Loading document...
b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historical, or social value and interest (Housing Policy 11) c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of buildings where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environmental 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 over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative." 3.2 In addition, Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by: a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings and re-using scarce, indigenous building materials; b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards and c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services". 3.3 Strategic Policy states 2: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3 ". 3.4 Spatial Policy 5 states: "New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3." 3.5 There is specific provision for the replacement of existing dwellings with new residential properties in Housing Policy 14 and the Plan explains the reasoning behind this as follows: Paragraph 8.12.2 "Extension to properties in the countryside As there is a general policy against development in the Island's countryside, it is important that where development exists, either in an historic or recently approved form, it should not, when altered or extended detract from the amenities of the countryside. Care therefore, must be taken to control the size and form extensions to control the size and form of extensions to property in the countryside. In the case of traditional properties, the proportion and form of the building is sensitively balanced and extensions of inappropriate size or proportions will not be acceptable where these destroy the existing character of the property In the case of nontraditional properties, where these are of poor or unsympathetic appearance, extensions which would increase the impact of the property will generally not be acceptable. It may be preferable to consider the redevelopment of non-traditional dwellings or properties of poor form with buildings of a more traditional style and in these cases, the Department may consider an increase in size of the replacement property over and above the size of the building to be replaced, where improvements to the appearance of the property would justify this." Housing Policy 14 states: "Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the "footprint" of the existing, and should have a floor area which is not more than greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91 (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in generally, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building. Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where which involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design and or siting, there would be less visual impact." 3.6 The Strategic Plan contains policies specifically guiding the development of equestrianrelated facilities as follows: Environment Policy 19 states: "Development of equestrian activities and buildings will only be accepted in the countryside where there will be as a result of such development no loss in local amenity, no loss of high quality agricultural land (Classes 1 and 2) and where the local highway network can satisfactorily accommodate any increase in traffic (see Environment Policy 14 for interpretation of Class 1 and 2)." Environment Policy 20 states: "There will be a presumption against large scale equestrian developments, which includes new buildings and external arenas, in areas of an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance unless there are exceptional circumstances to override such a policy." Environment Policy 21 states: "Buildings for the stabling, shelter or care of horses or other animals will not be permitted in the countryside if they would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside in terms of siting, design, size or finish. Any new buildings must be designed in form and materials to reflect their specific purpose; in particular cavitywall construction should not be used." 3.7 Previously developed land is referred to in General Policy 3 and by the applicant in the description of their site. This is defined in the Plan as: "Appendix 1: Previously Developed Land Previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. The definition includes defence buildings, but excludes, - land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings. - land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures. - and in built-up areas such as parks, recreation grounds and allotments, which, although it may feature paths, pavilions and other buildings, has not been previously developed. - land that was previously-developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure has blended into the landscape in the process of time (to the extent that it can reasonably be considered as part of the natural surroundings). There is no presumption that land that is previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed." ## Landscape Character Assessment
3.8 The Area Plan for the South includes reference to the draft Planning Policy Statement on Landscape Character Assessment. This identifies the site as within a much wider area of Incised Slopes where the following advice is given:
7.14 The overall strategy for the protection and enhancement of the Incised Slopes Landscape Character Type is to conserve and enhance: the remote and rural character; the relatively sparse settlement pattern of traditional hamlets and scattered farm buildings; the network of sunken and enclosed rural roads; and the substantial hedgerows and sod banks dividing irregularly-shaped pastoral fields." 7.15 The Landscape Character Policy Strategy that will be applied in relation to the protection and enhancement of the Incised Slopes is as follows: "Landscape Character Policy Statement 4: Approach routes, key views, and gateways to settlements within these landscapes should be enhanced. New farm buildings must not compromise the pattern and scale of farmsteads across the undulating Incised Slopes landscapes. New development must be located so that it avoids the suburbanisation of river valleys and stream corridors.
D Incised Inland Slopes Key Views 7.16 When assessing the impact of development or forming proposals for the Area Plans consideration will be given to the following key views...
D14 Ballamodha and St Mark's
3.9 The draft PPS was the subject of consultation but no further draft has been issued nor the document adopted.
3.10 The Department published a draft PPS on Planning and the Economy in February 2012. Various submissions were made and have been considered by the Department but as yet no further revised draft has been issued and the PPS has not been adopted. 3.11 The document states that the Government "is committed to promoting a strong, stable and productive economy that aim to bring jobs and prosperity for all" and that the Government is committed to continue to deliver further economic growth and diversification (paragraph 1). It states that the planning system should make appropriate provision for the identified national needs of the entire economy and assists in steering economic development to the most appropriate locations and that the economy should not be constrained by a shortage of land for economic development uses. It states that there is a general presumption in favour of development and that proposals will be considered on their merits bearing in mind the Development Plan and the need to protect the island's unique character, natural environment and quality of life (paragraph 4). 3.12 The draft PPS draws attention to the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 which states that in dealing with applications for planning approval, the Department should have regard to the provisions of the development plan as far as it is material to the application, such other considerations as are material to the application and all other material considerations. The draft
PPS provides guidance in relation to this, that "the Department will seek proposals to be supported by evidence that demonstrates that the proposed development would secure sustainable long term economic growth of Island wide benefit, which meets the wider objectives of sustainable development by weighing market and other economic matters alongside environmental and social costs and benefits" (paragraph 5). 3.13 The draft PPS defines economic development as "the development of land and buildings for activities that generate wealth, jobs and incomes. Economic land development land uses include: the traditional employment land uses (offices, research and development, industry and warehousing) as well as retail, leisure and public services" (paragraph 6). 3.14 The draft PPS advises that if development proposals are outside of areas designated for that type of development, "it must be demonstrated that alternative sites have been considered and rejected as not appropriate for the proposed use" (paragraph 7) but that wherever possible, the planning system should seek to promote economic development, as defined in the Planning Policy Statement, to facilitate regeneration and promote social and environmental stability. 3.15 It refers specifically to housing development, stating, "Although for planning purposes, it is not defined as economic development, it is recognised that house building and construction do play a valuable role in the economy." It then goes on in paragraph 10 to recognise that housing development can often deliver environmental and social benefits, can attract entrepreneurs who will invest in the Isle of Man economy and encourages the planning system to work with the Department of Economic Development and other Government Departments to identify opportunities for future investment to deliver economic objectives. It identifies an importance for Planning Officers, the Planning Committee and Inspectors to adopt a "positive and constructive approach" in determining planning applications for economic development, taking account of advice on the indicated economic benefits of such development alongside social and environmental issues" (paragraph 11). It advises that potential applicants should liaise with Department of Economic Development prior to submitting any planning application for development to ensure that the economic benefits associated with a proposal are clearly demonstrated and assessed, enabling adequate consideration to be given to economic matters along with social and environmental issues in the decision making process (paragraph 12). The applicant and his architect have had a number of meetings with various officers of Department of Economic Development and the Planning Office prior to submitting this application. 3.16 The draft PPS advises that "in determining applications for economic development uses, account will be taken of the likely economic benefits of the development using appropriate advice from the Department of Economic Development (based upon validation and assessment of appropriate and proportionate evidence and date which is relevant to the development). In assessing these benefits, the Department of Economic Development will look at a number of key factors (which takes appropriate account of commercial sensitivity) including: the number and types of jobs expected to be created or retained on the site after the construction phase (some consideration will also be given to those jobs created through the construction phase), whether and how far, the development will help meet economic growth opportunities, redress social disadvantage and support regeneration priorities and a consideration of the contribution to the Manx economy and local businesses". 3.17 It goes on to state that "Planning will look favourably on applications for economic development uses which may not be in accordance with the development plan, but only if based on robust evidence base (which can withstand scrutiny, testing and cross examination) and the economic benefits of the development are demonstrated to outweigh adverse impacts on the economic, social or environmental sustainability. Planning will give adequate weight to economic development issues even though these applications may not be in strict accordance with the Strategic or Area Plan. Such proposals will have to demonstrate a high quality design" (paragraph 14)
4.1 There have been two planning applications on this site which are relevant to the consideration of this current application. 4.2 PA 06/01915 proposed alterations and extensions of the main dwelling. The amount of floor space to be provided was 877 sq m . The Inspector considering that case looked both Housing Policies 14 and 15, both of which generally constrain enlargements to of the existing floor area. The Inspector felt it appropriate to consider the existing floor area calculation to include both dwellings on the site (ie 313 sq m of floor space) but concluded that an increase of over double this size was not justified as the main house which was effectively to be lost in the proposed extensions was "of traditional form and it is only the replacement of unsympathetic additions which is of benefit". He considered that the "vast scale" of the proposed replacement/enlargement - set it aside from traditional design" (paragraph 31). He concludes that the appeal proposal "fails to take sufficient, if any cognisance of the policy approach to rural building, due to its scale and failure to respect the traditional style of rural building" and goes on "As to whether there are any exceptional reasons to permit an increase of more than in the floor areas on the site, taking a flexible approach still leaves a building twice the size of that which would normally be permitted under the policies. It is claimed that the Government approach to encouraging wealthy new residents to the Island is a reason for making an exception to the policies of the SP. However, the SP is of very recent approval by Tynwald. It would be unreasonable to assume that Tynwald was not being consistent in its policy making, and thus the policy to attract wealthy new residents (if it be such) should not be seen as overriding to policies of the SP (paragraph 35)." 4.3 That application was refused for the following reasons: "In terms of size and scale, the proposed development fails to comply with the Strategic Plan policies in respect of either extension to dwellings in the countryside or replacement dwellings in the countryside", and "The design of the proposed extensions would be inconsistent with the appropriate policy guidance in the Strategic Plan and Planning Circular 3/91; the development would thus adversely affect the character and appearance of the area." 4.4 A further application was then submitted, by a different architect with a different architectural approach. PA 09/01803 proposed a replacement dwelling with a floor area of larger than the existing (excluding the attic space above the garage shown as being accessible) and would have been 2 m higher than the existing. That application also included the creation of a new access similar to that proposed in the current application. 4.5 The Inspector considered that "the normally accepted threshold of would be significantly exceeded and I do not consider that the circumstances of the case would justify an exception to the normal requirements of Housing Policy 14" (paragraph 29). 4.6 He refers to the floorspace calculations and states, "I would agree with the Planning Authority that it is inappropriate to take account of the area of the abandoned cottage when calculating the existing residential area". He states that "Although the existing house has been extended its basic form is traditional in appearance. The same cannot be said of the outbuildings but these are low rise ancillary structures and whilst they can be seen in distant views from the east, their visual impact is small. Whilst care has been taken in the detail and materials of the proposed replacement house to reflect traditional building techniques the end result would not be a traditional Manx farmhouse but a much grander structure. Furthermore, although in time the impact may be reduced by additional planting, with the proposed siting I consider that a building of the footprint and height proposed would be more clearly seen in distant views from the east than is currently the case with the existing low rise ancillary buildings and the visual impact on the rural scene would be greater" (paragraph 28).
4.7 He comments on the proposed new access and states, "I have concerns in relation to the appearance of the proposed new vehicular access, which would involve significant works at the junction with the A3, including the removal of a length of Manx hedge. This would also impact on the rural scheme. Whilst the visibility that would be provided by the new access would be superior to the existing, the existing track to the south provides access to other properties and would remain if development was to proceed" (paragraph 30).
5.1 Malew Parish Commissioners have no objection to the application but suggest that consideration should be given to landscaping and highway safety as the proposed access is within the 50 mph speed limit area. 5.2 Highways Division make comments about the width of the access and lack of information about car parking and manoeuvring space. The applicant has amended the plans to illustrate that the access way could be increased in width to 6.5 m and the manouevring space sufficient to accommodate the turning of larger vehicles. 5.3 A resident of Maughold expresses surprise at the planning fee and wonders whether this is a new way of controlling development. He comments further following the submission of the amended plans to wonder whether another new dwelling in the countryside is necessary considering that there are at least two such enterprises currently for sale. 5.4 Manx Electricity Authority raise concerns regarding existing electricity supplies, some of which are overhead and run parallel with the road approximately 50 m from the A4. Energy Policy 2 relates to the protection of high tension overhead electricity lines: "Land within 9m either side of an overhead High Tension power cable will be safeguarded from development." In this case the only development proposed within 9 m of the overhead line is the creation of the access way into the site. 5.5 The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority indicate that they have no objection subject to details of the proposed pond inlet to be discussed with them prior to the submission of any further detailed application. 5.6 Department of Economic Development submit a letter of support for the application. They emphasise that they are "working hard to further the Government's strategic aim of economic growth and diversification, and resources are focused upon attracting and developing business prospects which will benefit the Island's economy" and consider that "it is vital for Government to allow new and developing existing businesses the opportunity to flourish and display their full potential whilst also being mindful of the environmental impact of new development". 5.7 The applicant has had a series of meetings with DED in respect of his prospective business proposals and the proposal for his dwelling and equestrian facilities. The Department recognises the benefit which could accrue from this development in terms of: the Exchequer benefit (VAT) for the Island from the construction cost alone if estimated to be somewhere in the region of £ 460,185. the estimated direct tax benefit (NI and ITIP) from the temporary local labour element is £286,000 excluding fees the project fees with local professional firms are estimated at £ 648,000 from which further employment taxes will be applicable additional spend with local suppliers will also be required which is estimated at around £392,000 per annum. 7 full time and 1 part-time job will be created as a result of the proposed development. 5.8 They also indicate that they have reviewed the applicant's financial information and are confident that he has the resources and access the finance to be able to satisfactorily complete
the proposed development. They also indicate that the applicant has significant business interests and has indicated that more of these will be conducted from the Island once he has become resident. He has indicated to Department of Economic Development that an initial level of new business could generate 7 new jobs and an expansion of an existing business. They also note that the applicant is Manx born and is keen to return to the Island, he is considered to be an entrepreneur and has a track record of generating economic activity from his various global business interests. 5.9 They consider the application worthy of their support and consider that the proposal will generate "significant economic benefits to the Isle of Man".
6.1 It is important to clarify that whilst the conclusions of the previous two applications are highly relevant to the consideration of this current application, and the importance of the need to achieve consistency within the decision-making process will not be lost on the Planning Committee, particularly in this case when the site and the buildings to be demolished are the same as that which has been the subject of two previous and unsuccessful applications, there are some differences which could justify a different conclusion to those previous applications. 6.2 The application includes the provision of a large equestrian facility which has steered the applicant's decision to choose this site for his new dwelling. The previous applications were solely for a replacement dwelling. The Strategic Plan clearly states that there is a presumption against large scale equestrian facilities in areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance and this site does not lie within such an area. If there is policy advice in support or which at least allows for large scale equestrian facilities, then there is logic in the identification of this site for the development, on the grounds that the site is not located within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance and that there are in existence on the site dwellings which confer residential status on at least some of the site. 6.3 Secondly, this application includes Close Clark within the area of land owned and controlled by the applicant. Whilst there is no specific proposal in this application for the blocking off of the access up the existing lane to the A3, this could be required by condition if it were felt that the benefits in road safety terms of the new access outweighed any visual or environmental concerns, and the previous Inspector's concerns that the existing substandard access would continue to be used by other properties, would be less applicable as Close Clark and the application dwellings could have only the new access as a means of getting into the site, leaving the lane access used only by the user of the adjacent fields to the lane - largely agricultural and equestrian uses. 6.4 Whilst the Circular on Planning and the Economy is not yet formally adopted, it is nevertheless a statement of Departmental intention and was not available when the earlier two applications were considered. The application is supported by DED with a clear connection to Government's Strategic objectives and with a number of direct financial benefits to the Island. The proposal is a development which could create employment, unlike the earlier applications which were purely for housing, in the form of positions for stable hands, housekeepers, landscape gardeners and general maintenance (around 8 posts). Department of Economic Development also refer to the development securing the potential for the expansion of local businesses and creation of new ones with the resultant benefits accruing to the Island. 6.5 On the counter side, the dwelling is significantly larger than the dwellings which are to be replaced and larger again than those dwellings which were previously refused, the Inspectors making consistent comment on the increased size and the resultant impact on the landscape. An approval to a dwelling of the size indicated in the plans, along with the proposed equestrian building would therefore be contrary to those previous conclusions as the buildings are greater in size and scale and are positioned more prominently in the landscape. It is relevant however
that the drawings indicate that the majority of the buildings will be finished in stone which will considerably reduce their impact compared with that of the previously proposed dwellings which were to be finished in render. 6.6 Also, the proposal for the access will result in a similar impact to that which was proposed in the most recent previous application. 6.7 The benefits of the development all hinge upon the applicant being the person to implement the approval. It is an established tenet of planning that permission for development runs with the land not the applicant and that only in special circumstances should planning permission be granted subject to a personal implementation. Even if a condition were attached to the permission, requiring that the first occupation of the property and use of the buildings were by the applicant in this case, it would not be possible to require that he live there in perpetuity. 6.8 Similarly, whilst there are to be monetary benefits accruing directly to the Manx Treasury from the development as highlighted above, the details of the further expansion of local businesses and the new business developing from the applicant being based upon the Island are not specified and it would not be possible to require by any planning condition or legal agreement that that expansion or new businesses were effected. 6.9 An important consideration which should not be overlooked is the actual impact of the proposal. The development will change what is the curtilage and land alongside an existing dwelling and outbuildings which are not all of particular merit but which are small in scale and impact and where the main house cannot be easily seen from further afield, none of the buildings can be seen from the A3, to a large house with large equestrian building alongside set within formally landscaped grounds with a new access which is visible from the A3 and which allows a passer-by to be aware that there is development beyond the existing conifer screen. The Planning Committee has considered other applications for developments in the countryside which would change the character of existing sites. In the case of Ballamona Farm, Quine's Hill, Braddan, a series of applications resulted in a former farm being transformed into a business and equestrian facility with very large dwelling (PAs 12/01245, 12/01067, 12/01285 and 12/01069) ). In that case the large dwelling would not be seen by the public and the large equestrian facility was to be set within a low point within the site, visible from the A25 Old Castletown Road but not such that the Planning Committee felt that it would be detrimental to public amenities or the character of the countryside. Ballaveare was the subject of an application for a replacement dwelling which an Inspector considered was not appropriate to the context of the site and was refused for this reason (PA 11/01551)). A proposal for the replacement of an existing dwelling at Ballacomish in Ballabeg was approved which created a much more formal and grander dwelling within more extensively landscaped grounds (PA 10/00807). In that case, the dwelling is no more prominent or visible than the existing but it was considered that the existing dwelling was of poor form and the proposed replacement (which was larger than the existing with approved extensions) was considered to be an environmental improvement. It is clear then that replacement dwellings which are greater than larger than the dwelling which is being replaced can be considered acceptable if the environmental impact is considered acceptable. 6.10 However, it is clear from the previous application for smaller dwellings that Inspectors have not considered that a greater than larger replacement dwelling was acceptable. The proposal does differ in that the proposed buildings could be finished in stone which would reduce their visual impact in the landscape however, as is clear from the photomontages, it will be clear from people looking in the direction of the site from the B35 Ballasalla Road and the B30 Bayrauyr that there are buildings there which are significantly larger than what existed previously. The applicant has done as much as possible to reduce that impact in terms of finish materials and massing of buildings.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown