229416

==== PAGE 1 ====

27 October 2014 14/01137/B Page 1 of 5 PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 14/01137/B Applicant : Mr William James McCracken Proposal : Erection of a workshop/garage/store building Site Address : Field 613057 Ballamenagh Moar Farm Ballamenagh Road Baldrine Isle Of Man IM4 6AJ

Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 11.10.2014 Site Visit : 11.10.2014 Expected Decision Level :

Officer Delegation

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The application site is the curtilage of a detached bungalow located on Ballamenagh Road in Lonan, and also a parcel of land to the northeast where the works the subject of this application are proposed to take place. The bungalow is an agricultural worker's dwelling.

1.2 Also within the curtilage are a detached double garage and large driveway / turning area; beyond this to the south lies a dwelling, while on all other sides agricultural fields stretch away.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a "workshop/garage/store building" to the northeast of the dwelling on an area that is currently used for grazing. The residential curtilage would be extended into this field (no. 613057) to accommodate the garage.

2.2 The proposed building has a footprint of six metres by ten metres and would have two floors. The ground floor is labelled on the submitted plans as "storage + workshop" while the upper floor is labelled "storage". Six rooflights, each 1 metre square, are shown in the roof, while the front elevation of the building would have one garage door, one dwelling-style door and one window, with a further two windows in the rear elevation; none are shown in either side elevation.

2.3 The submitted plan carries the following annotation: "Render + TILES same as existing property".

2.4 The drawing is accurate to a metric scale, although the roof height appears differently on the front, side and rear elevations.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

==== PAGE 2 ====

27 October 2014 14/01137/B Page 2 of 5 3.1 The application site has been the subject of two previous planning applications that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:

o Planning application 99/02086/B sought approval for the erection of agricultural dwelling on the application site for the current planning application, which followed approval of the Approval in Principle earlier that year. The dwelling contained within the application site is the result of this planning approval. Attached was the following condition:

"The dwelling may be occupied only by a person or persons engaged or last engaged solely in agriculture; or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants."

o Planning application 09/01450/B sought approval for the erection of an extension to this dwelling; the submitted plans showed an additional storey added to the dwelling, although not throughout its entire footprint. This was approved although not implemented and has now expired.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is located within a wider area of land that is designated as (a) open space/agricultural use, and (b) High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance under the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005.

4.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan contains three relevant policies.

4.3 As development is proposed within a countryside location, General Policy 3 is applicable. It 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 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."

4.4 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."

4.5 Environment Policy 2 states: "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

==== PAGE 3 ====

27 October 2014 14/01137/B Page 3 of 5 development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:

(a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential".

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Lonan Parish Commissioners, in correspondence received 24th October 2014, recommend that the planning application be refused on three grounds:

o "The building is intended for agricultural use and the application should clearly state that; o "The building should be located near existing agricultural buildings as distinct from a location next to residential dwellings. o "The plans to not provide enough detail as to finish, style or appearance and impact on the local visual amenity making an informed decision impossible."

5.2 Highway Services, in an email received 15th October, state that they do not oppose the planning application.

6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The application seeks approval for a new building along with - although not explicitly stated as such on the application particulars - the extension of the residential curtilage to include parts of Field 613057. The main issues to consider in the assessment of the application are the principle of the development and the impact it would have upon the character and appearance of the landscape.

6.2 In the first instance, it cannot be ignored that the application site is within an area of open countryside and therefore not zoned for further development.

6.3 Secondly, the comments of the Commissioners are noted; when the application was originally submitted, the details were insufficient and as such the application could not be registered. In the letter from the Department outlining this fact, the applicant was advised to contact the Agricultural Advisor within DEFA for advice in respect of the proposal on the assumption that it would be for agricultural use. This has not been done and, given that the only openings on the proposed building are on the front elevation facing the dwelling and away from Field 613057, it must be assumed that the application is actually for domestic, and not agricultural, purposes. As such, the proposal fails to meet General Policy 3(f).

6.3 While there are some common sense exceptions that can be made when assessing proposals for development in the countryside - usually for sheds and garages - that make reference to General Policy 2 more appropriate, it is noted that the application site already has a double garage. In this sense, the 'common sense exception' has already been made and cannot be made again. It is possible that an extension to the existing garage might be acceptable, although it cannot be ignored that this garage was, at the time of the site visit, not used for the storage of vehicles in any case and also that the site's location within an area of High Landscape Value provides for very strict restrictions on new development. It is therefore considered that the proposal also fails to meet any of the other provisions of General Policy 3 in respect of the proposed building.

6.4 Environment Policy 1 is clear that the countryside is to be protected for its own sake. The proposal would change the existing land use from agricultural use to that of residential

==== PAGE 4 ====

27 October 2014 14/01137/B Page 4 of 5 curtilage. While it would be possible to limit any future development of the land by removing Permitted Development rights, such a limitation would not prevent the character of the land from changing. Many forms of domestic paraphernalia do not require planning approval and simple things such as regular mowing of grass, planting of specimen shrubs/trees, siting of children's playing equipment and the hanging of washing lines would all contribute to a change in the character of the land which would be outside of the control of the Department.

6.5 While the land around the proposed building is limited such that the main impact would arise from the building's very presence rather than a changed nature of the land, the point is an important one.

6.6 It is concluded that the proposed new building and the proposed extension of the residential curtilage would constitute an unwarranted domestic intrusion into the open countryside beyond the existing residential curtilage of the dwelling. As such, the proposal is contrary to General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan.

6.7 The Commissioners' concern in respect of the quality of the submitted plan is well- founded. No information regarding, inter alia, the thickness of walls, eave detailing, window reveals, door or window material or rainwater goods have been provided. No informed conclusion can be reached from the submitted plans in respect of the proposed building's likely visual impact. Given its siting within an area of High Landscape Value, and from the point of view of the provisions of Environment Policy 2, this is especially unfortunate. This represents a substantive reason to refuse the application.

7.0 RECOMENDATION

7.1 For the above reasons, the application is considered unacceptable and is recommended for refusal on two separate grounds.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.

==== PAGE 5 ====

27 October 2014 14/01137/B Page 5 of 5

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Refused

Date of Recommendation:

27.10.2014

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals

R 1. The proposed new building and the proposed extension of the residential curtilage represents an unwarranted domestic intrusion into the open countryside beyond the existing residential curtilage of the dwelling. As such, the proposal is contrary to both General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.

R 2. Environment Policy 2 is clear that for development proposals in Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration. In the absence of full architectural details of the proposed building (for example, in respect of the thickness of walls, eave detailing, window reveals, door or window material or rainwater goods), the plans submitted are inadequate on which to reach a formative conclusion on the proposal's likely visual impact. Therefore, the application cannot adequately demonstrate that it will not result in visual harm to the landscape and is consequently contrary to Environment Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.

--

I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control /Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer.

Decision Made : Refused

Date : 29/10/14

Determining officer (delete as appropriate)

Signed :... Chris Balmer

Senior Planning Officer

Signed : Sarah Corlett

Sarah Corlett

Senior Planning Officer

Signed :... Michael Gallagher

Director of Planning and Building Control

Signed :... Jennifer Chance

Head of Development Management