Loading document...
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE
1.1 The site is the curtilage of an existing building situated on the eastern side of the road which runs through the scattering of dwellings known as Cronk y Dhooney, to the east of the Ballakilpheric Road (B44). The building on the site is a large industrial styled agricultural building which has a footprint of 21m by 18m and 6m in height. The building is finished in rendered blockwork and has a corrugated sheeted roof and various horizontally proportioned windows.
1.2 To the north is Rose Cottage, an existing dwelling. To the south of the building is Robin Hill Farm which is owned by the applicants. This site accommodates a farm house, stone outbuildings which have recently been converted to tourist accommodation, stabling, a manege and farmland which extends to the Colby River to the east.
1.3 The site includes the footprint of the building and a small hardstanding at the front - approximately 4m to the front of the building. The area edged in blue which represents the curtilage of the farm holding, amounts to around 20 acres (8ha).
2.1 Proposed is the principle of the replacement of the existing building with a dwelling. The footprint of the dwelling as shown in the illustrative drawings is 9.5m by 6m with a rear conservatory and a small front porch and the dwelling is to be 6.9m high. The dwelling is traditionally styled in accordance with Planning Circular 3/91. The proposed building would be around 1m lower in ridge height than the existing, 8.5m less wide and 12m less long.
2.2 Parking is shown to the side of the new property. One space is shown, with a generous provision for manoeuvring which could accommodate further vehicles.
3.1 The site lies within an area designated for no site specific purpose and is effectively Open Space on the Southern Area Plan adopted in March 2013. The site also lies within a wider area of Incised Slopes in the Landscape Character Assessment where the following advice is available: "Incised Slopes - Ballamodha - He overall strategy if to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area, with its wooded valley bottoms, its strong geometric field pattern delineated by Manx hedges, its numerous traditional buildings and its network of small roads and lanes. The strategy should also include the restoration of landscapes disturbed by former mining activities. Distant views are identified as key, prevented at times by dense woodland in river valleys and by the cumulative screening effect of hedgerow trees, which tend to create wooded horizons. Open and panoramic views out to sea form the higher areas on the upper western parts of the area where there are few trees to interrupt views. 3.2 The draft Planning Policy Statement 2/09 - The Role of Landscape Character in Development states: "4.5 Type D: Incised Slopes 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. Key landscape planning considerations in relation to the protection and enhancement of this Landscape Character Type are as follows:-
3.3 Also, the plan identifies groups of houses and buildings in the countryside including Cronk y Dhooney and where the draft Written Statement states: "(c) Ballakilpheric/Cronk e Dhooney:
road. The sense of place arises largely from the chapel at the crossroads, but there are no other public facilities or amenities.
4.1 As the site is not designated for development, General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 2 are applicable:
General Policy 3: Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: 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". 4.2 In respect of "previously developed land", the following definition is important:
"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,
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." 4.3 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". 4.4 Environment Policy 2 states: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape of Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce difference 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."
5.1 The most relevant previous application for this site is PA 10/01800 which proposed the replacement of the existing shed with a dwelling. This was refused by the Planning Committee and at appeal. The Inspector noted that there were benefits from the proposal including the replacement of an "ugly" shed with a traditionally designed cottage which would "repair the damage to the traditional character of Cronk y Dhooney", would safeguard the residential amenity of those in nearby residential properties, would remove a constriction of the lane, would remove a dominating gable to the lane and the resultant overbearing impact on Rose Cottage and noted that the existing building is sited on a street frontage close to the centre of the small rural settlement and would not extend its footprint. 5.2 However, he concluded that to approve the application would be risking a precedent for a significant number of similar buildings whose conversions would undermine the sustainability principles in the Strategic Plan.
6.1 The owners of Kensa which lies directly opposite the site register an interest in the application but do not indicate whether they object to or support the application. 6.2 Rushen Parish Commissioners indicate that they support the application and consider that an appropriately designed dwelling could only enhance the area as the existing barn is unsightly and encroaches into the highway. They do not consider that there is a valid reason for refusing the application. 6.3 Highways Division indicate that there is insufficient detail to confirm that acceptable levels of visibility are available to drivers of vehicles emerging from the site. They also note that the garage is not wide enough and make recommendations about the set back of the gate and the width of the shared access. 6.4 Manx Electricity Authority make comments regarding existing and proposed electricity supplies. As these do not refer to overhead services they are not considered to be material planning considerations. 6.5 The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority (IOMWSA) recommend that the development is connected to the main foul sewer with no surface water discharged thereto. This is what is proposed in the application and as such a condition is not required to this effect.
7.1 The site is not designated for development and the Area Plan suggests that whilst additional development could be accommodated without significant adverse impact, the area in general is unsustainable and further dwellings are not proposed. 7.2 The existing building is undoubtedly unattractive and provision is made within the Strategic Plan for redevelopment of previously developed sites at GP3c above and Strategic Policy 1a which 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." 7.3 Previously-developed land is defined in the Strategic Plan as "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...there is no presumption that the land that is previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed" (Appendix 1 Definitions and Glossary of Terms).
7.4 The applicant has provided additional information regarding the history of the application building and also indicate that they are prepared to give up a small section of the lane which they believe the barn has encroached upon, to make access more manageable. They indicate that in respect of a concern over precedent, very few agricultural or industrial buildings in the countryside are on the site of a former dwelling, as is this one. They provide evidence from maps which indicate that a dwelling was on the site in 1957 and when the barn was built in 1973 that application makes no mention of a previous or existing cottage on the site. 7.5 The barn was required to facilitate the dairy farm which was at Robin Hill Farm at the time which was also farmed in conjunction with other land in the south of the Island. The dairy cows were sold in 1989 and the poultry farming ceased in 2000. The farm was sold in 2005 and the new owner used the applicant building for building sheds and stables (the current applicant purchased a stable there in 2006/7) and for the storage of a classic car and the building had in it a hydraulic lift. When the current applicants purchased the property, this was a consideration for them and they have been using the building for the storage and maintenance of non-agricultural vehicles since buying the property although the applicant has recently had to sell their vehicles due to illness. The applicants run a small flock of sheep and horse liveries and have tourist accommodation on the site using converted buildings and can manage both without need for the building. 7.6 This puts a slightly different interpretation on how the proposal sits in respect of General Policy 3 and previously developed land which clearly excludes buildings which were originally intended for agricultural purposes. It is clear that the original purpose of the building was agricultural but that changing ownership of the property has resulted in the land being reduced in workable acreage and changes in the nature of the use of the land and for which the demand for the use of this building has also changed. It is clear that at least since 2005 the building has not been used for agricultural purposes and the applicant indicates that they do not consider that they have a need for the building. As the holding only amounts to 20 acres, it is likely that the building will not be needed for the operation of the farm. 7.7 It is also relevant that the building in question is between two buildings used for human occupation - Rose Cottage and the tourist accommodation operated by the applicant, referred to above. If the building were to be used for agricultural purposes then there could be inconvenience to these occupants through noise, activity and smell as well as the issues highlighted by the inspector previously in favour of the application. 7.8 In terms of precedent, there are other large span industrial/agricultural buildings close to the site - at Cronk y Dhooney Farm in the field immediately to the east of the lane in front of the application building and at Ballakilpheric Farm. As far as it is known, these buildings are used for agricultural purposes so would not fall into the category of the application building which has not been used exclusively for agricultural purposes. If they have then they would be considered on their own merits and in the face of supporting information provided and there would not be any presumption in favour of the replacement of these buildings simply because this current application had been considered favourably. 7.9 In terms of the points raised by Highways Division, the current building is built right onto the lane, partly encroaching onto it. The plans submitted with the application show the dwelling being set back, thus retaining the existing visibility south down the lane but significantly improving the visibility to the north, from virtually nothing at present to in excess of 30 m to the north. The lane serving the site is single track and where what traffic there is generally travels slowly to take account of the limited width. As such, it is considered that the replacement of the barn with a dwelling brings with it the potential for considerable improvement to road safety and the proposed dwelling can be provided with adequate car parking and vehicular turning within the site such that vehicles are not reversing out onto the highway.
7.10 As such whilst the previous application was refused, this current application contains information which demonstrates that the building was not most recently used for agriculture and as such the site may be considered as previously developed land under the relevant policy, and possibly be considered as having potential for other forms of development. In this case, the previous application decision confirmed the various benefits of the use, the only reason for refusal relating to the policy. In light of the information provided relating to the previous use of the building, it is considered that that reason for refusal is no longer applicable. It is also relevant that the local authority support the application and that there are no local objections. As such, the application is recommended for approval.
PARTY STATUS 8.1 The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status. 8.2 The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance. 8.3 Kensa is alongside the site and the owners should be afforded party status in this instance. 8.4 The Manx Electricity Authority raise issues which are not material planning considerations and as such should not be afforded party status in this case. 8.5 IOMWSA is a statutory authority which raises material planning concerns and as such should be afforded party status in this case.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of 28.05.2013 Recommendation:
C 1. Approval of the details of siting, design, external appearance of the building[s], internal layout, means of access, landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.
C 2. The application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Planning Authority before the expiration of two years from the date of this permission.
The development to which this permission relates shall begin within 4 years of the date of this permission or within two years of the final approval of the reserved matters, whichever is the later.
C 4. The proposed new dwelling must be a traditionally designed cottage as shown generally in the submitted drawings and in accordance with the advice provided in Planning Circular 3/91 Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside.
C 5. The application for reserved matters must demonstrate that the development provides at least two full sized parking spaces ( 3.25 m by 6 m ) and sufficient space to turn a vehicle within the curtilage of the property.
C 6. The application for reserved matters must demonstrate that the frontage of the site is provided with stone walling which is no higher than 1 m in height such that visibility for drivers of vehicles emerging from the site, is maximised and where such walling is positioned such that it does not encroach onto the highway, as does the existing building on the site.
C 7. All of the existing building on the site must be removed prior to the commencement of any works on the proposed replacement dwelling.
C 8. This approval relates to the principle of the replacement of the existing building on the site with a dwelling as shown generally in plans reference 09-J089-01 Rev 0, 09-J089-02 Rev 0, 09-J089-03 Rev 3, 09-J089-04 Rev 0, 09-J089-05 Rev 0 and 09-J089-06 Rev 0 all received on 12th April, 2013.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Signed : Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown