Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/00217/B
Page 1 of 9
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/00217/B Applicant : Mr Juan & Mrs Katherine Quirk Proposal : Erection of a detached two storey building to provide three tourist units, erection of a replacement lean-to, creation of parking and paths and landscaping works Site Address : The Barn Ballavarteen West Grenaby Road Dogmills Ramsey Isle of Man
Case Officer : Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken : 10.04.2017 Site Visit : 10.04.2017 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report
1.0 SITE 1.1 The application site forms part of the curtilage of Ballavarteen West, Grenaby Road, Dogmills, Ramsey which is situated on the north-western side of Grenaby Road and north east of Grenaby Crossroads.
1.2 The application site is a flat parcel of lane, triangular in shape which south and western boundaries are bound with mature trees. A current field gate exists along the southern boundary of the site which directly accesses onto the Grenaby Road. Within the site there is an existing Dutch barn which is a metal frame with metal sheeting to the roof and in parts of the walls. This building is in a poor state of repair, with parts of the metal roof within fallen off or in the process of falling off. Attached to the northern gable end of this barn is an attached single storey flat roofed building, again finished with metal sheeting to the roofs and walls.
1.3 Immediately adjacent and to the east of the application site is the residential dwelling Ballavarteen which is within the ownership of the applicant.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks full approval for erection of a detached two storey building to provide three tourist units, erection of a replacement lean-to, creation of parking and paths and landscaping works.
2.2 The detached two storey building is to provide three tourist units and would have a width of 6.4 metres, a depth of 18.6 metres and a maximum roof height of 6.5 metres. The building would be located on a similar footprint of the existing Dutch barn and flat roofed building both of which would be demolished. The building walls would be finished in dark stained vertical timber cladding and the roof profiled steel sheeting.
2.3 The replacement lean to building would have a width of 4.6 metres, a depth of 10.7 metres and a maximum roof height of 2.7 metres. The building would be finished with dark coloured profiled steel sheeting to its walls and roof. The building would accommodate an activity space, laundry room and store.
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/00217/B
Page 2 of 9
3.0 DEPARTMENT POLICIES 3.1 The application site is not designated for development under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area or within an area zoned as High Landscape Value or Costal Value and Scenic Significance.
3.2 The following policies in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 are relevant to the consideration of the application:
3.3 Strategic Policy 2 states: 'New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) 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].'
3.5 Strategic Policy 10 states: '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.'
3.6 Spatial Policy 5 states: 'New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3.'
3.7 General Policy 3 states: '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.'
3.8 Environment Policy 1 states: '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.'
3.9 Business Policy 11 states: '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
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/00217/B
Page 3 of 9
could be used for tourist use and Environment Policy 16 sets out circumstances where this may be permitted.'
3.10 Business Policy 14 states: '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.'
3.11 Transport Policy 7 states: 'The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards.'
3.12 Environment Policy 16, Housing Policy 11, and Business Policy 12 are not strictly relevant to the application as they relate to proposals for the conversion of existing buildings. However, these policies are relevant to gain a fuller understanding, and are provided below for information and to provide policy context.
3.13 Environment Policy 16 states: 'The use of existing rural buildings for new purposes such as tourist, or small-scale industrial/commercial use may be permitted where: a) it is demonstrated that the building is no longer required for its original purpose and where the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation; b) the reuse of the building will result in the preservation of fabric which is of historic, architectural, or social interest or is otherwise of visual attraction; c) it is demonstrated that the building could accommodate the new use without requiring extension or adverse change to appearance or character; d) there would not be unacceptable implications in terms of traffic generation; e) conversion does not lead to dispersal of activity on such a scale as to prejudice the vitality and viability of existing town and village services; and f) the use of existing buildings involves significant levels of redevelopment to accommodate the new use, the benefits secured by the proposal in terms of impact on the environment and the rural economy shall outweigh the continued impact of retaining the existing buildings on site.
Proposals to convert rural buildings to residential accommodation will be considered along with the advice given at Section 8.10 of this document.'
3.14 Housing Policy 11 states: 'Conversion of existing rural buildings into dwellings may be permitted, but only where:
a) Redundancy for the original use can be established; b) The building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation; c) The building is of architectural, historic, or social interest; d) The building is large enough to form a satisfactory dwelling, either as it stands or with modest, subordinate extension which does not affect adversely the character of interest of the building; e) Residential use would not be incompatible with adjoining established uses or, where appropriate, land-use zonings on the area plan; and f) The building is or can be provided with satisfactory services without unreasonable public expenditure.
Such conversion must:
a) Where practicable and desirable, re-establish the original appearance of the building; and b) Use the same materials as those in the existing building.
==== PAGE 4 ====
17/00217/B
Page 4 of 9
Permission will not be given for the rebuilding of ruins or the erection of replacement buildings of similar, or even identical, form.
Further extension of converted rural buildings will not usually be permitted, since this would lead to loss or reduction of the original interest and character.'
3.15 Business Policy 12 states: 'Permission will generally be given for the conversion of redundant buildings in the countryside to tourist use providing that the development complies with the policies set out in paragraph 8.10 Housing Policy 11.'
3.16 The Plan is very specific that tourism-related development should be subject to no less strict restrictions than other forms of development as the countryside itself is one of the attractions for tourists to the Island (paragraph 9.5.3).
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 There are no previous planning applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The Arboricultural Officer - Forestry, Amenity and Lands Directorate - DEFA makes the following comments (on 09.03.17); "I would like to make the following comments with regard to the application 17/00217/B (Ballavarteen West).
The proposed site plan describes some tree work that has already been approved by the Department (Tree Preservation Act 1993). On the southern boundary the department issued licence 643/16 for the removal of 4 trees. The trees adjacent to the access were approved for removal under licence 663/15. Two trees are described as 'to be crowned'. It is unclear what the proposal is here but in any case, no licence is required to undertake pruning work as the trees are not registered.
The remaining trees at this site form an important feature in the landscape. Your assessment of the impact of this proposal is likely to be based on the assumption that retained trees will survive and thrive following completion of the construction. However, the plans and information submitted show that the constraints imposed by the trees and the impacts of construction on the trees (and vice versa) have not been properly assessed. To address this, before the outcome of this application is determined, I recommend that you request the following information:
A tree protection plan
All of the above should be done in accordance with BS5837:2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction) and should be prepared by a suitably qualified tree specialist. In the event that this information shows that construction activity is proposed within the root protection area (defined by BS5837) I would also recommend that you request an arboricultural method statement."
5.2 Highway Services make the following comments (28.03.2017): "The proposal is to demolish existing farm buildings and construct 3 tourist units. The site is currently accessed via a farm gate set behind the road verge providing adequate visibility. There will be sufficient parking for 5 vehicles with the ability to enter and leave the site in forward gear.
Highway Services does not oppose this application subject to the following condition:
==== PAGE 5 ====
17/00217/B
Page 5 of 9
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issues to consider in the assessment of the application are; the principle of tourist development on this site; the potential impacts upon the character and appearance of countryside; the potential impacts upon highway safety and whether adequate parking provision is provided; and the potential upon trees within the site.
THE PRINCIPLE OF TOURIST DEVELOPMENT ON THIS SITE 6.2 Fundamentally, in terms of planning policy there is a long established presumption against development in the countryside. As identified earlier within the planning policy section of this report, this presumption against is set out in four different ways.
6.3 Firstly, the application site is not designated for any development under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. As being within countryside where development is strictly controlled Environment Policy 1 requires consideration. This policy indicates that the countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake, 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.
6.4 Secondly, General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, states that in such areas development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan, unless the proposals meets the listed exceptions. The proposals do not fall within any of these categories. In particular, it should be noted that the proposals do not fall under criterion (b) because they do not involve the conversion of redundant rural buildings - the buildings are new build; or criterion (c) since the site/buildings were originally agricultural land/use and is not, therefore, previously developed land. The proposals do not also fall under criterion (g) because they are not considered to be of overriding national need in planning terms and for which there are no reasonable and acceptable alternatives.
6.5 Thirdly, the site is not identified in an adopted Area Plan as being within a town, village, or within a sustainable urban extension and therefore contrary to the Strategic Policy 2 & Business Policy 11. This approach encourages sustainable development by reducing the need to travel and protecting the countryside environment. The rural location of the proposed tourist units would not be a sustainable form of development, located in an isolated positioned within the countryside. There are no shops, pubs or other services within easy walking distance. It is considered 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 the Strategic Policy 10 is to minimise journeys, especially by private car. The proposed development would not do this.
6.6 Fourthly, the Strategic Plan makes no provision for new build tourism development in the countryside. Provision is only made for tourism in rural areas where it involves the conversion of existing buildings. Business Policy 11 states that: 'Tourism development must be made in accordance with the sustainable development objectives of [the Strategic Plan]... Within the rural areas there may be situations where existing rural buildings could be used for tourist use...'. Business Policy 14 states that: 'Tourism development may be permitted in rural areas provided that it complies with the policies in the Plan... 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.'
6.7 Approval of such a scheme would set a significant precedent for similar types of development through the countryside in the Isle of Man. The purpose of the planning system is to control the use and development of land in the public interest. That requires a consideration of what
==== PAGE 6 ====
17/00217/B
Page 6 of 9
is most appropriate for the population of the island as a whole. The protection of the Manx countryside from development and the presumption that new tourist/residential development should be directed to locations consistent with the principles of sustainable development are two of the most important themes running through the Strategic Plan, the purpose of which is to establish a consistent framework within which the public interest can be served by the planning system. When making a planning decision that has permanent consequences (such as the erection of a three self- contained tourist units as is proposed here) it is also essential to bear in mind that the development sought will endure long after the circumstances of the current applicant have ceased to exist.
6.8 General Policy 3, Environment Policy 16, Business Policy 11 and Business Policy 12 all deal with proposals for tourism development, but only where they involve conversion of existing buildings. The proposals comprise new build and therefore the principle of such development is not supported by policies in the Strategic Plan.
THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF COUNTRYSIDE 6.9 The proposed two storey building accommodating the three self-contained tourist units would be located within 5.5 metres of the Grenaby Road and therefore would be apparent from public views when travelling towards and immediately past the site along the Grenaby Road. The timber clad finish and dark coloured roof sheeting of the proposed building, together with the mature trees which run along the boundaries of the site would help reduce the impact; however, the building would still be apparent, especially during autumn/winter periods and significantly more so than the existing Dutch barn which given its very poor state of repair, blends well into the site as it current appears as a lightweight structure and views through it are not obstructed with solid walls etc. The alteration of the existing access from a field gate access, to once of a gravelled bell mouth, gravelled driveway, and gravelled large parking and turning areas all fronting the tourist building , would only increase the domestication of the site and adversely change the character and appearance of this site.
6.10 Furthermore, a damaging precedent could be set in the countryside if it was accepted that hiding inappropriate development behind existing and/or proposed landscaping would overcome strict polices which seek to protect the countryside for its own sake.
6.11 Accordingly, it is considered would result in an adverse visual impact upon the character and appearance of the site and countryside contrary to Environment Policy 1.
THE POTENTIAL UPON TREES WITHIN THE SITE 6.12 Following on from the concerns of the adverse visual impact the proposals would cause, it is noted that the Arboricultural Officer (DEFA) has raised concerns of the development, given the immediately adjacent mature trees which would run along the southern and western elevations of the proposed three tourist units. No information has been provided and therefore there are significant concerns of damage to them during construction.
6.13 There is also a concern of the liveability of the trees due to their very close proximity to the three units. There can be pressure in the future to remove trees of such size in such close proximity to properties due to lack of light, health and safety concerns and insurance issues, which leads to request from owners to the Forestry Directorate for tree felling licences to remove them.
6.14 As it is, six trees are proposed to be removed along the west boundary, which again will make the proposal more visible from public views.
6.15 As outlined by the Arboricultural Officer the "trees at this site form an important feature in the landscape" and it is considered given the lack of information provided there can be no assurance that the trees would not be damaged by the development, but even with acceptable tree protection measures, it is considered the closeness of the trees to the units and to a number of main living room windows would significantly increase the likelihood of further tree loss in the
==== PAGE 7 ====
17/00217/B
Page 7 of 9
future, to the visual detrimental of the countryside setting in this location, but also increasing the appearance of the proposed building therefore contrary to EP 1.
THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON HIGHWAY SAFETY AND WHETHER ADEQUATE PARKING PROVISION IS PROVIDED 6.16 Highway Services have considered the application in terms of its access and parking arrangements and raise no objection. Accordingly, it is consider the proposal from these respects are acceptable.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION 7.1 It is considered that the proposal would be contrary with the relevant planning policies of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2016) and the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982, for the reasons set out in this report, it is recommended that the application be refused.
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: 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 that the Department considers material , in this case, Department of Infrastructure Highway Services and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture -Forestry, Amenity and Lands Directorate are part of the same Department as is the planning authority and as such should not be afforded interested person status under the Order.
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.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 12.04.2017
R 1. The proposal is contrary to General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Business Policies 11 and 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 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 also contrary to Environmental Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 2. Insufficient evidence has been provided to determine whether the trees to be retained along the boundaries of the site can be protected during the construction of the development proposed and furthermore, given the proximity of trees which are considered to have an important feature in the landscape there is also concern that the proximity of the three units to these trees would increase future pressure to remove them, in turn both reasons result in having an adverse visual impact through the loss of trees to this site and secondary increasing the visual appearance of the
==== PAGE 8 ====
17/00217/B
Page 8 of 9
three units, as such, the proposal fails to comply with Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused
Date: 13.04.2017
Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett
Senior Planning Officer
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.
==== PAGE 9 ====
17/00217/B
Page 9 of 9
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal