Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/00344/A Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 24/00344/A Applicant : Mrs Angela Christian Proposal : Approval in Principle for conversion of existing stable block into living accommodation Site Address : Stable Block Knock Dhoo Main Road Greeba Isle Of Man IM4 2DU
Planning Officer: Vanessa Porter Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 22.07.2024 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The redevelopment of the stable block, is on a site is not designated for development, is not within any settlement boundary and is not a building of historic, architectural or social interest warranting it an exception to development in the countryside contrary to Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, Environment Policy 1 & 2, General Policy 3(b), Housing Policy 11 and Environment Policy 16 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 2. The site contains some previously developed land, in the form of the existing stable block, however its proposed redevelopment would result in an increased impact on the environment and landscape beyond the current situation contrary to General Policy 3(c) and Environment Policy 1 & 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION SITE
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/00344/A Page 2 of 7
1.1 The application site comprises of an existing stable block, which has 4 stables and one tack room, which is situated to the South of Field No. 316111. The site is accessed of the existing access of Main Road, which serves several properties.
1.2 During the officers site visit, the site was overgrown and was not being used as a stable block, with the stables themselves being used for storage of a range of items not in connection with the stabling of horses.
1.3 It could be seen that there was another structure upon the site, whilst this was the case it was severely overgrown, with most of the walls not being seen due to the plants and there were also several trees and bushes growing inside the structure.
THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The application seeks approval in principle for the redevelopment of a stable into a residential property of which this application addresses siting and means of access only.
2.2 The proposed means of access for the site is from the main entrance into the site from the Main Road, which serves the other properties within the area.
PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 The site as a whole has been subject to several applications, of which the following are the most relevant to the assessment of this application; PA96/01711/B - Demolition of existing and erection of new stable block - Permitted PA00/01595/B - Erection of dwelling - Refused on Review PA01/01552/B - Erection of dwelling - Refused
PLANNING POLICY
4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as "not for development" and an "Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value & Scenic Significance on the 1982 Development Plan, South Map, the site is also showing as zoned as "not for development" on the Draft Area Plan for the North and West. The site is not in a Conservation Area, Flood Risk Zone nor an area of Registered Trees.
4.2 STRATEGIC POLICIES
4.2.1 Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider the following Strategic Policies; Strategic Policy 1 - development should be located to make best use of previously developed land, redundant and underused buildings and utilising existing infrastructure; Strategic Policy 2 - focuses new development in existing settlements unless complies with GP3; Strategic Policy 3 - to respect the character of our towns and villages Strategic Policy 5 - development must be well designed; Strategic Policy 10 - development should promote integrated journeys, minimise car use and facilitate other modes of travel; Spatial Policy 1 - priority to Douglas for development Spatial Policy 2 - identifying Service Centres for development Spatial Policy 3 - identifying service villages Spatial Policy 4 - remain villages Spatial Policy 5 - building in defined settlements or GP3 Spatial Policy 5 - new development will be in defined settlements only or in the countryside only in accordance with GP3; General Policy 2 - detailed 'development control' considerations; General Policy 3 - acceptable development in areas not zoned for development;
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/00344/A Page 3 of 7
Environment Policy 1 - the countryside must be protected for its own sake; Environment Policy 42 - new development should be designed to take into account the character and identity of the area; Community Policy 7 - designed to prevent criminal and antisocial behaviour; Community Policies 10 & 11 - implement best practice so as to reduce the outbreak and spread of fire; Housing Policy 4 - new housing will be located primarily within the existing towns and villages Housing Policy 11 - conversion of existing rural buildings list Transport Policy 1 - best located close to existing transport links Transport Policy 4 - safe and appropriate provisions for journeys; Transport Policy 7 - parking standards Infrastructure Policy 5 - methods for water conservation
4.3 LOCAL DISTINCTIVENESS
4.3.1 The Strategic Plan (2016) states at paragraph 4.3.8, "The design of new development can make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Island. Recent development has often been criticised for its similarity to developments across the Island and elsewhere - "anywhere" architecture. At the same time some criticise current practice to retain traditional or vernacular designs. As is often the case the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. All too often proposals for new developments have not taken into account a proper analysis of their context in terms of siting, layout, scale, materials and other factors. At the same time a slavish following of past design idioms, evolved for earlier lifestyles can produce buildings which do not reflect twenty first century lifestyles including accessibility and energy conservation. While there is often a consensus about what constitutes good and poor design, it is notoriously difficult to define or prescribe".
4.4 OTHER MATERIAL MATTERS
4.4.1 Planning Circular 3/91 - Guide to the residential development in the countryside.
4.4.2 Residential Design Guide (2021) - This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction.
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Highway Services have considered the application and state in part, "Therefore, taking the above into account, Highway Services do not oppose (DNOC) the application subject to parking and layout within the applicants site to be reserved matters." (30.04.24)
5.2 German Parish Commissioners have considered the application and state no objections. (11.04.24)
5.3 DEFA Environmental Protection Officer has written in to request additional information regarding the foul drainage infrastructure for the development. (28.03.24)
5.4 The Ecosystem Policy Officer has written in to state, "The Ecosystem Policy Team therefore recommend that a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA), adhering to CIEEM Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (2nd Edition 2017), to be undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologies, and a report detailing the findings be submitted to Planning prior to determination of this application." (04.04.24)
ASSESSMENT
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/00344/A Page 4 of 7
6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;
6.1 PREAMBLE
6.1.2 It is noted that there is a discrepancy in the as built structure as per the 1996 permission and the existing structure in relation to appearance and siting. Whilst reference is made within 00/01595/B with regards to there being a change in siting, there was no approval provided for the change. It should be noted that both of the differences in the originally approved application, and this application have not been considered in the assessment of this application.
6.2 PRINCIPLE
6.2.1 The starting point for any application is the land designation, which for the application site the 1982 Development Plan and Draft Area Plan for the North and West make it clear that the site is situated within a rural and protected part of the countryside where any development is strictly controlled, with the site not being allocated specifically for any development.
6.2.2 The site sits outside of the closest "settlement boundaries" which is St Johns to the West of the site and Crosby to the East of the site. As such when looking at Spatial Policy 4 & 5, it can be seen that the proposed site is very much part of the open countryside.
6.2.3 With the above in mind, General Policy 3 is the most relevant, when assessing this application. In the first instance whilst the site has a structure upon it, it could not be counted as a significant amount of building, nor is the proposal for the replacement of an existing rural dwelling as such the proposal fails parts c) and d) of General Policy 3.
6.2.4 The proposal is not location dependent in relation to the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services, the proposal isn't essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry nor is there an overriding national need or the site is required for the interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage, as such the proposal fails parts e), f), g) and h) of General Policy 3.
6.2.5 This then leaves part b) of General Policy 3, which states, "(b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11)." Housing Policy 11 has seven parts of which part a) states that the structure must be redundant from its original use. It should be noted that there has been no information supplied with the application to state that it is redundant from its original use, apart from that the applicant has not used the stables for a number of years bar for storage (which was confirmed during the officers site visit), and that it is unlikely that the owner would use the stables in future years.
6.2.6 The Department as a whole received several applications for stables within land such as the application site, numerous times a year, as such I have no doubt that there would be a continued demand for stabling on the Island. As such, in my view the fact that no evidence has been provided to state that the land and stables could in fact either be sold on or rented out, and that without evidence on the contrary, the fact that the applicant no longer has a need for the stables does not amount to evidence that the stables are redundant from their use.
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/00344/A Page 5 of 7
6.2.7 Turning towards part b) of Housing Policy 11 and whether the structure is substantially intact and capable of renovation. No evidence has been provided to state that the structure is substantially intact and capable of renovation with the application, whilst this is the case, not only is the structure a relatively new build, having been constructed around 1996, when the planning application was approved, during the officers site visit, the structure did look compete with no visible structural issues.
6.2.8 When looking at whether the proposal complies with part c) of Housing Policy 11, the structure is a new build masonry built stable block, it is not a building of architectural, historic or social interest and this is confirmed by the agents planning statement which states, "The building may not have any great architectural qualities nor would it have any historical or particular social history as indicated in paragraph (c)."
6.2.9 Turning towards part d) of Housing Policy 11, which requires that the structure should be large enough to form a satisfactory dwelling, it should be noted that when assessing part d), it does state "or with a modest, subordinate extension which does not affect adversely the character or interest of the building" which is then followed by "Further extension of converted rural buildings will not usually be permitted, since this would lead to loss of reduction of the original interest and character" further down the policy.
6.2.10 The application is an approval in principle for siting and means of access only, as such whilst an indicative drawing has been provided, and shows an extension, this cannot be assessed as part of this application. What can be assessed is the structure itself which having looked at the indicative drawing would provide enough space for a one bedroomed property.
6.2.11 Turning towards whether the proposal would comply with part e) of Housing Policy 11. The proposed conversion of the barn is not considered to be incompatible with the adjoining established use of the neighbouring properties, which can be seen as residential. The proposed residential use of the barn would not have adverse impact upon the neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking, loss of light or overbearing impact. Therefore, there is no reason to assume its use for residential purposes would be incompatible with adjacent uses; although the additional comings and goings associated with its use would be more impacting than the current redundant use.
6.2.12 With regards to part f) of Housing Policy 11 and whether the proposal supplies satisfactory services without unreasonable public expense. The application form for the site states that the only items which are new is a new soakaway, biodisk and telecommunications, with the site having all the other services.
6.2.13 Overall in the case of this application, the stable building is not traditional, it is a modern single skin concrete block built construction (as shown on the drawings) and is not of any historic, social or architectural interest, as such the proposal would fail the key tests of Housing Policy 11, which makes clear that only buildings of architectural, historic or social interest are to be retained and converted. While the building appears to be substantially intact, in proximity to existing services and perhaps capable of renovation the increased visual impact of the proposal with the increased intensification of the use of the site as a dwelling, with the activity that would come along with the residential use of the site would also increase the overall impact of the site beyond the current situation on both the landscape and the environment contrary to General Policy 3 (c).
6.3 VISUAL IMPACT
6.3.1 As mentioned above, the proposal is just for siting and means of access, as such the overall visual appearance of the proposal cannot be assessed, whilst this is the case, the proposal to change the use of the site would have result in an increase visual impact on the
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/00344/A Page 6 of 7
site beyond the existing situation and impact the landscape. As such from a visual aspect the proposal will fail the tests of General Policy 3, Housing Policy 11 and Environment Policy 16.
6.4 NEIGHBOURING AMENITY
6.4.1 The site lies in a relatively remote location, with the access to the site serving 4 other properties, with this in mind, it is unlikely based on the information received as part of this application that the occupants of the neighbouring properties would be largely unaffected by any movements to and from the site, and there seems to be no issues arising in respect of overlooking, loss of privacy, or the proposed site having an overbearing impact. In this regard, the proposed development accords with Section (g) of General Policy 2; and the relevant advice contained in the Residential Design Guide 2021.
6.5 HIGHWAY SAFETY
6.5.1 The application is for the means of access only, noting that the information provided shows that the existing and proposed site would use the existing access off Main Road, it is noted that that Highway Services have not objected to this based on the fact that there are already 4 dwellings using this access (tourist units are not included) and that the increase of one additional dwelling would be a minor increase to this and would fit within the Manual for Manx Roads 5 off a private drive policy.
6.5.2 As the proposal is just for siting and means of access, any access into the site itself and parking on the site has not been assessed.
6.6 ECOLOGY
6.6.1 The comments from the Ecosystems Policy Officer has been noted, at the time of this application it was deemed not necessary to request a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, as this would be requested as part of the reserved matters application in the event of an approval being granted.
CONCLUSION
7.1 Overall, 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 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 housing 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 dwelling 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.
7.2 The site is not designated for development, is not within any settlement boundary and is not a building of historic, architectural or social interest warranting it an exception to development in the countryside country to Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, Environment Policy 1, General Policy 3 (b), Housing Policy 11 and Environment Policy 16. Whilst the site contains some previously developed land in the form of the stable block itself, its proposed redevelopment would result in an increased impact on the environment and landscape contrary to General Policy 3(c).
7.3 Therefore, this application like the majority of applications the Department receives each year for new dwellings in the countryside, should be refused for being contrary to strict and established planning policy which seeks to protect the countryside from development.
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/00344/A Page 7 of 7
Furthermore, it is important; that such development is controlled by the development plan process rather than as ad hoc decisions taken in isolation.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status.
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 24.07.2024
Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal