139312

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                                 16/00680/B
                                 Page  1  of  9

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 16/00680/B Applicant : Mr Roger Smith Proposal : Conversion and extensions to existing barns and out buildings to provide a watchmakers workshop Site Address : Outbuildings Claddagh Farm Sulby Bridge Sulby Isle Of Man

Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken :

Site Visit :

Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.

1.0 THE SITE

1.1 The application site is part of Claddagh Mill Farm, Sulby, which is situated to the east of Sulby Bridge and Sulby village itself. The site comprises the access road, which extends more than 150m into the centre of the farm, and also former stable buildings arranged in a horseshoe shape and a steel-framed blockwork and steel-framed barn of modern construction. The latter has, internally, two staircases providing access to two mezzanine levels at first floor level. The older buildings are in a relatively good state of repair despite their lack of active use; the modern building is perhaps unsurprisingly in very good repair. The access road is lined with mature hedgerows for the vast majority of its length, while there are some walls separating the site from the fields to the north and west. The site is not within a Conservation Area, and nor are any of the buildings here Registered.

1.2 Also within the applicant's control, but outside of the application site (that is, within the land edged blue on the location plan) is a house and four fields that were associated with the farmholding when it was in active use. There does not appear to be an active agricultural business on the "blue land" currently, albeit that some sheep were seen grazing in the northern field at the time of the site visit. The house, which was built recently following demolition of the previous dwelling, does not have a condition restricting its occupancy to an agricultural worker.

2.0 PLANNING HISTORY

2.1 The contemporary barn was erected following the approval granted to PA 07/01849/B. The replacement dwelling was constructed following the approval granted to PA 08/02251/B.

2.2 Of most relevance is PA 14/00623/B. This sought approval for the conversion and linking of all the agricultural buildings for the purposes of a watch-maker's workshop. It is perhaps worth noting the case officer's assessment in respect of this application in full:

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                                 16/00680/B
                                 Page  2  of  9

"6.1 Perhaps the first issue to consider is the extent to which the loss of the existing farming enterprise (such as it is) would be acceptable. The Agricultural Advisor noted that there does not appear to be any agricultural operation taking place in the area that could properly be considered as an "enterprise". While there are fields used for the grazing of horses and sheep, none of the fields within the application site's blue land are registered in DEFA's system as being actively farmed. Mr Kneale also pointed out that the existing range of stone buildings would be unsuitable for the housing of livestock or for access by modern machinery and are therefore considered to be of little agricultural use.

"6.2 It is noted that the modern barn was constructed on the basis of a then-recent appeal decision nearby, where the Inspector had recommended approval for an application for a new barn even though that barn was of a size greater than was needed by that farming enterprise. It was apparently felt by the Planning Authority that an objection to a barn on the current application site of a size slightly over that required by the agricultural enterprise could not be sustained; it was evident from the pre-application site visit that the barn was not being used to any great degree for agricultural purposes, with storage of household equipment forming the main use. This is unfortunate. It is also true that the counter to this concern is that a proposal to bring the barn into a more active use, even if that is not agricultural, is perhaps more welcome than the somewhat ad hoc nature of the barn's current storage use.

"6.3 On this basis, it is considered that an objection to the proposal on the grounds of the loss of an agricultural enterprise could not be sustained. In any case, it should be acknowledged that no change of use to the fields within the applicant's control is proposed such that any grazing activities carried out there would not necessarily cease were the planning application to be approved.

"6.4 Whether or not the site is appropriate for the proposed use is the next key test. The Strategic Plan is not altogether supportive of new business operations in countryside locations, with the general goal being to direct new development of all kinds to existing settlements. However, there are some generic, overarching aims and policies that direct the Planning Authority to consider favourably applications that make the best use of land, especially where redundant or under-used buildings are involved, and also to support the growth and diversity of the economy. This last point has become ever more crucial in decision-making following the Strategic Plan's adoption given the tough financial conditions currently facing the Island.

"6.5 The Department of Economic Development are supportive of the scheme, stating that "Roger W Smith Watchmakers is a highly specialised manufacturer of very high value watches which have a worldwide reputation as one of the finest wrist watches made... The Department strongly supports this type of business as it epitomises the 'niche', small scale manufacturer which may operate on the Island with a minimal environmental impact, but which in addition to the direct economic benefit it creates, also generates very significant positive PR for the Island from the direct association with the very high quality watches produced and the long history of horology on the Isle of Man".

"6.6 While it might be a slight stretch to indicate that such comments mean the development proposed is of overriding national need in land use planning terms - as required by General Policy 3(g) - it is, equally, considered that there could be a justification to set aside the general presumption against new development in the countryside. Such a consideration is also supported by the provisions of General Policy 3(b) in respect of the older barns, which are considered to have architectural and historic interest. It should also be noted that the proposal involves the construction of a small linkage unit of just under 25sqm between the newer and older barns, and another link within the older barns of 8sqm, such that the visual impact from the implementation of the current application would be quite limited. This is discussed in further detail later in the report.

"6.7 While the Strategic Plan does not have any specific policies supportive of such a proposal, there is a general thrust towards the re-use of existing buildings where these are redundant (Strategic Policy 1), towards building a diversified economy (Economic Progress Aim), and towards

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                                 16/00680/B
                                 Page  3  of  9

the growth of employment opportunities (Business Policy 1). There is also support for the provision of office space, of which the application includes some, outside of established settlement boundaries in buildings of architectural or historic interest and for which office use represents the an appropriate, practicable and economic way of securing future use, renovation and maintenance (Business Policy 7).

"6.8 There should also be an acknowledgement of the very real prestige that the applicant's business carries with it, and that the proposed use is unique in nature to the Island.

"6.9 It is therefore considered that, balancing the unique nature of the proposed use and the applicant's business against the relevant policies and Aim of the Strategic Plan, the principle of the proposal is judged to be acceptable.

"6.10 What remains to be assessed are issues relating to flooding, highways safety, the protection of important species and, finally, the proposed physical changes to the buildings themselves.

"6.11 In terms of flooding, the applicant's agent points out the logic that the finished floor level of a converted building will to some degree be governed by the existing floor levels. This is especially true where the existing buildings are relatively low and where "building up" the floor level would be impracticable in terms of the proposed use. It is also pointed out that the flood alleviation works carried out nearby to the site in recent years will, despite their being focussed on residential properties, have had a positive effect on reducing flood risk in this area.

"6.12 No evidence has been supplied to back up this claim, but it seems fairly reasonable. In any case, however, the fact that the proposed works would not have a different impact to the existing situation - no new impermeable surfaces are proposed - makes an objection on this point difficult to sustain. It is also noted that there is no objection to the proposal from the flood risk engineer within the Manx Utilities Authority on the basis that the site falls on the edge of an area at risk of flooding, and also that a proposed non-residential use is of less concern with respect to flood risk than would be the case for a residential use.

"6.13 The findings of the bat and owl survey, which has been prepared by an independent expert, are not disputed and therefore no objection is raised in respect of the potential impact of the proposal on either of these animals.

"6.14 Turning to the matter of highway safety, it is noted that the access to the site from the main road is not especially good in terms of visibility. However, the road here is on something of an S- bend such that vehicle speeds are not especially high. The speed limit is 30mph and, while this limit may not be one that is regularly adhered to, that such a limit exists does give an indication of what is an appropriate and average speed. The access lane is narrow but a passing place to accommodate two vehicles side-by-side is proposed. The access to the site is almost opposite a residential cul-de-sac.

"6.15 It is noted that Highway Services do not object to the application subject to the imposition of a condition requiring that "nothing must be planted, erected or allowed to remain within the visibility splay that exceeds or may exceed one metre in height". They also comment that the additional road movements likely to be generated by the proposal are such as to not impact on road safety; while it is not immediately clear how many clients and employees the business will attract / have, the nature of the business is such that the numbers of both is likely to be minimal such that Highway Services' position seems reasonable. No objection is therefore raised on the issue of highways safety.

"6.16 Turning finally to the design changes proposed, important considerations given that the site is within an area of high landscape value, it is not considered that these will have any great impact. The proposed window changes in the newer barn will quite likely improve its appearance by

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                                 16/00680/B
                                 Page  4  of  9

reducing the starkness of the currently somewhat flat and featureless elevations. The use of colours reflective of the building at ground and first floor levels are welcome.

"6.17 The minor changes proposed to the older barns will quite likely have something of a neutral effect on their appearance; while they are far more attractive in their current guise than the modern element to the north, the changes proposed are minimal in scale and nature. The use of conservation-style rooflights is welcome. While it is perhaps a touch unfortunate that windows of a non-traditional opening method are proposed, it is acknowledged that the buildings already offer a variety of different window styles and it is also true that the original use of the building as a barn could make the installation of sliding sash windows a little contrived inasmuch it is highly unlikely that these were ever employed in the barn.

"6.18 The proposed link units are also considered unobjectionable in terms of their visual impact. The use of traditional finishes in terms of Manx walling and natural slate roofing is welcome, and the form and mass of the larger link unit reflects the existing, older barns."

2.3 The Planning Committee approved this application on officer recommendation, with the following conditions added:

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

Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

C 2. The use hereby approved shall only be for the benefit of Mr Roger Smith, the applicant, and in accordance with the details set out in the supporting Design Statement (date-stamped as having been received 19th May 2014) submitted by the applicant/agent.

Reason: While the development hereby approved is considered acceptable in this location given the special circumstances of the applicant, this may not be the case in respect of any other future users of the site.

C 3. Prior to the commencement of any works, details, including elevations of the means of providing the required visibility splays, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: in the interests of highway safety and the visual amenity of the area.

C 4. Prior to any construction works commencing on site, the visibility splays and passing places must be provided in accordance with the approved drawings and retained as such.

Reason: in the interests of highway safety and the visual amenity of the area.

2.4 There were some post-approval issues raised with respect to discharging conditions 3 and 4 as the visibility splay that would ordinary be required by Highway Services could not be provided on land within the ownership of the applicant. However, the conditions were worded quite loosely and allowed for negotiation in respect of what visibility splays could be provided. The conditions were discharged, and it is understood that the work required to provide the splay has been undertaken.

2.5 More recently, the agent contacted the Department, commenting as follows:

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                                 16/00680/B
                                 Page  5  of  9

"Phase A was approved as a conversion of the existing steel portal frame barn to provide staff/workshop facilities for the manufacturing of the proposed watches and involved a first floor mezzanine level.

"Due to budget constraints our client has instructed us to look at amending this part of the proposed scheme so that it is all accommodated within a single storey level and omit the first floor mezzanine level. Due to the loss of floor area we have added a single storey extension to be erected off the existing west gable end of the main steel portal frame building."

2.6 The current application - detailed below - reflects these issues.

3.0 THE PROPOSAL

3.1 Full planning approval is now sought for the conversion of the existing barns and outbuildings into a watch-maker's workshop: the newer and older barns would be linked via a glazed extension. The larger, newer agricultural building would have a single storey, gable-ended extension added to its west elevation. Other than these additions, there are limited physical alterations proposed to the buildings and surrounding site, with the main element of the proposal being the change of use of the buildings.

3.2 As noted, two new link buildings are proposed; one would sit between the modern and older barns and have an almost square footprint; this would have a number of window panels and some dwarf walls faced in Manx stone to match the existing stonework on the barn. One set of double doors would sit in the two sides of the link extension, which would measure just under 25sqm. The second link building is perhaps better described as a small infill in the older barns; the sole entrance to the central courtyard is via a covered, gated entranceway. The infill would be created by the installation of two doors - one to the internal courtyard and one to the external of the barns. The windows and doors would be dark grey in colour and constructed of either: timber and cladded with aluminium, or be uPVC-framed.

3.3 The other extension measures just under 50sqm in size and provides space for an office, canteen and meeting room. This would be finished in common with the overcladding scheme proposed for the remainder of that barn: a mixture of rendered walls and larch or cedar vertical timber boarding.

3.4 A number of window changes are also proposed in both the modern and older barns. There is an existing rooflight in the older barns, and this is proposed to be increased to seven overall through the addition of six central pivot conservation-style rooflights within the courtyard-facing roof pitch to the northern 'wing' (four) and eastern 'wing' (two). Two existing non-opening windows in the east elevation, formed of 15 small panels each, are proposed to be removed and replaced with slightly larger casement units. Within the courtyard-facing walls, again only minor alterations are proposed: two of the existing eight timber doors would be replaced with floor-to-ceiling windows, while a small timber canopy with supporting uprights would be removed. All the windows proposed here would be dark grey in colour and be either timber and cladded with aluminium, or uPVC- framed.

3.5 Rather more extensive changes are proposed to the modern barn, but less so now than under the extant scheme. Currently, it has four windows, one pedestrian door and two roller shutter access doors (one in the gable end and one in the side elevation - the latter is by far the larger). The existing four windows and smaller roller shutter door would be replaced by a number of windows set within the timber boarding to be clad at the first floor all around the building's exterior, though the larger of the two roller shutter doors would be retained. All the windows would be double-glazed and have slate-grey frames. A small porch with steps up is proposed to the north elevation.

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                                 16/00680/B
                                 Page  6  of  9

3.6 In regards to the proposed uses, it is proposed that the modern barn, along with the proposed extension, would be given over to a workshop and staff facilities. The older barns would effectively be split into three different uses: the western 'wing' would be largely given over to storage and would have no alterations made; the northern 'wing' would be used to greet clients and as a display area, and the eastern 'wing' would be converted to an office, kitchen and WC. The glazed link would provide a pedestrian entrance and link between the workshop and the display / client meeting area.

4.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN

4.1 The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'white land and woodland' not zoned for development under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area, but is within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.

4.2 In terms of the Strategic Plan, it is considered that Environment Policy 16 is of the most significant relevance to the assessment of this application, albeit that a number of other policies and supporting elements are applicable, to include: the Economic Progress Aim, Strategic Policy 1, General Policy 3, Environment Policies 2, 4, 10, 13 and 38, and Business Policies 1 and 7.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure offered the following comments on 28th July 2016, noting that they did not oppose the application:

"The above proposed development was the subject of a previous application (14/00623/B) which was permitted in August 2014. The new application is as a result of changes to the previously proposed internal layout of the existing steel portal frame outbuilding and therefore has no impact on the previously agreed improved access arrangements on the A3 Lezayre Road.

"It is noted that the supporting documents include correspondence confirming that the visibility splays indicated on Penketh - Millar Drawing Number 14 1047 - 10 was considered to satisfy the requirements of Condition 3 of the previous approval.

"Recommendation: Having reviewed the supporting information, the Department of Infrastructure does not oppose this planning application. However, any highways related conditions attached to the previous consent that have not been discharged should also apply to this application."

5.2 Lezayre Parish Commissioners unanimously approved the planning application on 11.07.2016.

5.3 During consideration of the previous application, two officers in separate Departments were contacted for their views.

5.3.1 The Agricultural Advisor of the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture was contacted for their advice. He advised as follows: "I assume that until recently the land was utilised for the grazing of horses. The fields do not appear on our system and the previous occupier or current applicant has not been involved in any agricultural schemes.

"The range of stone buildings will be of little agricultural use being unsuitable for the housing of livestock or access by modern machinery."

5.3.2 The Assistant Flood Risk Management Engineer of the Manx Utilities Authority was contacted for advice given that the site falls within an area classed as being 'high risk flood zone - river'. He advised as follows: "the development is right on the border of the Flood Envelope so the depth of

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                                 16/00680/B
                                 Page  7  of  9

flooding should not be severe and as the building is commercial and not a home we are less concerned.

"However the client should be made aware of the risk and we advise taking appropriate flood defence measures."

5.4 In respect of that same application, the Senior Biodiversity Officer of the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture indicated that an assessment of the site in terms of wildlife constraints - specifically bats and owls - should be undertaken. The applicant's agent was advised of this and a bat survey was conducted and duly provided to Dr Selman and the Planning Authority. This was prepared by Mr N Pinder, a licenced bat worker and member of the Manx Bat Group. This survey included a watch being kept for bats after dusk; two bats were noted feeding but had not emerged from the buildings on the application site. Mr Pinder concludes: "...there is no sign of use by bats or owls of any of the buildings under consideration and only very limited potential for use by bats as either a maternity or hibernation roost. Given the present layout of the buildings they ae unlikely to ever be used by owls". Dr Selman advised that he was content with the findings of the report and considered the matter closed.

5.5 And, finally, again in respect of that same application, the Chief Executive of the Department of Economic Development commented in support. They advise that the applicant's business expansion make his current premises (in Ballaugh) inadequate. Their letter of support is summarised with the statement that: "positive determination of the planning application that you are considering will allow or encourage:

o Continued expansion of a successful manufacturing business o New employment and training opportunities in a highly specialised area o Fiscal benefits to the Island of a high value but low impact activity o Promotion of the Island as a location of excellence for the manufacture and the place of origin of a product with world renown"

6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 It is considered that the main issue to assess in this case are the extent to which the amended scheme would represent an acceptable way forward in the context of the relevant policies and also the extant approval.

6.2 The extant approval is a good and well-considered scheme that makes good use of existing and redundant buildings. That it reflects a specific need for a clearly positive economic development use is particularly welcome.

6.3 The amended scheme has elements to commend it: the reduction in windows relative to the extant scheme is a positive in reducing what might be considered a somewhat cluttered approach. The new porch would be a welcome 'break' in the north elevation as well, which despite the well- considered finishes might still have something of an undifferentiated and stark appearance. The additional extension, which is probably the main difference in appearance with the extant scheme, is also well-considered. It would be of similarly appropriate finishes and ones to match the existing building: it would also be set down from it and accordingly is suitably subordinate. From those positions from which it could be seen it would likely appear as an appropriate addition, and would help reduce the massing of the modern building.

6.4 However, these are design considerations, and it must be borne in mind that Environment Policy 16 is clear that "it is demonstrated that the building could accommodate the new use without requiring extension or adverse change to the appearance or character". While the latter clause is clearly met, it is also true that an extension is proposed. It must therefore be considered whether there are material considerations that override this conflict with EP16.

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                                 16/00680/B
                                 Page  8  of  9

6.5 As with the previous scheme, and as noted in paragraph 4.2 of this report, there are a number of other policies and Strategic Aims that either support economic development such as that proposed or do not presume against it where the impact on the character or appearance of the countryside will not be affected. In view of the continuing support of the DED, and also the positive conclusions in respect of the design and appearance of the newly proposed extension and also the site as a whole, it is concluded that the amended scheme is acceptable. Indeed, though on balance, it is considered that the current application, though proposing an increase in massing of the buildings, would probably reduce their visual impact such as this could be seen.

6.6 In respect of highway safety, the plan submitted to discharge the condition attached to the previous application with respect to the visibility splay has been submitted on this occasion. The splay shown on the submitted drawings are, the agent has advised, what is achievable at present even if the splay itself is outside the application site and consequently outside the applicant's control. Highway Services have noted that the drawing showing the visibility splay was submitted in discharge of Condition 3 of the previous application, but that any condition not yet discharged should be re-attached on this occasion. Condition 3 has been discharged. However, some form of condition relating to the visibility splay would again be required for completeness albeit that the visibility shown on that drawing (110m to the north and 90m to the south) can be achieved at present.

6.7 In respect of the above, a condition requiring the passing place be provided, and the visibility splay retained, both as shown on that plan, would be appropriate even if the control of the visibility splay lies outwith the control of the applicant.

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

7.1 In view of the favourable conclusions reached, it is recommended that approval be granted. A condition tying this approval to the applicant remains necessary given that the application is in many ways considered acceptable because of the specific nature of the applicant's circumstances, as is the condition discussed in paragraph 6.6 above.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; o The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; o The Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 01.08.2016

Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                                 16/00680/B
                                 Page  9  of  9

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

Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

C 2. The use hereby approved shall only be for the benefit of Mr Roger Smith, the applicant, and in accordance with the details set out in the supporting Design Statement (date-stamped as having been received 16th June 2016) submitted by the applicant/agent.

Reason: While the development hereby approved is considered acceptable in this location given the special circumstances of the applicant, this may not be the case in respect of any other future users of the site.

C 3. Prior to any construction works commencing on site, the visibility splays and passing places must be provided in accordance with Drawing 10 (date-stamped as having been received 16th June 2016) and retained as such.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

The development hereby approved relates to the following drawings and the planning statement, all date-stamped as having been received 16th June 2016: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5A, 6A, 7A, 9 and 10.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : ...Permitted..

Committee Meeting Date:...08.08.2016

Signed : E RILEY Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.