Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
16/00128/B
Page 1 of 11
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 16/00128/B Applicant : Harvey Investments Ltd Proposal : Demolition of existing piggery and erection of tourist accommodation Site Address : Ballaveare Farm Old Castletown Road Port Soderick Isle Of Man IM4 1BB
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 03.03.2016 Site Visit : 03.03.2016 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE INTERIM DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & BUILDING CONTROL.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA
1.1 The application site is a landholding associated with an address known as Ballaveare Farm, but which is an established residential dwelling. The landholding is quite significant and includes open land that would appear to be used as a garden, and some as agricultural grazing land, as well as a small stable block and an outbuilding that is described on the site plan as an old piggery formed of stone, brick, rendered blockwork and has a felt roof. Its varied appearance means it has no particular architectural or historic merit; as the site is not within a Conservation Area the building could be demolished without planning approval.
1.2 The access to the site is off the Old Castletown Road in Port Soderick, and is formed of a fairly low, part-stone and part-rendered blockwork wall; it is also lined with trees.
1.3 There is a neighbouring dwelling - Shenvalley - to the northeast as well as a short row of detached dwellings on the opposite side of the road. This immediate area of Port Soderick is sparsely developed but has the character very much of a small village rather than a collection of isolated buildings. Nearby - immediately northeast of Shenvalley - as well as a little further afield there have been planning approvals for replacement dwellings and as such the area feels as if it is undergoing something of a transition period.
1.4 The agent to the application identifies that "the character of the area has been changing rapidly and planning approval has bene granted for the replacement of dwellings near and adjacent to the site with much larger new houses" - two such applications are reference.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a single storey building to provide what is described as "high end tourist accommodation"; reference is made to a gap in the market for 4 and 5 star accommodation catering to outdoor activities that attract off-Island tourists and which require a rural location (e.g. rambling, mountain biking, dog walking, bird watching) as well as "luxurious, well-designed and well-constructed accommodation".
==== PAGE 2 ====
16/00128/B
Page 2 of 11
2.2 The proposed building would be immediately contiguous with the southeastern elevation of the existing piggery, which is to be demolished as part of the proposal. The building is not quite 50% larger in footprint than the piggery, and would be arranged with a central dining / kitchen area, to either side of which are identical outdoor seating areas and what appear to be Jacuzzis or hot tubs, as well as identical en-suite double bedrooms. There would be two dedicated parking spaces suitable for disabled drivers, one behind each bedroom.
2.3 The building would be finished in a mixture of natural stone, natural slate and some natural timber cladding. To the southeast-facing elevation, the building would be predominantly glazed to take advantage of the open views in this direction; the outdoor seating areas also face this way. The central kitchen / dining area separates these two areas in the form of a gable projection, the roof of which would have a single metal chimney flue.
2.4 Following concern raised by Highway Services with regards the access, amended drawings have been received showing the intention to reduce the walling to 1.1m or less in height, along with the removal of existing leylandii screening to the front of the site. This was circulated to the interested parties.
2.5 The agent to the application accepts that the proposal does not comply with a number of the specific policies that relate to new tourism development, and nor will it readily comply with all the policies that restrict new development in the countryside - specifically, General Policy 3. However, in submitting the application, the agent feels there is sufficient reason to positively balance the presumption against development in the countryside against what is proposed here, summarising and concluding as follows:
"The applicant needs to generate an income for her family and to enable the continued up keep and maintenance of Ballveare Farm.
"The applicant's aspiration is to create high end tourist accommodation offering an exceptional visitor experience, utilizing modern innovative design of high quality, and the site and its location offer a unique opportunity to achieve this. It would enable enjoyment of the Island's natural attraction as per Strategic Policy 8.
"Although the exception criteria for development under General Policy 3 are not met it is considered that the proposed development would not adversely affect the countryside, no would it harm the character and quality of the landscape.
"In order to take full advantage of the view it is proposed to demolish the existing piggery and erect the new building close by. This will create an exceptional effect that could not be achieved by re- using the piggery. It is accepted that this deviates from Housing Policy 11 but it is considered that this is justified in light of what the applicant is trying to achieve. The location of the new building will create a pleasing arrangement in itself.
"The development is of small size and has access to many local natural amenities. It is not considered that it would have a significant impact in terms of generating additional traffic or highway safety, now would it undermine the sustainable objectives of the Strategic Plan or set a precedent for unsustainable development."
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY AND THE HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
3.1 The site has a relevant though not especially recent Planning history. A pair of applications were submitted in 2003 seeking approval for "Erection of an outbuilding to provide garaging, workshop/store and additional living accommodation" under PA 03/01202/B and extensions to the existing house under PA 03/01203/B. Both were approved at appeal in 2004. The latter decision is not especially relevant and relates to the existing dwelling and the trees present.
==== PAGE 3 ====
16/00128/B
Page 3 of 11
3.2 The former application, though, is relevant even if the decisions reached were made in the context of a different Development Plan. The case officer initially refused the application for the following reason:
"The new building is not modest in size and would resemble in part a new dwelling in what is the rural landscape surrounding the settlement, thus extending the built up part of the settlement further into the countryside. The Planning Committee is not persuaded that there is sufficient need or justification for the building to set aside these objections."
There is no commentary in the Committee minutes accompanying this issued decision.
The Inspector in considering the appeal and recommending the application's approval gave significant weight to his view that the emerging Braddan Local Plan of 2003 would be adopted as "a formality" (para.28), and that the application site was proposed to be zoned as residential in that Plan.
As this adoption did not actually take place as had been assumed, the 1991 Braddan Local Plan remains a part of the Development Plan, with the 1982 Development Plan also being clear that the land is (i) zoned as an Area of High Landscape Value, (ii) zoned as Woodland, and (iii) not zoned for any new development. By virtue of point (ii), all trees on the site are Registered.
3.3 The agent to the application indicates why the approval was not implemented:
"At the time of the application the site was being grazed by Loaghtan sheep, llamas and alpacas. The new facilities were required for garaging and a feed store for the animals, as well as additional living accommodation for the large house hold at the time. The livestock farming has now reduced in scale and the property is occupied by Mrs Kingston [the owner of the applicant company], her partner and her son. These facilities are therefore no longer required."
4.0 OTHER RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 Of very specific relevance are the applications submitted on land at Ard Na Mara, just 330m from the application site. It is very much worth noting the following comments of the Inspector assessing the latest determined scheme at that site, which (in brief) sought approval for the erection of buildings to provide tourist accommodation following the demolition of barns on the same site that had previously been granted approval to be converted for tourist use. The Inspector commented, in part, as follows:
"...the rural location of the tourist units flies in the face of the sustainable development objectives that underpin [the Strategic Plan]. Douglas and Ballasalla are at least 5km away. There are no shops, pubs or other services within easy walking distance. I consider it reasonable to suppose that the vast majority of journeys to and from the proposed tourist units would be made by private car. One of the objectives of Strategic Policy 10 is to minimise journeys, especially by private car. The proposed development would not do this.
"...Business Policy 11 makes it quite clear that the policies and designations that protect the countryside from development should be applied with as much weight to tourist developments as they are to any other kind of development.
"For the above reasons I find the principle of the proposed development to be wholly unacceptable."
4.2 An Inspector considered an appeal against the refusal of the demolition of an outbuilding and its replacement with a larger building to provide tourist accommodation in St John's (PA 11/01575/B). The Inspector recommended the application be refused. In respect of the principle, he commented as follows:
==== PAGE 4 ====
16/00128/B
Page 4 of 11
"The appeal site is not in an area that is zoned for development, and so falls to be considered as countryside. As a result, the relevant starting point for considering this proposal is General Policy 3, [part (c) of which] relates to previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where development would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment.
"There are a number of reasons why the appeal proposed should not be regarded as complying with those provisions. The first is that part of the appeal site does not fall within the definition of previously developed land in Appendix 1 of the Strategic Plan. A significant part of the proposed building would like on land that is neither within the footprint of the outbuilding to be demolished nor within the existing residential curtilage of Kennaa Cottage. That part of the building would be sited on land which is currently part of an adjacent field, and which cannot be regarded as being previously developed land. The second reason is that the appellant has provided no substantial evidence to show that the continued use of the land to be occupied by the proposed tourist accommodation, including the use of the outbuilding, is redundant.
4.3 The Inspector went further:
"Even if it were to be accepted that more tourist accommodation is needed in this locality, the available evidence does not demonstrate that new build development of the kind proposed is the appropriate manner of providing it. Moreover, I am doubtful as to whether any economic growth that might arise from this proposal should be regarded as sustainable growth... Having regard to the harm which would be caused to the character and appearance of the countryside by this proposal, it is my view that account also needs to be taken of the cumulative impact that schemes of this kind could have in reducing the attractiveness of the Island to tourists and in jeopardising the sustainability of tourism as an economic activity. In that respect, the proposal cannot reasonably be regarded as contributing to sustainable economic growth."
4.4 There have been other decisions taken recently in other, semi-rural parts of the Island where proposals for residential dwellings on land not zoned for development have been approved. These decisions have largely been arrived at following an appeal, and in various parts of the Island (Sulby (PA 14/00687/A), Santon (PA 12/00643/A) and Kirk Michael (PAs 14/00074/B and 15/00815/A)), and in each case the decision has turned to a large degree on the character and appearance of the area, and also to a lesser degree on the level of services those settlements possess. There have also been applications for tourist use in such locations that have been both refused (such as that at Ard Na Mara), and others that have been approved, most recently in Regaby at a recent Planning Committee (PA 16/00038/C), though this was an application that sought to change the use of an existing building rather than create a new one.
4.5 It is to be remembered that appeal decisions are material considerations: they are not determinative of future applications, however similar the circumstances may be. In this case, it is considered that the circumstances of the application site are similar to the other sites mentioned. The relevant extracts from the Inspector's Reports will need to be borne in mind.
5.0 THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
5.1 As noted, the current Development Plan is comprised of the Braddan Local Plan (1991) and the Strategic Plan (2007). In view of the nature of the proposal and planning history of the site, the relevant Strategic Plan policies are set out below. It is not considered that the Braddan Plan contains any written policies of material relevance to the determination of the application.
5.2 Spatial Policy 5: "New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3."
5.3 Strategic Policy 1: "Development should make the best use of resources by:
==== PAGE 5 ====
16/00128/B
Page 5 of 11
(a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."
5.4 Strategic Policy 2: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3."
5.5 Strategic Policy 8: "Tourist development proposals will generally be permitted where they make use of existing built fabric of interest and quality, where they do not affect adversely environmental, agricultural, or highway interests and where they enable enjoyment of our natural and man-made attractions."
5.6 Strategic Policy 10: "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:
(a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement."
5.7 General Policy 3: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
(a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10); (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); (c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment; (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14); (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage."
5.8 Environment Policy 1: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative."
5.9 Environment Policy 2: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of
==== PAGE 6 ====
16/00128/B
Page 6 of 11
landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:
(a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential."
5.10 Business Policy 11: "Tourism development must be in accordance with the sustainable development objectives of this plan; policies and designations which seek to protect the countryside from development will be applied to tourist development with as much weight as they are to other types of development. Within the rural areas there may be situations where existing rural buildings could be used for tourist use and Environment Policy 16 sets out the circumstances where this may be permitted."
5.11 Business Policy 14: "Tourism development may be permitted in rural areas provided that it complies with the policies in the Plan. Farmhouse accommodation or quality self catering units in barn conversions and making use of rural activities will be encouraged but must comply with General Policy 3 and Business Policies 11 and 12. Other forms of quality accommodation in rural areas will be considered, including the provision of hostels and similar accommodation suitable for walkers but must comply with General Policy 3 and Business Policies 11 and 12."
5.12 Transport Policy 7: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."
5.13 The agent to the application suggests that, were "a settlement boundary to be drawn around Ballaveare (in the same way as, for example, the small settlements of St Marks or Derbyhaven are defined by a settlement boundary in the Southern Area Plan) the site would be within that boundary".
5.14 The agent also identifies that Environment Policy 16, Housing Policy 11 and Business Policy 12 apply to this proposal - however, as these policies are all specifically geared towards supporting the conversion of existing rural buildings (subject to those conversions meeting a number of specific criteria), it is not considered that they could reasonably be given significant weight in this instance.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 Highway Services within the Department of Infrastructure initially deferred issuing an opinion on the proposal on 15.02.16, commenting as follows:
"Applicant needs to provide details on the visibility splays of existing and proposed shared entrance. Traffic data indicates that 85% tile of vehicles are travelling at 40mph (10mph over imposed 30mph speed limit). Visibility splays therefore should be 2.4 metres back from the edge of carriageway x 90 metres in both directions. This can be reduced to 70 metres in data shows that no accidents have occured in this location."
Following submission of the amended plan, they amended their position to one of formal objection, writing as follows:
"If the application is to be approved the following conditions should be attached:
"1. Prior to any construction the access shown on drawing no 1506-100 rev A dated Jan 2016 shall be constructed and the visibility splays shall remain unobstructed at a height of 1.05m thereafter.
"Reason: In the interest of highway safety
"2. Prior to the use of any building the car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided and remain free from obstruction thereafter.
==== PAGE 7 ====
16/00128/B
Page 7 of 11
"Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety."
6.2 The Head of Tourism within the Department of Economic Development identified an interest in the application as a result of the provisions of the Tourist Act 1975 in comments received 22.03.2016. They commented in full as follows:
"A full on site advisory visit has been undertaken by officers and the officers and the applicants are aware of registration criteria.
"The proposal is in sympathy with the Department's policy to encourage quality tourist accommodation and to encourage the diversification of such sites to boost the local economy.
"The Tourist Industry still makes a significant contribution to the Island's economy and in the current economic climate we must strive to preserve and enhance the assets we have. The encouragement of any tourist accommodation on the Island will impact upon the tourist industry's ability to contribute to the economy.
"In conclusion the Quality and Service Team at Isle of Man Tourism, Department of Economic Development fully supports the above planning application."
6.3 Comments were received from the Forester on 1st April 2016 as follows: "I have no objections to this amendment. The removal of the conifer hedge will probably be beneficial to health of the broadleaf trees behind."
6.3 Braddan Parish Commissioners offered no objection to the proposal on 23.02.2016.
7.0 ASSESSMENT
The principle of the use proposed
7.1 In assessing the current proposal, the circumstances in this case are that (i) the existing building is of poor form, (ii) the Strategic Plan presumes against new development in such a location as this, and (iii) recent appeal decisions indicate that the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings as well as access to key services are key in making assessments of applications for development on land not so zoned. It should also be remembered that what is proposed is a new building in the countryside, and that in assessing such proposals the Strategic Plan is very clear that the same weight should be attached to policies presuming against new dwellings in the countryside as to any other building.
7.2 Of fundamental relevance to the assessment of this proposal is the principle of the proposed, new use in this location, in particular along with the journey generation resulting from that use and how this would sit alongside the sustainable development principles outlined in the Strategic Plan and which presumes that new development should be directed towards existing settlements that benefit from adequate services (shops, schools, public transport and so forth).
7.3 The agent has approached the situation honestly, and this is to be welcomed. The site is within particularly sensitive countryside, and, while the conversion of the existing building would be contrary to Housing Policy 11, Environment Policy 16 and Business Policy 12 as it is not of any particular social, historic or architectural interest, equally a new building here is presumed against by the policies that seek to protect the countryside for its own sake. New development in the countryside is generally presumed against.
7.4 In considering this application, it is worth again noting very closely the comments of the Inspectors as outlined in Section 4 of this report.
