Inspector's Report

Appeal No: AP13/0070

Application No: 13/00496/C

Report on Planning Appeal

Written Representation Case: Site Inspection held on 9 September 2013

Appeal by: Wendy Shearman against refusal of planning approval for the siting of a static caravan (Retrospective) at Field 234211, Cronk Aashen Farm, Barregarrow, Kirk Michael, Isle of Man IM6 1HQ.

Introduction

1. This report provides brief descriptions of the application site and its surroundings; the proposal which is subject to the application; background information and relevant policy. The cases for the parties are then summarised, fuller details being available for reference in the documents on the case file. My assessment, conclusions and recommendation follow.

Site and Surroundings

1. The appeal site is the curtilage of Field 234211 at Cronk Aashen Farm. The site is adjacent to the main group of farm buildings (to the south west) which are accessed via a track off the B10 which leads to the Mountain Road. There are mature trees along the track and these screen the site reasonably well from the public thoroughfares.

Proposed Development

1. The proposed development is the siting off a static caravan on the land adjacent to the farmhouse. The caravan measures 11.5m x 3.7m and is 2.5m high and is connected to an existing septic tank. The caravan is in position and the documents refer to the application as being 'Retrospective'.

Background Information and Relevant Policy

1. Various planning consents have been granted at the farm between 1990 and 2007. These include conversions of outbuildings to dwellings; the construction of dog kennels; the erection of an agricultural building; alterations to a barn to provide holiday accommodation and alterations to form an extension.

1. The site lies within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLCVSS) identified on the 1982 Development Plan. General Policy 3 (GP3); Environment Policy 1 (EP1) and Environment Policy 2 (EP2) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 (IOMSP) are also relevant.

1. The appellant has indicated that the application did not seek a temporary permission. The application form described the proposed development as follows: 'Application for change of use of land. Siting of static caravan on part of Field 234211 (currently used as campsite and agricultural grazing). Caravan initially to be used as accommodation until approved residential building works on site have been completed. Subsequent use would be for occasional leisure use'. I consider, therefore, that the appeal should be dealt with on the basis that the siting of the static caravan is for a permanent siting.

Case for the Planning Authority

1. The gist of the case for the Planning Authority is as follows:

• The site is within a AHLCVSS and is not zoned for development. There is a presumption against development in the countryside and this proposal does not meet any of the exception criteria set out in Policy GP3.
• According to the authority records this particular field does not have planning permission for camping use and is therefore in agricultural use.
• The proposal would result in a residential structure within the countryside and this is contrary to policies which aim to protect the countryside.
• Even if only for a temporary approval, if the principle of static caravans in the countryside is allowed, the visual impact would be detrimental.
• Although close to the existing building group it has the appearance of a reasonably sized dwelling within the field and would appear as an urban intrusion into the countryside.
• Although the proposal would not affect others' amenities the parking of cars and other possible residential paraphernalia would result in further visual harm to the countryside.

Case for the Appellant

1. The gist of the case for the Appellant is as follows:

• Although in an AHLCVSS, the static caravan does not affect the look of the countryside due to the surrounding landscape and the farm buildings.
• It does not affect any neighbour and is not out of place since the field is part of the campsite and has been used as such whilst still maintaining its grazing status.
• Caravan and camper frequency has grown whilst tent camping has decreased.
• The original application sought a permanent change of use so that family members could continue to use the caravan. However, a temporary siting would be acceptable whilst the building works are on-going.
• Although the planning authority indicated that they did not want caravans on the Island, there is no legislation in place. To exclude them out of 'misplaced snobbery' is wrong.
• The static caravan does not look like a dwelling as alleged by the authority. It looks like a caravan.
• Landscaping around it or painting it green would be acceptable.
• If it is not acceptable on a permanent basis then a temporary permit is requested until all of the alteration works to the farmhouse are completed.

Other Parties

1. Michael Commissioners have no objections to the siting of the caravan as long as it is only allowed on a temporary basis.
2. The Highways Division note that it has no traffic impact.
3. The owner/occupier of Glebe Cottage objects on the basis that historically caravans have not been allowed on the Island and that if this one is allowed it would set a precedent.
4. The owner/occupier of 16 The Meadows, Kirk Michael also objects on the basis that it would set a precedent and that to allow caravans in the Manx countryside would be detrimental to the Island in all respects.

Assessment and conclusions

1. The main issues relate to land use; the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of this part of the countryside and the effect on the amenities of the occupants of the caravan itself and the adjacent farmhouse.
2. Although the appellant contends that the field is used for agriculture and camping, according to the records of the Planning Authority, the caravan is sited in an agricultural field within an AHLCVSS. There are other nearby fields on the farm which do have permission for camping but, despite the submissions of the appellant, this does not appear to be one of them. The use of this part of the field for residential use (in the form of a static caravan) is clearly contrary to the land use zoning and to the principle of new development within the countryside.
3. There is a clear presumption against new development in the countryside and the use of the land for residential purposes in this instance is contrary to Policy GP3 of the IOMSP. The proposal does not qualify as one of the exceptions to the policy.
4. On the second issue and having seen the caravan in position, I consider that it is harmful in principle to the countryside as well as being visually harmful in its particularly exposed location. Whilst acknowledging that it is reasonably well screened from public viewpoints, this does not alter the fact that it is an obtrusive and bulky structure on a raised part of the field adjacent to the farmhouse. The parking of vehicles adjacent to the caravan along with other residential paraphernalia would exacerbate the negative visual impact on the character and appearance of the open countryside.
5. Due to its size, bulk and materials, it is perceived as an unacceptable 'urban-looking' intrusion into the countryside. I consider that it is detrimental and harmful to the character and appearance of the AHLCVSS and that it is contrary to policies EP1 and EP2 of the IOMSP. There is no overriding national need for the caravan in this position and its location in this position harms the quality of the landscape. For the above reasons I do not consider that a permanent permission ought to be granted.
6. On the question of whether or not a temporary permission ought to be granted, I noted that works to the farmhouse were on-going and clearly not complete. The appellant has indicated that if a permanent permission is not considered acceptable, then a temporary permission is sought. However, having seen the caravan in-situ and having noted other areas around the farm complex I consider that there could have been less obtrusive locations on which to site a temporary caravan whilst building works are in progress.
7. In conclusion, therefore, I do not consider that approval should be given for the retention of the caravan, either for permanent or temporary use, in this particular location on the Farm. Nor do I consider that any planning conditions could overcome the harm caused to the AHLCVSS.

Recommendation.

1. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed.

Anshalain.

Anthony J Wharton BArch RIBA RIAS MRTPI Inspector