Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/00404/B Page 1 of 9
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 24/00404/B Applicant : Mr Ian & Chris / Mrs Harriet Sheard & Hancox Proposal : Erection of a mobile structure for ancillary residential and tourist use Site Address : Ballahowin Orrisdale Kirk Michael Isle Of Man IM6 2HP
Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 14.08.2024 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposal is not of a nature which would be supported in the countryside under those policies which set out the exceptional forms of development which would be allowed in the countryside. Furthermore, the development does not seek to utilise existing built fabric in the countryside, or represent a form of quality accommodation in rural areas suitable for walkers but compliant with General Policy 3 and Business Policies 11 and 12. Therefore, the proposal is considered to undermine the aforementioned policies, as well as Environment Policy 16, Strategic Policy 8, and Business Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan.
R 2. The application site is not zoned for development and is within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance which is afforded further protection. Insufficient information has also been provided to demonstrate that the proposed development is essential to meet housing and employment needs which could not be met within existing settlements or to provide facilities of strategic importance for leisure and tourism. Therefore, the creation of the new unit of residential/tourist accommodation in this countryside location would result in an inappropriate development in the countryside contrary to Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
R 3. The site is not within a sustainable location or an existing settlement. It is also considered that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there is an overriding national need for the development and for which there are no reasonably acceptable alternatives. It is, therefore, considered that the proposal would be contrary to the policies within the Strategic Plan which seek to protect the countryside for its own sake and to direct development to sustainable locations in order to reduce the need to travel by car and to
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/00404/B Page 2 of 9
support existing services (General Policy 3, Strategic Policies 2 & 10, and Environment Policy 16 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016). __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of Ballahowin, an existing dwelling situated in mature landscaped grounds on the north eastern side of the Orrisdale Road, Kirk Michael. Access into the site is through a heavily hedged curved driveway which, together with the trees and shrubs, completely screen the dwelling from the public highway.
1.2 The main house is set back from the road by 80m. Beyond that there is a planted garden and two small paddocks with three stable type buildings. Beyond this there are fields to the northern side of the highway, but again these are well screened from the public thoroughfare by existing sod banks and shrub planting.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for erection of a mobile structure for ancillary residential and tourist use. The proposed structure which would measure 6.6m x 3.6 m, and be 3m from the ground level to the top of its roof. This mobile structure which would sit on four painted metal frame and wheels for transportation and movement, would be finished externally in feathered edge exterior side cladding, with roof finished curved metal roof sheeting. The doors and windows would be double glazed hardwood units.
2.2 The unit would be laid out such that it would have a living/bedroom space that would measure about 5.2 x 3.4 (17.68sqm), and a shower area. No toilet facilities would be provided within the structure.
2.3 The scheme would also include the installation of a flue to support a stove (fuel not stated). This flue would 2.3 The applicants have provided a Design and Access Statement which articulates the basis for the scheme - the provision of a Shepherds Hut for their own multi - generational family / guest use and to offer soft use Homestay within their landscaped garden setting, whilst providing justification based on the basis that the demand for sustainable, low impact, rural accommodation facilities for Homestay is in great demand on the Island, both for Island Staycations and the increased visitor numbers being encouraged. The opine that the proposal fully meets the goal of the Isle of Man Visitor Economy Strategy 2022-2032 to increase good facilities that assist our Island growth in visitor numbers, while providing year round family guest accommodation as needed. The statement, however, does not indicate which toilet facilities would be available to the tourist occupants of the unit.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Site Specific 3.1.1 The application site is within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance identified on the 1982 Development Plan. The site is not within a Conservation Area and there are no protected trees on site, although the site abuts a Registered Tree Area with the site entrance within a Registered tree area. A greater proportion of the site area is not within a flood risk area, although the site of the proposed development sits just outside an area prone to high flood risks, with the pedestrian access to the site situated within the flood prone area.
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/00404/B Page 3 of 9
3.2 The Strategic Plan stipulates a general presumption against development in areas which are not designated for a particular purpose and where the protection of the countryside is of paramount importance (EP 1 and GP3). Environment Policy 2 also stipulates a higher degree of protection for sites situated within areas of Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance identified on the 1982 Development Plan.
3.3 Given the nature of the proposed development, it is important to consider the following policies within the Strategic Plan:
3.3.1 National: STRATEGIC PLAN (2016) a. General Policy 3 - Exceptions to development in the countryside. b. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations. c. Environment Policy 1 - Protection of the countryside and inherent ecology. d. Environment Policy 16 - Favours the re-use of existing rural buildings for tourist purposes or small-scale industrial/commercial. e. Environment Policy 22 - Impacts of development on amenity of nearby properties. f. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources. g. Strategic Policy 2 - Priority for new development to identified towns and villages. h. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact. i. Strategic Policy 8 - Supports tourist development which makes use of existing built fabric of interest and quality, where they do not affect adversely environmental, agricultural, or highway interests, and where they enable enjoyment of our natural and man-made attractions. j. Strategic Policy 10 - Need for new development to be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network. k. Business Policy 11 - Tourism development to accord 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. l. Business Policy 13 - Use of private residential properties as tourist accommodation. m. Business Policy 14 - Tourism development in rural areas. n. Transport Policy 4 - Highway safety. o. Paragraph 9.5.3: "It is considered that the Island's primary assets to tourists and visitors alike are its unique historical landscape, culture and heritage, as well as a wide range of specialist events and attractions. Many activities and facilities providing for the Island's tourists require no permanent development: the TT Races, for example which attract by far the most significant number of tourists to the Island of any event held here, require little but the Grandstand on Glencrutchery Road and a small number of modest marshals' shelters around the Course. Tourism can, however require the erection of built structures - holiday accommodation being the most frequently requested form of new development required in association with the tourism industry. It is important that a balance be struck between the needs of tourism and the protection of these assets, and that tourism development should be sustainable in accordance with the objectives of this plan. There is no special reason why less demanding policies should be applied to tourism development than for other types of development in the countryside, and larger scale schemes may have to be the subject of an environmental impact assessment before planning permission is granted, as with any other form of large scale development". p. Section 7.2 (In part): "7.2.1 A healthy sustainable landscape, like a vibrant community, is dynamic. Whilst landscape and coastal change is inevitable, and in some cases desirable, the emphasis must be on the appropriateness of this change and the balance or equity between the needs of conservation and those of development. The primary goal must therefore be to respect, maintain and enhance the natural and cultural environment including nature conservation and landscape and coastal quality, and ensure its protection from inappropriate development.
7.2.3 In order to ensure that the varying demands on the countryside and coastline are complementary and to reflect its importance as an entity, the general policy set out in
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/00404/B Page 4 of 9
Environment Policy 1 has been adopted (see 7.5.1 below). In exceptional circumstances, where development is required in the countryside and on the coast, the need will normally be identified and assessed through the development plan process. Such a need might arise where development is required to meet housing and employment provisions which could not be met within existing settlements or to provide facilities of strategic importance for agriculture, leisure, tourism or transport or to serve needs of local communities where a rural location is required. Occasionally, circumstances might arise where a need occurs which was not foreseen at the time of the plan preparation and this will be subject to Environment Policy 1. In all cases any adverse impact of development should be minimised having regard to landscape, wildlife and other policy considerations."
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Policy on the Development of Non-serviced Accommodation (March 2019): 4.1.1 The document seeks to shape a future development strategy for the sector, help inform planning policy and to guide the Department as to what support mechanisms may be required to maximise the potential benefits of an expansion on non-service accommodation in the Island.
4.1.2 Paragraph 3.7 notes that there is a ban on towed caravans (conditional permission is granted for certain events).
4.1.3 This document is helpful in outlining what type of tourist accommodation the Isle of Man is looking for and states that the focus for the future "will be on the types of non-service accommodation identified as being in shortage within the study, namely; 8.2.1 developments of multiple units; 8.2.2 those that cater for families; 8.2.3 those that cater for individuals with disabilities 8.2.4 proposals which incorporate leisure and entertainment facilities; 8.2.5 high quality, luxury, boutique developments; 8.2.6 clusters or separate small scale units which complement existing tourist activities or leisure facilities; 8.2.7 glamping units and 8.2.8 those catering for group experiences."
4.1.4 Paragraph 8.3 is clear that this policy is intended to support proposals for new, high quality stock, and specifically excludes: 8.3.1 Partial conversion of residential properties to provide self-catering units 8.3.2 Re-purposing or sub-letting of individual rooms within existing properties 8.3.3 Refurbishment of existing self-catering units.
4.1.5 Appendix 1 sets out the 14 criteria for non-serviced accommodation that will be supported in accordance with the high level policy detailed in Paragraph 8.4 of the document which states that "Visit Isle of Man and the Department for Enterprise will actively support the development of non-serviced accommodation which meets agreed high level criteria and serve to complement and enhance the overall proposition for the visitor economy".
4.2 Isle of Man Visitor Economy Strategy 2022-2032 4.2.1 The Strategy's headline targets are to grow the annual visitor numbers to 500,000 by 2032 and increase the annual economic contribution of the Island's Visitor Economy to £520m. This will mean attracting an additional 170,500 visitors per year compared to 2019. The aim is to triple the holiday and short break market as well as grow all of the other visitor markets. Combined with an expected increase in average spending per visitor, driven by strong growth in longer staying and higher spending leisure markets, these visitor numbers should result in a more than doubling of annual visitor spending on the Island to £310m, which will support an increase in Visitor Economy jobs to 5,000 and generate an annual Exchequer benefit of £49m.
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/00404/B Page 5 of 9
4.2.2 Visitor Accommodation Objective o the development of 500 new and transformed hotel and serviced accommodation bedrooms and 500 new units of distinctive, contemporary eco-friendly, non-serviced accommodation Key Results o growth in peak season visitor numbers driven by new accommodation o new off-peak demand generated by new accommodation o higher average spending per visitor on accommodation
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning application two of which are considered to be materially relevant to the current application:
5.2 PA 12/00885/A for Approval in principle for conversion of existing stables to ancillary living accommodation - Refused. The application was refused on the grounds that "The property is not of architectural, social or historical interest and as such could not comply with the provisions of Housing Policy 11. As such, there is no provision within the Strategic Plan for the creation of a dwelling through the conversion of the dwelling to a self-contained unit, albeit intended as ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling, and the proposal would be contrary to General Policy 3."
5.2.1 No approval has been granted for the use of any part of the site for tourism development, and no tourist supporting facilities have been erected on site, which would benefit tourists using the site.
5.3 Approval was granted for Alterations, removal of chimney and erection of extension PA 21/01098/B in December 2021. The scheme sought alterations and extensions to create a six bedroom dwelling with multiple shared spaces. A key justification for the scheme was that it would cater for the multi-generational needs of the family.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 DOI Highways find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking, as the existing access arrangements are acceptable for the proposals. They advise that if not already available on-site, the applicant should consider an EV charging point for visitors to aid Net Zero ambitions (12 April 2024).
6.2 Kirk Michael Commissioners have not made any comments on the application although they were consulted on 10 April 2024.
6.3 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of the current application are: a. The principle; b. Impacts of the visual amenities of the countryside; c. Impact on neighbours; and d. Highway impact.
7.2 Principle of proposed development (GP 3, EP1, EP2, STP 8, BP 11, 12 and 14) 7.2.1 In planning terms, there is no provision within the Strategic Plan to support new buildings/structures (including movable structures) for tourist use in the countryside, and tourist developments such as that proposed within the current application are treated the same
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/00404/B Page 6 of 9
as any other form of development in the countryside, as the Strategic Plan stipulates a general presumption against development in areas which are not designated for development and where the protection of the countryside is of paramount importance (EP 1 and GP3).
7.2.2 Whilst it is noted that the site sits within an existing curtilage in the countryside, the site as a whole sits within the countryside and as such is subject to all the policies which presume against development in the countryside. Besides, the Strategic plan is clear that tourist development should be assessed with as much weight as they are to other types of development in the countryside. It is also vital to note that the argument in favour of the use of the site as previously developed land will fail in this case given the history of use of the site in support of agriculture.
7.2.3 In terms of compliance with General Policy 3, it is considered that the scheme in its current form would fail to align with the requirements of the policy as it does not meet any of the exemptions for allowing new development (including residential accommodation) in the countryside. It must be noted that this development involves a new build, does not seek to utilise an existing redundant rural building, and the proposal is not considered to be of overriding national need in landuse planning terms, and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative. Whilst it is noted that the proposed development aims to also cater for the multi - generational family/guest use of the applicants in terms of providing additional residential accommodation on site, the development does not sit comfortably with GP3 which provides the framework for permitting such developments in the countryside. Moreover, there is nothing to say that the existing dwelling on site could not be adapted/extended to meet additional residential needs of the occupants of the main dwelling. Besides, approval was recently granted for alterations/extensions to the dwelling to create a larger dwelling to house six bedrooms, two living rooms, and a moderately sized playroom; with floor area and layout considered sufficient to accommodate the multigenerational needs of the family (which was the basis for the submissions under PA 21/01098/B - See page 1 of Design Statement).
7.2.4 With regard to compliance with the requirements of Strategic Policy 8 and Business policies 11, 12 and 14 which relate to tourism development in the countryside, it is considered that the scheme would fail to meet the requirements of these policies. Firstly, the proposal would not meet the requirements of Strategic Policy 8 as it does not seek to utilise an existing built fabric on site. Secondly, the scheme does not align with the policies and designations which seek to protect the countryside from development (Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3), and the site is not designated for development, whilst being situated in an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance identified on the 1982 Development Plan which is afforded further protection. Thirdly, the scheme fails to align with Environment Policy 16 which allows for the use of existing rural buildings for tourist purposes, given that it seeks to create a new built fabric on site, which contradicts the objectives of the policy.
7.2.5 Further to the factors noted in 7.2.4 above, the proposal would fail Business Policies 11, 12, 13 and 14 as it would not facilitate the use of existing built fabric, but seeks to erect a new structure in the countryside which does not pass any of the exceptions allowable in the countryside. It should be noted that even Business Policy 14 which noted that other buildings would be considered, clearly states that such buildings must comply with Business Policies 11 and 12, and General Policy 3, which do not provide for the reception of new buildings/structures in the countryside.
7.2.6 Aside from the factors noted Paragraph 7.2.1 to 7.2.5 above which relate mainly to the provisions of the Strategic Plan, it is understood that Department of Enterprise (Tourism Division) is supportive of initiatives which attract and accommodate more visitors to and on the Island, particularly in relation to the provision of non-serviced accommodation. From review of Appendix 1 of the Policy on the Development of Non-serviced Accommodation (March 2019), it is considered that the scheme would fail to align with most of the high level components required to enable support for tourist development, as there is nothing within the proposal to
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/00404/B Page 7 of 9
demonstrate that it aligns with majority of these referenced components within the document. As such, it is considered that the scheme in its current form would also fail to align with the requirements of the Policy on the Development of Non-serviced Accommodation (March 2019).
7.3 IMPACT ON THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE SITE & SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE (EP1, EP2, STP 4 & GP2) 7.3.1 In assessing the visual and landscape impacts of the proposal, it is noted that the proposed mobile structure (bespoke shepherds hut unit) which would also serve as additional residential accommodation on site is situated within the residential curtilage which is largely concealed by mature landscaping (trees, hedges, sod banks), which would mean that the landscape impacts won't be significant when viewed from outside the site.
7.3.2 Notwithstanding the above, it is perhaps important to note Environmental Policy 1 and 2 indicates that the countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake and 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. Whilst the applicants have argued that there is no visual impact to the general public or the surrounding lands as the proposed siting of the hut is within the centre of the existing residential curtilage, which suggests that the scheme would align with EP1 (as no adverse visual impacts would occur, it would be vital to review the texts within Paragraphs 7.2.1, 7.2.3 and 7.5.1 which gives contexts to the postulations of EP1 with regard to new development in the countryside.
7.3.3 Granting the position of the applicants regarding visual impacts suggest that if there is no reasonable demonstration of harm to the countryside (in terms of views to the proposed development dues to the nature of the site boundary and position of the development within the curtilage), it is considered that the proposal would be in conflict with the objectives of Environment Policies 1 and 2. Firstly any development that is not justified in the countryside would comprise an introduction of features/structures/buildings that are at variance with the character of the countryside, hence Paragraph 7.2.1 of the Strategic Plan in providing a context to development in the Rural Environment (which includes the islands countryside) offers the following preamble as the basis for allowing new development in the countryside by stating thus: "Whilst landscape and coastal change is inevitable, and in some cases desirable, the emphasis must be on the appropriateness of this change and the balance or equity between the needs of conservation and those of development. The primary goal must therefore be to respect, maintain and enhance the natural and cultural environment including nature conservation and landscape and coastal quality, and ensure its protection from inappropriate development." These texts point to the need for the landscape to remain undisturbed or preserved in its natural state unless development introduced in the landscape can be justified.
7.3.4 In the case of the current application, it is not considered that the erection of the mobile structure would meet the exception allowed under GP3, nor does it meet the allowances made for tourist development under Business Policies 11, 12, and 14 or Environment Policy 16. Likewise, the proposal would not have an over-riding national need and would be introducing a level harm by introducing an unsupported built form in a protected rural area.
7.3.5 As the principle of the development fails to satisfy the test of Environment Policy 1 and 2, and General Policy 3, which set out the exceptional forms of development allowed in the Countryside, the proposal is considered to undermine those policies which seek to protect the countryside for its own sake, such that the scheme would be considered to be at variance with EP 1 and 2, even though an argument could be made for limited visual impacts resulting from the proposal.
7.4 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURS (GP 2 & EP22) 7.4.1 The detached position of the structure relative to neighbouring properties, the existing vegetation along the site boundary, as well as the situated surrounded by buildings on site,
==== PAGE 8 ====
24/00404/B Page 8 of 9
would ensure that there are no adverse impacts on neighbouring amenity, even though it is acknowledged that the proposal would increase the number of people visiting the site.
7.4.2 Another factor that works in favour of the scheme is the nature of the site and its surrounding area which would support a number of outdoor activities that would not require tourists spending so much time within the site; given the potential for hiking, sightseeing and other tourist uses reliant on the natural environment. There are also a network of footpaths within the area which reinforces the benefits for tourists seeking more outdoor activities that may not require frequent use of the site. It is, therefore, considered that the use of the proposed unit of accommodation will not result in adverse impacts on neighbouring amenity.
7.5 HIGHWAY IMPACT (TP1, TP 7 and GP2) 7.5.1 With regard to Highway impact, the comments from DOI Highways which consider the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network efficiency and/or parking" are noted, and these clearly indicate that there are no concerns in relation to highway safety or parking. As well, the proposed tourist unit is only for a unit suitable for housing a maximum of four tourists and as such the existing parking provision on the site would be sufficient to serve the existing residents, and the proposed tourist use.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 On balance, whilst the highway elements and impacts on neighbouring properties would be acceptable, the development would be contrary to planning policy/sustainable aims of the Strategic Plan, especially as the proposal does not demonstrate clearly that it meets the required need for tourist development in the countryside, nor overriding national need. The proposal has also not considered whether there are reasonable acceptable alternatives, and the site is within a sustainable location as it is not within a settlement or along a public transport corridor. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to General Policy 3, Strategic Policy 8, Environment Policies 1, 2 and 16, and Business Policies 11, 12 & 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 9.1 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.
9.2 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.
__
==== PAGE 9 ====
24/00404/B Page 9 of 9
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: 20.08.2024
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