-trained sheep dog would be expected. Farmers have trained sheep dogs for generations and looking to diversify some now train sheep dogs to sell on. There is no suggestion that the training of sheep dogs would be the primary use of the proposed farm centre. This would be part of the farm business, particularly as the keeping of sheep is fundamental to the training of the dogs. Dogs barking is a common noise whether in the rural area or in towns. One would anticipate that well trained sheep dogs are less likely to bark than many domestic pets.
• 100. Noise from the comings and goings of the future residents of the proposed house is also considered as a potential intrusion by neighbouring residents. The existing homes are sited close enough together that residents would be aware of the normal domestic vehicular movements of their neighbours. There is nothing to suggest that future residents of the new dwelling would add significantly to the existing noise already experienced to an unacceptable degree. This would be the same in relation to domestic activities on the appeal site such as children playing or socialising in the garden.
• 101. Therefore, for the reasons set out above I find that the appeal proposal would not adversely affect the amenity of local residents sufficient to warrant allowing this appeal on this ground alone. The terms of IMSP Policy EP15 would remain uncompromised. Highway safety
• 102. Residents are concerned that traffic from the proposed farm centre and dwelling would unacceptably add to the level of traffic already using the A26 which they describe as a busy road. It is suggested that the movements generated by the new dwelling would interfere with road safety, particularly when existing residents are exiting their own drives. The proposed entrance is not opposite any existing driveways. The Highway Services Officer is satisfied that the required visibility splays, either side of the access, can be provided. Conflicting vehicle movements from dwellings along the main road seem to rely on good road sense, careful observation and courtesy between drivers. There would seem to

be no evidence that such an arrangement which currently works for residents should not persist.

Conclusion/Balance

• 103. Having evaluated the appeal proposal against the relevant policies of the IMSP and, in particular, EP1, EP15, HP7, HP8, HP9, HP10 and GP3, and having found a justification of agricultural need for the proposed agricultural workers dwelling and barn, no substantive harm has been found sufficient to warrant allowing this appeal. subject to a condition restricting occupancy of the agricultural workers dwelling to limited to a person engaged or last engaged solely in agriculture on the Isle of Man, or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependents.

Recommendation

• 104. Therefore, I recommend that the appeal be dismissed, with the effect that the decision of the Planning Authority be upheld and planning approval be granted for the erection of a new farmhouse and agricultural barn at Fields 321756, 321755 & 321758, Braaid Road, Braaid subject to compliance with the conditions specified below at Annex A and in particular subject to a condition restricting occupancy of the agricultural workers dwelling to be limited to a person engaged or last engaged solely in agriculture on the Isle of Man, or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependents23. The conditions are based on those set out in the officer’s report.

Reasons for Recommendation

• 105. The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in principle having demonstrated a clear functional need for a new agricultural workers dwelling and barn at the site. The development can be delivered without significant detriment to the visual amenities of the immediate locality and wider landscape. The proposals will not harm the amenity of residential properties in the area or highway safety and is considered to be acceptable in this regard. The proposals are therefore considered to be in accordance with Strategic Policy 5, Spatial Policy 5, Transport Policies 4 and 7, General Policies 2 and 3, and Environment Policies 1 and 15 and Housing Policies 79 of the Strategic Plan (2016).

Frances Mahoney MRTPI IHBC

Independent Inspector

27th August 2025

• 23 To be in compliance with IMSP Policy HP8.

Annex A Schedule of Conditions

In the event that the Minister is minded to up-hold Planning Approval it is recommended that the following conditions be applied

• 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• 2. No development shall commence until a schedule of materials and finishes to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including all hardsurfacing, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

• 3. The agricultural barn hereby approved must be used only for agricultural purposes.

Reason: The countryside is protected from development and an exception is being made on the basis of agricultural need. As such the buildings must be used solely for the purposes for which they are approved.

• 4. In the event that the agricultural barn hereby approved is no longer used or required for agriculture they shall be removed and the ground restored to its former condition within 18 months of the date the use ceased.

Reason: The countryside is protected from development and an exception is being made on the basis of agricultural need.

• 5. The occupation of the dwelling hereby approved shall be limited to a person engaged or last engaged solely in agriculture on the Isle of Man, or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependents.

Reason: The site is in an area where restrictive policies apply and new dwellings are not normally approved except in exceptional circumstances, which include where a functional agricultural need has been established and accepted by the Department.

• 6. No external lighting may be installed without the prior consent of the Department in writing. Reason: To prevent light pollution and impact on wildlife.

• 7. Prior to the commencement of development, a soft landscaping/planting plan incorporating native species shall be submitted to the Department for approval in writing. The submitted plan shall include new boundary hedges as shown on drawing no PBSP 03. The landscaping plan shall be implemented in full as per the approved details prior to the occupation of the development. Any new planting which is removed, becomes severely damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced. Replacement planting shall be in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the delivery and retention of an appropriate landscaping scheme, in the interests of the visual amenity of the locality.

• 8. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a Precautionary Working Method Statement for breeding birds and common lizards, written by a suitably qualified ecologist, shall be submitted to Planning and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved and shall thereafter retained as such. Reason: To safeguard statutorily protected species.
• 9. Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted, the access and visibility splays shall be fully constructed and completed in accordance with Drawing No. PBSPV 02 and PBSP 03 and the access shall be hard surfaced with a gradient not exceeding 7% over its first 6m. Thereafter the access shall be permanently retained as approved. The re-surfacing must result in a bound surface such that no material is tracked onto the public highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety
• 10.All areas within the visibility splays shown on the approved block site plan Drawing No. PBSP 03 shall be reduced to a maximum height of 1.05m prior to the occupation of the development and maintained thereafter for the lifetime of the development. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
• 11.The garage hereby approved shall at all times be made available for the parking of private motor vehicles(s) and shall be retained available for such use. Reason: To provide adequate parking provision to the dwellinghouse.
• 12.Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2025 (or any Order revoking and/or reenacting that Order with or without modification), no development shall be undertaken under the following classes of Schedule 1 of the Order at any time: Class 26 - Garage doors. Reason: To control future development on the site.

• 13.Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2025 (or any Order revoking and/or reenacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling, and no garages or other free-standing buildings shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department.

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

This approval relates to the following drawings;

Site Location Plan SLP 01 Proposed Block Site Plan 1:1000 PBSP 02 Proposed Block Site Plan 1:500 with visibility PBSPV 02 Proposed Block Site Plan enlarged 1:500 PBSP 03 Proposed Ground Floor Plan PGFP 01 Proposed First Floor Plan PFFP 01 Proposed Attic Floor Plan PAFP 01 Proposed Southeast Elevation PSEE 01 Proposed Northwest Elevation PNWE 01 Proposed Southwest and Northeast Elevations PSW and NEE 01 Proposed Section View PSV 01 Proposed Roof Plan PRP 01 Proposed Barn NE and SW Elevations PBNESWE 01 Proposed Barn NW and SE Elevations PBNWSEE 01 Proposed Barn Floor Plan PBFP 01 Proposed Barn Roof Plan PBRP 01

Relevant documents;

• Map of Parcels of Land Farmed 1
• Map of Parcels of Land Farmed 2
• Map of Parcels of Land Farmed 3 Site Plan of Fields Farmed at Hilberry, Onchan Planning Statement Agricultural Statement

End of Schedule