Officer Report

Application No.: 16/00554/B Applicant: Mr Martin & Mrs Maria Marlow Proposal: Part demolition, part retention and alterations to building to provide ancillary accommodation and garaging (retrospective) Site Address: Ard Na Mara Quines Hill Port Soderick Isle Of Man IM4 1BA Case Officer : Miss Abigail Morgan Photo Taken: 09.06.2016 Site Visit: 09.06.2016 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE IN VIEW OF THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE.

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site lies in the countryside between Port Soderick and Quines Hill, and to the north of the A25 Old Castletown Road. - 1.2 Ard Na Mara House was originally a traditional farmhouse, which has since had approval for alterations and extensions to provide additional living accommodation. This application was approved in 2005 and the works to the farmhouse have since been carried out. - 1.3 To the rear of the main dwelling there were once the original stone barns and other stone outbuildings which were associated with the main farmhouse, which gave is a loose courtyard feel. - 1.4 Currently on the location of original barns, is a partially demolished building the area of which is the subject of this application. Beyond this is a terraced car parking area and a modern agricultural barn. - 1.5 The site is accessed via a farm track from the north side of Old Castletown Road. As well as the site, the track also serves a small bungalow, Southampton Cottage, which is located to the opposite side of the track to the immediate east, and Southampton Farm which is located to the north west. - 1.6 The site is situated on the side of a gentle hill with the land rising in a north westerly direction. The farm track has a hedgerow on either side and is lined by a row of mature trees. - 1.7 The edge of the village of Port Soderick is to the south west of the site and the small hamlet of Quines Hill is situated to the east. The site has a rural setting, being surrounded by open agricultural land, consisting predominantly of medium sized rectilinear arable and pastoral fields delineated predominantly by Manx hedges and some post and wire fences which form a strong geometric field pattern with scattered buildings/settlement pattern.

- 2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 This application seeks planning approval for part demolition, part retention and alterations to an existing building following the refusal of 12/00233/B Demolition of barns and erection of seven tourist units (retrospective). The planning history is covered more extensively below. - 2.2 The application seeks planning approval to retain part of the existing buildings in a modified form, for accommodation that would be supplementary to the use of the existing residence, Ard Na Mara. - 2.3 The principal changes to the proposal are the demolition of the two storey gabled element, store/laundry, removal of the raised leisure pool and hot tub area and reduction to the size of the north east wing from two storeys to single storey, together with a reduction of its length by 6.5 metres. The removal of the portacabin located on the south east side of the building. - 2.4 The resulting/remaining two storey building is to be used on the ground floor as a sauna and steam room, his and her offices and gym and games room at first floor. The resulting single storey building is proposed to be used as a quadruple garage for Ard Na Mara house. - 2.5 It is also proposed to make a number of aesthetic changes to the remaining/resultant building, which is currently all white rendered with some decorative quoins. In respect of the north west elevation the two storey element will remain white rendered and the garage barn is to be stone faced. The south east, north east and south west elevations are proposed to be stone faced. The windows are to have additional glazing bars fitted externally to create a more traditional appearance. The window to the first floor on the south west elevation is to have a vertical boarded timber panel below it to create the visual appearance of a loft door. - 2.6 New additions/alterations include the following. The new garage doors are to be vertical boarded timber. Removal of door way on north west elevation to the garage. Creation of 2 wall gabled dormers, similar to the existing one on two storey element of the south east elevation. The creation of a raised patio area apx 10.5m wide x 5m deep x 1m high to be clad in vertical timber from existing ground up to a height of apx 2m to create fence around the patio, with steps up to it. - 2.7 The existing terraced car parking area is to revert to grassed area and/or soft landscaping. - 2.8 The area to beyond will remain as existing hardstanding and then the barn. - 2.9 The application is supported by a planning statement. The amended plans and additional information follows discussions with the case officer. - 2.10 The planning statement and additional information provides further clarification on the proposed use and a reasoned justification for why the applicants wish to retain part of the building.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The site has the following planning history. - 3.2 05/0204/B - Alterations and extension to dwelling (approved) A planning application was submitted in 2005 for alterations and extensions to the dwelling to provide additional living accommodation and granny flat. This application was approved and the works were carried out. - 3.3 06/00964/B - Conversion of redundant barns to four holiday cottages (approved at appeal) A detailed application was submitted in 2006 for the conversion of redundant barns to four holiday cottages. The application related to the south western part of the barn complex. The application was refused for the following reasons:

• R1. The proposal is considered to be contrary to the provision of Planning Circular 3/89 - Renovation of Buildings in the Countryside in that the existing barns are not considered to be structurally

• capable of renovation. As such, the proposal would be tantamount to the construction of new buildings in the countryside for tourist accommodation, such a proposal being contrary to the established policies of the Department.
• R2. The proposed car parking area, which is in excess of the requirements for the number of units proposed, would introduce a large area of hard standing, to the site, and limited soft landscaping and amenity space for tourists occupying the units, to the detriment of the visual amenity.

The decision was subsequently appealed by the applicant. A hearing was held in January 2007 and the Planning Inspector recommended that the application be refused. The Inspector dismissed the view that the building was not capable of renovation on the basis that the appellant had submitted professional advice to say that it was, and the Planning Authority had no professional who could contradict that. However, he felt that the buildings did not have particular architectural or historic or social merit and they did not contribute to the character of the countryside.

The Minister disagreed with the Inspector and approved the application, albeit agreeing with the Inspector that the plans were so poor that the approval should be in principle only.

3.4 08/00560/B Erection of a swimming pool (refused)

In 2008 an application for an extension to the dwelling to provide for a swimming pool was refused on the basis that the scale, form and appearance failed to respect the form and proportion of the existing dwelling.

3.5 09/00385/REM Reserved matters application for the conversion of redundant barn to four holiday cottages (approved)

The application was approved under delegated powers in May 2009. The decision was subject to a condition that restricted occupancy to between the 1st March and 1st October for individual lets, not exceeding four weeks in duration, to bona fide tourists. Outside of this period longer lets to bona fide tourists were permissible.

The application was for conversion, but did include the removal and rebuilding of part of the walls as shown on the approved drawings. No works were proposed to the remaining barns.

3.6 11/01583/B Conversion of redundant barn to three holiday cottages and creation of additional parking (withdrawn)

The application was for the conversion of the remaining barns to holiday units. The Planning Authority carried out a site visit as part of its consideration of the application and it was apparent that the original barns were no longer standing. In their place was a range of new buildings.

Given that the original barns had been demolished and rebuilt the application for conversion was unable to be determined. The application was therefore withdrawn.

3.7 12/00233/B Demolition of barns and erection of seven tourist units (retrospective)

The application sought retrospective approval for the erection of the unauthorised buildings, comprising seven holiday units.

The application was refused by the planning committee on the grounds that the proposal was for unjustified new building in the open countryside. The design and character of the development did not serve to contribute to or enhance the visual amenities of the locality. The decision was issued in July 2012.

The applicant appealed the decision and an appeal hearing was held in October 2012. The Planning Inspector recommended to the Minister that the appeal be dismissed. On 1st March 2013, the Minister determined that the appeal should be dismissed, confirming refusal of the application on the following grounds:

'The proposal is contrary to General Policy 3 and Business Policy 11 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the development represents new development in the open countryside contrary to established planning policy for which no acceptable justification has been given. The design and character of the proposal does not serve to contribute to or enhance the visual amenities of the locality.'

3.8 12/00275/B Erection of a building to replace existing barn for the storage of TT course equipment. Land adjacent to Ard Na Mara House (refused)

The application was for demolition of existing barn and erection of a building for the storage of TT course equipment.

The application was refused by the planning committee for the following reason; 'The development represents new development in the open countryside contrary to established planning policy for which no acceptable justification has been given (General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 2). The proposal would detract from the character of the countryside.'

While an appeal was lodged it was withdrawn in October 2012.

3.9 13/91528/B - Erection of four tourist units with ancillary laundry facilities (retrospective) including part demolition and alterations of adjoining building to provide private garaging.

The application was refused by the planning committee on the grounds that the proposal was for unwarranted new building in the open countryside. The design and character of the development did not serve to contribute to or enhance the visual amenities of the locality. The decision was issued in March 2014.

The applicant appealed the decision and an appeal hearing was held in May 2014. The Planning Inspector recommended to the Minister that the appeal be dismissed. On 26 June 2014, the Minister determined that the appeal should be dismissed, confirming refusal of the application on the following grounds:

'The proposal is contrary to General Policy 3 and Business Policies 11 and 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the development represents new development in the open countryside contrary to established planning policy for which no acceptable justification has been given. The proposed buildings, by reason of their form and scale, would have an unwarranted detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the countryside, which should otherwise be protected for its own sake. The proposal is therefore contrary to Environmental Policies 1 and 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.'

3.10 13/00132/NOTICE - Enforcement Notice issued by the Department of Infrastructure requiring demolition of the unauthorised holiday units.

The Enforcement Notice was issued on 27th September 2013 and cited the Minister's reason for refusing application 12/00233/B as the reason for it being issued. The Enforcement Notice requires the demolition of the seven holiday units. The period for compliance is within 12 months of the date that the notice comes into effect (i.e. by 25th October 2014).

The enforcement process is ongoing.

- 4.0 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 The Development Plan for the area consists of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Braddan Local Plan (1991) and 1982 Order. Under the 1982 Order the application site is in an area of High Landscape Value. The application site is in an area not zoned for development on the Braddan Local Plan 1991. - 4.2 The following policies in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 are relevant to the consideration of the application:

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 [General Policy 3].'

Strategic Policy 5: 'New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies.'

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.'

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

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

• 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.'
• 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 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.'

- 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Braddan Parish Commissions - no objection. 2 June 2016. - 5.2 DOI Highways- do not oppose. 06/06/16. - 5.3 Owner/occupier of Glebe Cottage, Maughold - comments as follows;

I/we are shocked to find yet another retrospective application here - do people never learn? Though, even in view of it's past history, fair consideration must be given and I will say no more than to remind the Planning Committee of the unfortunate history of this site. 31 May 2016.

5.4 No representations were received after the circulation of amended plans.

6.0 ASSESSMENT Background/context

6.1 The site has an extensive planning history as detailed earlier in the report. In summary, approval in principle was originally granted at appeal in 2007 for the conversion of redundant barns to four holiday units (06/00964/B). The barns were broadly in the same location as the existing unauthorised holiday units. The reserved matters submitted pursuant to the approval were approved in 2009 (09/00385/REM). A later application seeking approval for the conversion for the remaining barns to three holiday units was withdrawn in February 2012 as it became apparent that the barns had been demolished and there were no longer any buildings to convert (11/01583/B). - 6.2 The new buildings which were built without planning approval contained seven holiday lets and are the buildings currently on the site. - 6.3 The applicant subsequently submitted a planning application seeking to regularise the seven holiday lets that had been built without approval (12/00233/B). The Planning Committee refused the application and a subsequent appeal by the applicant was dismissed by the Minister in March 2013. - 6.4 In September 2013, the Planning Authority issued an Enforcement Notice requiring demolition of the seven holiday units with compliance required by October 2014 (13/00132/NOTICE). The enforcement is ongoing. - 6.5 During this period the applicant sought to develop a modified scheme which reduced the development from seven holiday units to four, reduced the size of the north eastern part of the buildings and converts it for use as domestic garages for the main house, as well as making a number of design alterations to the external appearance of the buildings (13/91528/B). The modified scheme was refused by Planning Committee and a subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Minister in June 2014. - 6.6 The most recent appeal is of particular relevance to the consideration of the current application. The appeal dealt with the issues of whether the development is acceptable in principle and the visual impact of the building having regard to the strict controls on development in the countryside. While both of these issues are considered central to the consideration of the current application, the former dealt with the principle of tourist development whereas this application is for use of the building as supplemental/incidental to the main dwellinghouse.

6.7 The fact that there is currently an unauthorised building on the site should neither benefit nor disadvantage the applicant's case. - 6.8 The applicant's statement partially relies on the fact that there were originally barns on the siting of this proposal as reasoning for the proposal. This view is debatable but superfluous given that the original barns no longer exist and is not considered material in the consideration of this application. - 6.9 In effect the application has been assessed as though it is for a new building on an undeveloped piece of ground. - 6.10 The enforcement proceedings are a separate matter that has had no bearing on the assessment. - 6.11 The main issues in the assessment of this application are whether the development is acceptable in principle and effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of Ard Na Mara and the surrounding rural area, in the context of the development plan, previous appeal decisions and Planning Inquiry reports and any other material considerations. Principle of Development and Proposed Use - 6.12 The Development Plan identifies the site as being within countryside where development is strictly controlled and the countryside should be protected for its own sake, Environment Policy 1. The site is not zoned for any particular development but is recognised as being within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, as well as an area of Private Woodland. - 6.13 Strategic Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan directs that new development should be concentrated within existing towns and villages, or where appropriate sustainable urban extensions. This approach encourages sustainable development by reducing the need to travel and protecting the countryside environment. The policy goes on to say that development in the countryside should be limited to the exceptional circumstances set out in General Policy 3. - 6.14 General Policy 3 sets out eight criteria when development outside of areas zoned for development, such as the countryside, could be permitted. The proposals do not fall within any of these categories. - 6.15 General Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan requires the Planning Authority to consider whether there are any other material considerations that support the development and whether these would tip the balance in favour of granting approval. - 6.16 Under the Permitted Development Order there is a provision for an assortment of outbuildings for houses and a general acceptance that some level of other buildings associated with a house is not unreasonable. - 6.17 While it is considered that principally some level of other/outbuildings associated with a house is not an unreasonable request, the effect of the buildings on the character and appearance of Ard Na Mara and the surrounding rural area are therefore important issues given the location of the proposal. These are considered below. - 6.18 The application plans and planning statement both assert that while the building is separate from the main house the manner in which it is proposed to be used by the applicants, sauna and steam room and games/entertaining/gym area will be incidental/supplemental to Ard Na Mara and that these types of uses are of no real concern. The 'his and hers' offices, do offer some cause for concern as the proposed activities for the offices do relate to business activities and reasonably could be carried out in the main dwelling. However the reason put forward for separating the uses from the main dwelling, 'keeping them away from the domestic environment of their existing house'

is regarded as an adequate explanation given the space on the application site. With regards to 'his' office being used for the administration of the building construction company a condition can be attached to ensure the use of the building for incidental/supplemental purposes and not commercial is maintained in the future.

The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the countryside

6.19 The Manx countryside is an extremely valuable resource. Environmental Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan states that the countryside should be protected for its own sake. The site is also located within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. Environment Policy 2 states that within such 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.' - 6.20 The main public views of the site are from Old Castletown Road from the south (close to the junction with the B23) and further to the south east. The site is in the main most visible from the south east. Views from a more southerly direction is largely restricted by the roadside hedge, even during winter months, although there is a field gate close to the junction with the B23 from which the proposal would easily be visible. - 6.21 In the context of the latest two Inspectors decisions, with particular regard to visual impact, the following highlight some of the key issues in considering this application. - 6.22 In 2013 the Planning Inspector noted that 'The appeal building retains much of the overall plan form of the former agricultural block but beyond that its elevations and finishes convey next to no impression of agricultural or former agricultural buildings.' (para. 26, Inspector's report). He went on to say that the '...outcome, if only incrementally, is to make this locality just a little less rural and just a little more suburban in character and appearance. There is none of the "element of the evolution of the farm, ……. there is none of the visual group value that can arise, and be safeguarded through sensitive conversions, between a farmhouse and its subordinate traditional farm buildings. The relationship is simply that of a house with a large annexe' (para. 37). - 6.23 These opinions were reiterated in the 2014 Planning Inspector's report ' Despite the proposed stone facing and grey render …. It would look like an incongruous cluster of new houses. It would certainly not look like an agricultural building. Nor with the possible exception of the single storey garage wing, would be it subservient to Ard Na Mara House. Strategic Policy 5 of the IoMSP requires new development to be designed so that it makes a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In my opinion, the proposed development would fail to do this.' (para 29 Inspector's report). - 6.24 The previous decisions deemed that their design was inappropriate and that the cumulative impact of the buildings, together with Ard Na Mara house, was unnecessarily intrusive and harmful to the countryside. - 6.25 The current proposal has sought to address the concerns about the design of the previous proposals by making a range of design changes as set out in Section 2 of this report above. - 6.26 In their planning statement, the applicants are of the view 'that the significant and material changes to the proposals previously refused now provide a development that will have a significantly reduced impact on the rural countryside to a minimal level that does not warrant refusal' (para 5.7) and that they [the proposals] 'provide an overall appearance of a group of rural outbuildings that will clearly appear distinctively subservient to the main house' (para 5.9). - 6.27 It is reiterated that the starting point for considering the visual impact of the building is imagining that the existing unauthorised building is not there at all. It is not a question of

• comparing the existing building with the proposal, however it does need to be considered in the context of the previous applications.
• 6.28 These changes would give a more traditional appearance, i.e linear farm building, closer to what one would expect of a traditional range of outbuildings having been converted than the previous applications. While significantly reduced than the previous schemes, given the size, it is still not considered that building is physically subservient to the main house, albeit it is more subservient than the previous. The application also proposes the softening of the interface between the proposal and the barn to the rear with the removal of the car park and its replacement with soft landscaping. While this would not have any effect on wider views, as it is to the rear, it reduces the starkness and hardness of the overall proposal when approaching the main dwelling.
• 6.29 The reduction of the size of the north east part of the building from two storeys to single storey, together with a reduction in their overall length would mean that the development would unlikely be seen from views from Old Castletown Road to the south east. However, the building would remain quite visible when approaching from the south west. The proposed design changes do alter the size of the building, with the removal of the two 2 storey gabled elements and single storey laundry/store. Also when seen from this view, the introduction of stone cladding and minor timber cladding, would lessen the building's impact and make it appear more rural. These darker colours make it appear more subservient to the main dwelling which is white rendered.
• 6.30 The above plus other described design changes will have the effect of lessening the overall impact of the proposal, and the building would still have a level of intrusiveness in the countryside, albeit not as great as the previously refused schemes.
• 6.31 It is felt that while the revised proposal would have an effect character and quality of the landscape it does not necessarily equate to harm. New buildings in the countryside have to be carefully designed and it is usually a finely balanced decision. As it is important to resist new development that would result in any diminution of the tranquil, rural character of the area and protect the character of the landscape and the scattered nature of the settlement pattern by locating new so that the visual intrusion of such buildings in the open landscape is minimised.
• 6.32 This proposal, whilst it would be visible is not, in the wider context or in relation to Ard Na Mara House, considered to be harmful. It is however considered to be at the limits of acceptability when taking into account the context. The application therefore is considered to accord with Environment Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan. Conclusion
• 6.33 The site is within protected countryside where development is strictly controlled, having regard to the policies contained in the Strategic Plan.
• 6.34 The previous application was refused on that the grounds that the proposal was contrary to established planning policies that seek to control development in the countryside and that in the absence of overriding justification, the proposal was unacceptable. Moreover, the design and character of the buildings did not serve to contribute to or enhance the visual amenities of the locality.
• 6.35 A building proposed as supplemental/incidental to the main dwelling is not an unreasonable request would be a material consideration.
• 6.36 It is acknowledged that under the new application the applicant is proposing significant changes to the design, which would undoubtedly improve their appearance and would lessen their impact on the countryside. Also, bearing in mind that the starting point for considering the application is to imagine that there are currently no buildings on the site at all, as well as regard to the size of the proposal and its visibility, it is concluded that the proposal is on balance acceptable.

• Conditions
• 6.37 While the starting point for considering the visual impact of the building is imagining that the existing unauthorised building is not there at all, in terms of considering conditions the fact that the building is in place, albeit partially, they should reflect that position. A condition requiring the use to remain ancillary/incidental to the main dwelling is proposed as the building is away from the main dwelling and the proposal has been considered as such. In terms of implementation of the proposal a one year time scale for completion is stipulated this is to ensure that previously identified harm from the existing building is mitigated adequately and in a timely fashion. The other conditions are there in the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

- 7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 It is recommended that the application is approved, subject to conditions. - 8.0 PARTY STATUS

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

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) 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;
• (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material , in this case, Department of Infrastructure Highway Services and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.

8.2 In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons have do not have sufficient interest and should not be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:

Owner/occupier of Glebe Cottage, Maughold - no direct interest in the site. Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 21.10.2016 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. Within one year from the date of this decision notice the works to the building shown on drawing no WL/13/1296/2C shall be finished.

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. Within 2 months of this decision notice a sample panel of the proposed stone facing to be used has been erected on site and approved in writing by the Department. The approved sample panel shall be kept on site for reference until the development is completed. The works shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
• C 3. Within 4 months of this decision notice a scheme for landscaping of the existing car park area as shown on drawing WL/13/1296/2C dated 28 September 2016 shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department.

Such a scheme shall include details of all walls, fences, trees, hedgerows and other planting which are to be retained; details of all new walls, fences and other boundary treatment and finished ground levels; a planting specification to include numbers, density, size, species and positions of all new trees and shrubs; the location of grassed areas and any details of the hard surface treatment of the open parts of the site and a programme of implementation.

Prior to first occupation/use of the development hereby permitted, all landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained unless otherwise agreed by the Department.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development and in the interest of the visual amenities of the area.

• C 4. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the scheme of landscaping approved under Condition 3 shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the first occupation/use of the building or the completion of the development or approved implementation programme, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Department gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To enhance the appearance of the development in the interest of the visual amenities.
• C 5. The building hereby approved shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as Ard Na Mara House. Reason: Due to the proposed uses and in the interests of clarity.
• C 6. Within one month of the date of this decision, or to a programme otherwise agreed with the Department, the shipping container as shown on WL/13/1296/2C, date stamped 28 September 2016, shall be permanently removed from the site.

Reason: To ensure the proper removal of the container as it is no longer required and in the interests of character and appearance of the area.

This approval relates to drawing nos WL/13/1296/1, 3A, 4A and Planning Statement all date stamped received 16 May 2016 and Additional Information Letter date stamped received 23 September and drawing WL/13/1296/2C and Additional Information date stamped received 28 September 2016.

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: 31.10.2016

Signed : A MORGAN 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 See below

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.