Statement of the Planning Authority (Part 1 of 2)

Statement Of The Planning Authority

APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL OF APPLICATION FOR PLANNING APPROVAL FOR DEMOLITION OF BARNS AND ERECTION OF SEVEN TOURIST UNITS (RETROSPECTIVE)

At

ARD NA MARA, QUINES HILL, PORT SODERICK, ISLE OF MAN. IM4 1BA

APPEAL BY: MR MARTIN MARLOW

Planning Report And Recommendations

Case Officer:	Miss Jennifer Chance
Photo Taken:
Site Visit:
Expected Decision Level:	Planning Committee

Application No.:	12/00233/B
Applicant:	Mr Martin Marlow
Proposal:	Demolition of barns and erection of seven tourist units (Retrospective)
Site Address:	Ard Na Mara House
Quines Hill
Port Soderick
Isle Of Man
IM4 1BA

Officer's Report

THE APPLICATION IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL

Introduction

1. The application seeks permission for the demolition of the existing barns and erection of a new building for seven tourist units (retrospective). The site lies within an area of open countryside. The application is considered to be unacceptable for a number of reasons, which are supported by a number of policies in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

The Site

1. The application site lies in the countryside to the rear (north-west) of Ard Na Mara Farmhouse, which is annotated as Southampton Farmhouse on the submitted block plan, and is accessed from Quines Hill, Old Castletown Road, Port Soderick.

1. 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. 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. Beyond where the barns once stood is a car parking area and a modern agricultural barn.

The Proposal

1. The application seeks retrospective approval for the demolition of the existing barns and erection of a building to provide tourist units with associated parking. The new building was carried out without the benefit of building regulations approval and the works were outside the remit of the previous planning permission for conversion.

1. The new building provides for seven self contained tourist units. It is constructed of block work and rendered white to match the existing dwelling. The windows are outward opening brown uPVC double glazed casement windows. The building has a slate roof and Velux windows in the front and rear roof slopes.

1. Also proposed is the erection of a decked area, already completed, on the south-eastern elevation which is to contain a ‘swimmer’ (a pool with a current) and a hot tub.

1. There are some changes proposed to the work that has already been carried out. Notably the windows on the first floor of the north-west elevation are proposed to be enlarged and be more vertically aligned than what has been installed. This is to meet Building Regulations requirements.

1. The history below will explain that approval was given on appeal in 2007 for the conversion of one of the barns to four tourist units. A further application was then submitted in 2011 for the conversion of another barn to three units which would make seven in total. However, the officer's site visit undertaken to assess that application showed that both of the barns had been replaced with new build units. The four that were the subject of the earlier application being fully complete and the three the subject of the later application nearing completion. It was recommended that the applicant withdraw the undetermined application and submit a fresh application for all of the seven units.

PLANNING HISTORY

1. The following previous planning applications are considered specifically material in the assessment of the current application:

• PA 05/0204/B - Alterations and extension to dwelling (approved)

There was a planning application submitted in 2005 (PA 05/0204/B), which was for the alterations and extensions to dwelling to provide additional living accommodation and granny flat. This application was permitted and works have been carried out.

• PA 06/00964/B - Conversion of redundant barns to four holiday cottages

A detailed application was submitted in 2006 (PA 06/00964/B) for the conversion of redundant barns to four holiday cottages. This application was only for part of the barn complex.

• PA 06/00964/B was refused under delegated powers by the Director of Planning and Building Control on the 14th September 2006 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 appealed by the agent on behalf of the applicant.

The Appeal Hearing for PA 06/00964/B was held on the 16th January 2007. The Independent 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 recommended that the application be approved, albeit agreeing with the Inspector that the plans were so poor that the approval should be in principle only.

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

27 June 2012

Page 2 of 10

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

PA 09/00385/REM Reserved matters application for the conversion of redundant barn to four holiday cottages In 2009, the Reserved Matters application (PA 09/00385/REM) was submitted for the conversion of redundant barns into four holiday cottages. This application was approved under delegated powers on the 7th May 2009. The Decision Notice was issued on the 8th May 2009 subject to a condition that restricted the use 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.

This application was for conversion, but did include the removal and rebuilding of part of the walls shown on drawing M/386/1. No works were proposed for the remaining barn under this application.

PA 11/01583/B Conversion of redundant barn to three holiday cottages and creation of additional parking (withdrawn) This application was for the conversion of the remaining barn to holiday units. The drawings which were submitted showed that there would be external works which include replacement doors and the installation of windows and roof lights. Also included were internal works to provide tourist units.

Having carried out the site visit as referred to earlier, it was clear that the original barns were no longer standing and there was in its place, a new building.

Given that the building has been demolished and rebuilt the application was unable to be processed. This application was withdrawn as it was incorrect in terms of the description and the proposed works.

PA 12/00275/B Erection of a building to replace existing barn for the storage of TT course equipment. Land adj to Ard Na Mara House. - This application is pending consideration.

Development Plan Policies

1. Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 Section 3 states that

'in dealing with an application for planning approval, the Department shall have regard to:

• the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application;
• such other considerations as may be specified in a development order, so far as material to the application; and
• all other material considerations.'

1. In the case of this application, the development plan comprises the Strategic Plan 2007 and the Braddan Local Plan 1991.
2. The application site is in an area zoned as "whiteland" identified on the Braddan Local Plan 1991. The Braddan Plan states that any area not designated for development lies in an Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. The relevant policies in the Strategic Plan are General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1, Environment Policy 2, Business Policy 11 and Business Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

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 land¹ 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-dependant 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 overriding 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.

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 circumstances where this may be permitted.

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.

1. Environment Policy 16, Housing Policy 11, and Business Policy 12 are not strictly relevant as they relate to conversion of existing buildings. However, these were the policies

27 June 2012

Page 4 of 10

considered as part of the determination of the previous applications and have been included for completeness.

Environment Policy 16:

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.

Housing Policy 11:

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. 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.

Business Policy 12:

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.

CONSULTATIONS

1. Highways Division have recommended approval as the application has no adverse traffic management, parking or road safety implications.

27 June 2012

Page 5 of 10

1. The Environmental/Public Health Unit of DEFA have commented to say that the flats/apartments should comply with the Housing (Flats) Regulations 1982 and be registered before being occupied.
2. The owner/occupier of 33 Ballaquark, Douglas states that as the site is not zoned for tourism, new build is not appropriate. The original buildings were unsuitable for conversion for any use. There is no case therefore to allow them to be converted. The 'mitigation' is unacceptable. The applicant did not have permission to rebuild any barns in the first place. To now ask to convert them to tourism is laughing at planning policies.
3. The owners/occupiers of Glebe Cottage, Kirk Maughold state that the drawings are confusing and that the applicants have been extremely rash in erecting what seems to be a completely new, two storey building of such size without permission. There are serious Policy contraventions. However, if the drawings are reliable, the design of the proposed buildings look quite pleasant.
4. Braddan Commissioners indicate that they do not object to the application.
5. The MEA have made a standard comment relating to existing and proposed electricity supplies, which are not material planning considerations.
6. The Tourism Division of the Department of Economic Development have commented on the application. Please see their comments in the officer assessment below

Assessment

1. The key considerations in the determination of this application are:

• The principle of development in the countryside
• Other material considerations including the history of the site and the economic benefits of the proposal in the light of the Planning Policy Statement on the Economy.
• The design of the development and its impact in the countryside
• Other matters

Principle of Development in the Countryside

1. The starting point for the assessment of this application is that there is a general presumption against development in the countryside subject to various exceptions. These are set out in the policies of the Strategic Plan, in particular General Policy 3. Whilst exception 'b' would have been appropriate to the previous applications as it provided for conversion of existing buildings, it does not apply to this application. Exception 'c' does not apply as the former buildings were agricultural which is not 'previously developed land' as defined in Appendix 1 of the Strategic Plan. The proposal does not fall within any of the other exceptions of General Policy 3.
2. There is a strong emphasis that tourism development must be in accordance with the sustainable development objectives of the plan which seek to protect the countryside from development (Business policies 11 and 14). Port Soderick is not identified as a settlement for development.
3. Consequently, there is no basis in the Strategic Plan for allowing the development.

Other material considerations including the history of the site and economic benefit in the light of the Planning Policy Statement on the Economy

1. The applicant has submitted a letter in support of his application. In the letter the applicant first apologises for carrying out the new building works. He states that when permission was first received they were not in a financial position to carry out the works. At the time the buildings were in a fit state of repair albeit mostly in single skin Peel brick, but that during a night of very strong south westerly winds, a tree was blown down virtually destroying the entire buildings. At this time, the applicant states that he panicked and made a big mistake by trying to get the building built back up as soon as possible. The building was erected on the very same footprint as before with alterations to the east side (as passed by planning). The source of all the heating and hot water is a wood chip burner and solar energy.
2. The applicant goes on to cite his involvement with sporting clubs and facilities on the Island including motorbike racing. He states that it was through this he felt there was a need for holiday homes as the profits from the building company that he runs were getting a lot tighter. He also states that he was needing more and more funding to compete and win at the very top events (presumably by supporting riders). Ard Na Mara holiday homes are now Michael Dunlop's main sponsor.
3. The reasons the applicant cites such as the support of local sport, whilst acknowledged, are not sufficiently related to the development, nor is it felt that they have significant, if any weight as material planning considerations, that would warrant setting aside the well established presumption against development in the countryside.
4. Of some weight, is the fact that permission was given for the conversion of one of the former buildings to tourist use. The new build does reflect the layout of the former buildings. Environment Policy 16 which gives guidance on the use of existing rural buildings for new purposes such as tourist uses provides a useful assessment guide in its criterion ' $f$ '. This states that permission may be permitted where: '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 the site.' The difficulty with this proposal arises from the fact that the footprint of the buildings, also includes a building which in 2007 was already acknowledged as not being intact and had already collapsed.
5. No permission had ever been given for the conversion of one of the barns, the one which was acknowledged to be in too ruinous a condition for conversion. Thus the argument regarding the fear of not knowing what to do after the tree caused the collapse of both barns cannot give material weight to an application for the re-development of both of them.
6. The issue of whether re-build is acceptable often arises with the conversion and reclamation of redundant rural buildings. Housing Policy 11 provides great clarity by stating that

"Permission will not be given for the rebuilding of ruins or the erection of replacement buildings of similar, or even identical, form".

1. The tourist economy is very important to the Isle of Man, and this development is clearly designed for tourist purposes rather than for occupation on a permanent basis. The units are being advertised on the Government's tourism web-site. Tourism have commented on the application to state 'The self-catering tourist lets are valuable additional tourist accommodation. Rural self-catering accommodation of a high standard has shown significant growth in recent years. There is a demand from visitors which has resulted in high occupancy rates and consequent economic benefit. A further positive factor is that the recently published Visitor Economy Strategy identifies a key strategic strand of outdoor activities as being important to the future of the Island's product offering. As well as having an overall strategic fit, the four unit property has already been independently inspected and achieved a high quality rating of 4 star".' Aside from this information, no other advice has been provided on

the economic benefits of these proposals. Although if successful they would clearly produce some form of income and a percentage of that would go to the Treasury.

1. A converse agrument, and that one raised by an Inspector in a recent appeal decision related to the long term cumulative impact of new development in the countryside. The application is question was for the demolition of outbuildings and erection of a building to provide tourist accommodation at St John's 9ref 11/01575/B). He stated in paragraphs 26 and 27: 'In the light of the appellant's references to the statement of the Chief Minister, in which he stated the planning system is to be reviewed to include a presumption in favour of development to help promote sustainable economic growth, I have given consideration to the suggested economic benefits of the proposal. However, there is no quantification of those benefits in the evidence, and in the absense of anything other than general statements that such benefits would arise I have not found this matter to be one to which significant weight should be attached. 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 whould be regarded as sustainable growth in the terms of the Chief Minister's statement. 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 accound 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..'

The design of the development and its impact in the countryside

1. The site lies within an Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance where it is important the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape.
2. It is unfortunate that the buildings fell down, and that no negotiation was undertaken in what to propose as its replacement (if the principle of redevelopment was to be accepted contrary to the policy). The resulting development neither retains nor attempts to recreate the vernacular architecture of barns. Stone barns have a particular character which is notable by the external materials, and the number, size and shape of openings. The materials used are modern blockwork with render, the windows are domestic and uniform, the doors are those used on conventional dwellings, the use of quoins is unexplained and unrelated to the type of buildings it replaces or the type of building constructed, other than the quoins have been included on the main house.
3. On the other hand, the layout of the buildings does reflect its historic use as a farm yard. The previous approval for the four units indicated that the exterior of the barns would be rendered with sand cement and painted white, and where new windows were to be proposed, these would be double glazed, white, uPVC. A comparison of the placement and style of window openings in the approved plans and those submitted is recommended.
4. The buildings are visible from the Old Castletown Road, in Port Soderick although they are not readily apparent as they sit slightly behind, although to the side of Ard Na Mara House. However, further afield to the south east of Crogga near the juntion of the A25 and B24 they are visible in the open countryside. The buildings have a similar finish to the main house, which has an advantage in that it looks like one large complex. On the other hand it is arguable that the buildings ought not to have a similar finish to what is now quite a grand house, but ought to be more subservient in character to it. The south facing elevation is somewhat harsh against the rural landscape and there is little room to provide any landscaping within its curtilage. In terms of impact on public amenity the proposal does not alter the overall appearance of the buildings to an extent that would particularly noticeable from a nearby public viewpoint.

Other Matters

27 June 2012 $12 / 00233 / 8$ Page 8 of 10

1. The proposal is considered acceptable in terms of traffic generation and parking. No objection has been received from the Highways Division.
2. There is a residential property to the north west of the application site. No objection has been received from the occupier or any other resident in the vicinity. It is likely that seven tourist units would result in some form of disruption by increased levels of traffic, general activity and noise from those people enjoying a holiday. However this was, to a certain extent, accepted at the time the application for the four units was approved and such disruption is unlikely to be so significantly detrimental to warrant a refusal in itself.

Conclusion.

1. The proposal raises some competing issues. A fundamental and long established principle has been to discourage new build in the open countryside to protect the islands unique natural heritage. A key issue here is whether the economic and tourism benefits outweigh this principle or whether the principle is undermined in any significant way by the proposal. A key point of this is whether there is visual harm in the countryside, there being a large house to the front and a barn to the rear.
2. Whilst there is an argument that there is a need for tourist development on the Island, the Strategic Plan allows for such development provided it complies with other policies set out in the Plan. There is a strategic aim to protect the countryside from new development, albeit allowing for re-use of attractive existing buildings that help make up the historic fabric of the island, all of which endeavour to protect the Island's natural heritage. In this instance, the appearance of the original buildings has not been retained. The development has attracted a four star rating from the Tourism Division and this is a material factor. However, caution should be applied as to whether this ought to outweigh the established policies in the Plan. If the same approach were to be taken, then it could create a precedence that any development in any location that could achieve a four star rating would be allowable in the countryside.
3. In terms of design, the proposal is less than exceptional and arguably does not beneficially contribute in visual amenity terms, to the island. However, neither is it visually offensive, despite its visibility from some viewpoints.
4. The proposal raises many competing issues, whose interpretation is finely balanced. A fundamental and long established principle in the Isle Of Man has been to discourage new build development in the open countryside subject to certain expetions. A key issue here is to consider whether to economic and tourism benefits outweigh this long established principle. In addition consideration needs to be given to whether the impact of the building's design on visual amenity is acceptable.
5. The application is recommended for refusal.

Party status

Braddan Commissioners are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5)(d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.

The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.

DEFA have commented on the application and as such are to be granted party status.

The resident of Douglas and Kirk Maughold are not close to the application site to have sufficient interest in the site to warrant party status.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of

Recommendation:

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval

N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal 0 : Notes attached to refusals

R 1 . 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.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005

Decision Made : $\qquad$ Committee Meeting Date : 9(7)(e

Signed : $\qquad$ Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate

YES/NO

Infrastructure

Isle of Man

Government

planning and building control

bun-troggalys - plannal as gurnell troggal

Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Committee, held on 9th July 2012, at 1pm, in the Ground Floor Meeting Room of Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas

Present:

• *Mr R H Quayle MHK, Chairman of the Planning Committee
• *Mr D Evans, Member
• Mr I Cottier, Member
• Mr H Killip, Member
• Mr P Young, Member

In Attendance:

• *Mr M Gallagher, Director of Planning and Building Control
• Miss J Chance, Development Control Manager
• *Miss S E Corlett, Senior Planning Officer
• *Mr A Holmes, Senior Planning Officer
• *Mr S Stanley, Development Control Officer
• Miss E J Callow, Secretary to the Planning Committee
• *Mr S Moore, Conservation Officer
• *Mrs H Fletcher, Network Planning Officer, Highways Division.

*Part of the meeting only

1. Introduction by the Chairman

The Chairman welcomed members of the public in attendance to view the proceedings.

2. Apologies for absence

3. Minutes

The minutes of the 25th June 2012 were agreed and signed as a true record.

4. Any matters arising

None

5. Delegated Decisions

The Members noted the decisions on those applications determined by the Director of Planning and Building Control, the Development Control Manager or a Senior Planner, under the authority delegated to them by the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, for the period 19th June to 2nd July 2012.

6. The Members considered and determined the schedule of planning applications as follows.

PC Minutes 09.07.2012

Items 6.1 and 6.2 relate to the same property and so were considered together

Item 6.1 Elderbank The Crofts Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1LW PA12/00256/GB

Alterations and extension to dwelling and demolition and rebuilding of 46 Arbory Street to form residential accommodation (In association with 12/00257/CON) Applicant: Mr Jon & Mrs Emma McGowan Case Officer: Mr Chris Balmer Recommendation: Refused

In the absence of the Case Officer Mr Stanley summarised the key issues as set out in the report.

In clarification of the key issues, the Members enquired as to the expected impact of headlights on neighbouring properties, in planning terms, the garage layout, the location of neighbouring boundaries and the impact of a garage at this location upon pedestrian traffic.

Mr Moore was asked to report on the proposed finish of the build, which was confirmed as being Castletown limestone, but that it could not be expected to be an exact match to the existing.

Mr Young raised the issue of the impact of a further garage within the street scene, stating that he felt it was not in character with the area and was incongruous. Other members agreed.

DECISION Item 6.1

With the exception of Mr Killip, the Committee accepted the recommendation of the case officer and the application was refused for the following reason(s).

R 1. The proposal which would provide further off street parking provision to a property which already benefits from such existing parking provision would result in the loss of on-street parking which is of significant demand to the detrimental of local residents and visitors of the area contrary to the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

R 2. The proposed garage would introduce an incongruous feature into the street scene of Arbory Street to the detriment of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area contrary to Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.

N 1. This is without prejudice to a further application which replaces the proposed garaging with living accommodation.

Party Status

Interested party status was considered by the Committee and agreed as recommended.

DECISION Item 6.2

Item 6.2 Elderbank The Crofts Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1LW PA12/00257/CON

Registered Building consent for alterations and extension to dwelling and demolition and rebuilding of 46 Arbory Street to form residential accommodation (In association with 12/00256/GB) Registered Building Nos. 259 Applicant: Mr Jon & Mrs Emma McGowan Case Officer: Mr S Moore Recommendation: Permitted

With the exception of Mr Killip, the Committee declined the recommendation of the case officer and the application was refused for the following reasons.

R1. The proposed garage would introduce an incongruous feature into the street scene of Arbory Street to the detriment of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area contrary to Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.

Party Status

Interested party status was considered by the Committee and agreed as recommended.

In the absence of the Case Officer, Miss Corlett summarised the key issues as set out in the report and distributed notes suggesting alternative wording for conditions four and five.

In clarification of the key issues the Members enquired as to the height of the building as proposed, the external finishes, including treatment of the surface to the car park and the cedar effect boarding.

The Members acknowledged that whilst the separation of the golf club from the hotel was disappointing, the need to progress this application at this time was appreciated.

The impact of the structure was considered, particularly its height. Whilst this was considered to be high in comparison with the existing adjacent building, particularly the tower which can be seen as a landmark, Miss Corlett explained that it is highly likely that this building will be redeveloped and the golf clubhouse should be the ancillary building with the iconic landmark qualities left for the hotel redevelopment. As such there would be no long term constraint on the height of the golf clubhouse in terms of the impact on the hotel redevelopment which may result in a larger building than the existing.

Parking provision was discussed and the Highways Officer felt that the proposal was the best that could be achieved by the application, as presented.

Photographs from the file were considered.

Concern was expressed that the car park treatment would be maintained in perpetuity.

Members expressed differing views on the external treatment of the building, some preferring all stone and some liking the timber-like material.

Decision

With the exception of Mr Killip and Mr Young, the Committee declined the recommendation of the case officer and the application was refused for to the following reasons.

R1. The proposed building, as viewed both at a distance and from closer up, would, by virtue of its height have a detrimental impact on the character of the area and its landscape quality.

Item 6.3 The Pro Shop And Clubhouse Castletown Golf Links Fort Island Road Derbyhaven Isle Of Man IM9 1UA PA12/00443/B

Replace existing building with a new three storey clubhouse, including associated car parking, utilities and drainage Applicant : Langness Golf Course Limited Case Officer : Mr Chris Balmer Recommendation : Permitted