==== PAGE 8 ====
16/00128/B
Page 8 of 11
7.5 In coming to her view that the Ard Na Mara proposal failed to meet both Strategic Policy 10 and Business Policy 11, both of which apply directly to the current proposal, the Inspector concluded that, "I find the principle of the proposed development to be wholly unacceptable".
7.6 The Inspector's conclusions in respect of the Ard Na Mara site must give particular pause for thought: to approve the application now before the Committee it could be said that the Department is not being consistent in its decision-making. It must be remembered that Ard Na Mara is on the edge of the same settlement as this current application. The buildings on this site are the subject of an Enforcement Notice requiring their demolition.
7.7 On this basis, and while it is acknowledged that there is a difference in scale in the proposals, it is considered that it would be contradictory to conclude that the principle of the proposal is acceptable.
The future implications for the site
7.8 There must also be concern about what would happen to the building were the tourist business to fail. It is clearly large enough to form a satisfactory dwelling, and is of an interesting and well-considered design and materials (again, this will be discussed further later). It could be difficult to resist a future application to change the use of the building to a residential dwelling under Housing Policy 11. A new access could easily be installed, while the building would be far enough away from other existing and new dwellings in the area to mean its impact on neighbouring living conditions would be satisfactory. Moreover, there would be sufficient garden land for that dwelling. While the visual impact would be acceptable in accordance with Environment Policy 2, there would be much more regular trip generation from a new residential dwelling, and as such would clearly fail to comply with Strategic Policy 10.
7.9 As such, to approve the current application would be tantamount to allowing a new dwelling in what is clearly an unsustainable location on land zoned as countryside. This is perhaps what was foreseen and presumed against in Business Policy 11: "Tourism development must be in accordance with the sustainable development objectives of this plan; policies and designations which seek to protect the countryside from development will be applied to tourist development with as much weight as they are to other types of development".
7.10 The settlement is unsustainable: Ballaveare has an irregular bus service but otherwise is some distance from any other facilities.
7.11 In view of the above, it is considered that to recommend the application be approved would be inimical to the central tenets of the sustainable development criteria of the Strategic Plan. The proposal is fundamentally in conflict with the Plan and, while the best endeavours of the applicant and their agent in all matters are welcomed and appreciated, it has not been demonstrated that there is a sufficient defined and qualitative benefits from this scheme to balance positively against this fundamental conflict.
7.12 As such, it is concluded that the proposal fails to comply with Environment Policy 1, General Policy 3 and Business Policies 11 and 14, and as such should be refused.
7.13 Notwithstanding the conclusion that the principle of the proposal is wholly unacceptable, it remains important to also assess the detail of the proposal.
The character and appearance of the area and the design of the building proposed
7.14 This part of Ballaveare is evolving to some degree through the granted planning approvals for the replacement dwellings. The feel of the area is very much one of a defined if very small
==== PAGE 9 ====
16/00128/B
Page 9 of 11
settlement where dwellings and some small agricultural and equestrian buildings can be found. A number of walls and fences, with interspersed trees and hedges, front onto the highway, which, along with the various buildings of very different sizes and positions relative to the road, provides Ballaveare with a diverse character but one very clearly of a semi-rural nature.
7.15 The building proposed is unique in design and as a general rule this is welcome. The building proposed is well-considered, neatly proportionate and would sit comfortably amongst the existing and under construction buildings in the area. The use of traditional materials is also very much welcomed, and would certainly provide a high quality visual impression.
7.16 The existing piggery, though evident from the highway - and would be more so should the evergreen trees be removed as proposed - is only intermittently glimpsed by virtue of the land falling away somewhat and the remaining trees. It is unlikely that the proposed building would be perceived especially differently from the existing situation, and such as it could be seen would represent an improvement given the design quality of the building proposed.
Highway safety
7.17 Highway Services initially deferred formally commenting. The visibility available is limited and understandably they have concern with respect to the additional use of the access.
7.18 The visibility that can be achieved, though, is not especially poor and it is noted that the highway here is speed-restricted to 30mph. The removal of the evergreen trees and limiting the wall height at the frontage will help. In order to provide the visibility sought by Highways, all the mature and handsome trees as well as the entrance pillars would need to be removed. In order to strike the appropriate balance between the visual impact and highway safety, it is considered that the retention of as much of the attractive frontage as possible should be sought in view of the fairly adequate visibility achievable from the site. With this in mind, the proposal as amended in this respect is considered to be acceptable - and indeed the retention of the more attractive features of the site frontage are welcomed.
Impact on trees
7.19 The view of the Forester is understood; the loss of the non-native species would be welcome and allow the more appropriate trees to regain some vigour, while also helping improve the appearance of the site.
8.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
8.1 While the tourist accommodation to be proposed would evidently be of high quality and its construction is supported by the DED, it still represents a new building in the countryside that would generate extra journeys and for which it has not been demonstrated there is no viable alternative. The weight given to the positives of the scheme - high quality tourist accommodation, the loss of an existing building of poor form - must be limited when balanced against the very strict protection given to the countryside for reasons of sustainable development and not just environmental / visual impact.
8.2 While it is noted that Highway Services have objected to the scheme, it is considered that in order to provide the required visibility on what is a speed-restricted highway would result in harmful damage to the appearance of the site through the loss of handsome trees and gate pillars. It is also noted that the Forester supports the removal of some of the trees on the site with a view to this having a beneficial impact on the health of those to remain.
8.3 Overall, however, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed tourist accommodation can be positively balanced against the presumption against new development in the countryside and should therefore be refused as a result.
==== PAGE 10 ====
16/00128/B Page 10 of 11
9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
9.1 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 Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application (whether pursuant to a notice under article 5 or otherwise) that the Department considers material 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.
9.2 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
In this instance, it is considered that the following persons do not have sufficient interest and therefore should not be awarded the status of an Interested Person:
o The Forester within DEFA, which is the same Department within which the Planning & Building Control Directorate sits.
10 POST-PLANNING COMMITTEE UPDATE
10.1 The Planning Committee were minded to approve the application having taken a majority view. Having regard to the detail of the proposal (no significant impact in traffic terms; no impact in landscape terms; the existing derelict building; support from Tourism in the DED), they felt the application was acceptable and commended the applicant for the attention to detail given to the application.
10.2 Further, they noted the very clear difference in scale and also appearance between the scheme submitted at the Ard Na Mara site and that currently under consideration.
10.3 They also agreed that to alter the highway access in the manner requested by Highway Services would be inappropriate from the point of view of public amenity - the existing access was considered to be attractive and amendments to it in the manner required by Highway Services would be detrimental to the streetscene. During discussion, the representative from Highway Services offered the view that traffic mirrors would be a satisfactory middle ground in this case.
10.4 It was agreed that a condition in respect of the traffic mirrors be attached to the approval notice. It was also agreed that a condition requiring the unit be demolished within 12 months were it to be cease to be used for tourism purposes be attached. Finally, a condition limiting the length of stay was also agreed.
Conditions circulated and endorsed by members
C1 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.
==== PAGE 11 ====
16/00128/B Page 11 of 11
C 2 Between April and September (inclusive), no person(s) shall occupy or use the accommodation for a single period or cumulative periods exceeding 28 days during those months.
Reason: To ensure that the development is only used and occupied as short-let holiday accommodation during the holiday season.
C 3 The building hereby approved shall be used only as tourist accommodation.
Reason: The building has been approved on the basis of a specific, evidenced need for this kind of development in this location and the use of the building for any other purpose would represent unwarranted development in the countryside.
C 4 Within 12 months of the tourist use ceasing, the building hereby approved shall be demolished.
Reason: The building has been approved on the basis of a specific, evidenced need for this kind of development in this location and the use of the building for any other purpose would represent unwarranted development in the countryside.
N1 In the interest of highway safety, and with specific reference to the visibility that can be achieved from the highway access, the applicant is strongly encouraged to engage with the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services team with a view to installing traffic mirrors opposite the access to the site.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused - Date of Recommendation: 13.06.2016
Recommendation overturned at Planning Committee to an approval
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:...20.06.2016
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal