33410

==== PAGE 1 ====

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No.: Applicant: Proposal: 14/01276/C Mr Martin Perry Change of use of existing building to a residential garage (retrospective) Nissen Hut Field 614992 Adjacent To Riverside Cottage Glen Roy Laxey Isle Of Man Site Address: Case Officer: Photo Taken : Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Mr Edmond Riley 26.11.2014 26.11.2014 Officer Delegation Officer's Report 1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE The application site is a small parcel of land situated in the Glen Roy valley at the foot of the mountain to the west of Laxey. Glen Roy is a small interspersed rural hamlet. The site is situated next to a narrow country lane to the west side of the outside of a sharp bend. 1.1 The site is surrounded by woodland to the side and rear. At the rear the land rises away. The site is immediately adjacent to a river, which is just to the south, The bend in the road next to the site goes over a bridge over the river. There is a neighbouring house, Riverside Cottage, to the other side of the road on the inside of the bend to the east. It is understood that the site once belonged to this property. Otherwise, there are no other dwellings in the immediate vicinity. The site contains an old Nissen hut set within a small curtilage of 0.08 hectares with a parking area at the front accessed directly off the road. 1.2 1,3 1,4 The site has a varied and ambiguous Planning history. 2.0 THE PROPOSAL Retrospective planning approval is sought for the change of use of the Nissen hut to a residential garage. No dwelling has been shown within the red line of the application site. The applicant's agent was contacted in order to advise on which dwelling the residential garage would be attached to. He advised that this would be for the applicant, who lives in Douglas. 2.1 The agent was also requested to advise for how long the Nissen hut had been used as a residential garage. He could not give a definitive answer; on the site visit it was evident that the site was not in any active use. 2.2 2.3 As the application seeks only a change of use, no physical alterations are proposed. 14/01276/C Page 1 of 10

==== PAGE 2 ====

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY An application for a Lawful Development Certificate (13/00313/LAW) was refused in December 2013. The application sought a lawful use of the site for light industrial, workshop, storage, motor repair and business usage. The applicant was unable to demonstrate that such use of the land has occurred continuously for the 10 years prior to when the application was made. It would therefore seem likely that the site has no established, lawful Planning use. However, the Nissen hut itself is a lawful structure having been in place for well in excess of the four years within which enforcement action can be taken. 3,1 Following this, and in the same year. Approval in Principle (13/91465/A) was sought for the erection of a detached bungalow in place of the Nissen hut. This was refused under delegated powers for the following reasons: 3.2 Reason 1 "The site is situated in the countryside where development is strictly controlled and the countryside should be protected for its own sake. New development should be steered to existing towns and villages. The site is an unsustainable and Inappropriate location for a new dwelling being remote from shops, services, jobs and public transport. Occupants of the proposed dwelling would be reliant upon the private car for transport which would add to pollution and congestion on rural lanes. The proposal fails to accord with Strategic Policies 2 and 10, Spatial Policy 5 and General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, and in the absence of any overriding material considerations is unacceptable," Reason 2 "The site is situated in the countryside where development is strictly controlled and the countryside should be protected for its own sake. The site is located in a very rural area charactertised [sic] by only sporadic dwellings and built development. The proposed dwelling would be out of keeping with this character and would appear unacceptably intrusive. The site is a confined plot with only limited garden and the dwelling would appear overly cramped and contrived. The front of the dwelling would be dominated by vehicle parking which would appear unsightly. The site is within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance where protection of the character of the landscape is the most important consideration. The proposed dwelling would have an intrusive and harmful impact on the rural character and appearance of the area. It fails to accord with Strategic Policy 5, Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, and in the absence of any overriding material considerations is unacceptable," The decision was appealed against and subsequently upheld. However, the Inspector made some interesting observations in reaching his decision. At paragraph 21, he noted; "On the basis of the submissions and the discussions during the course of the Inquiry I find that there is simply insufficient evidence to conclude what the lawful use of the land was prior to its unauthorised use for vehicle recovery purposes." 3.3 He continued: "...it would appear that sometime in the past the site and the Nissen hut had been used in conjunction with Riverside Cottage and prior to this had been used as some sort of local authority rural depot or workshop". 3.4 At paragraph 25, he noted: "The pattern of built development along this rural lane is sporadic. The Nissen Hut cannot be said to be attractive but it is perceived as being a typical low key storage building in the countryside. In terms of the size of the site it does not look out of place and sits reasonably well against the green backdrop of the woodland area. I consider that some form of similar sized building, appropriate to this countryside location could also be visually acceptable on this site." 3.5 Page 2 of 10 14/01276/C

==== PAGE 3 ====

The site is also the subject of a current and ongoing enforcement investigation relating to the alleged running of a vehicle recovery business and vehicle maintenance by the applicant (12/00285/COMP). As of 22nd June 2014 (the latest correspondence on the Enforcement file), the applicant advised as follov/s: "there are no vehicles on the land at glen roy and Its up for sale". This was confirmed on the site visit in respect of the current planning application, made 26th November 2014, 3,6 4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The Isle of Man Development Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 identifies the site as being within Private Woodland and an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. 4.2 A number of policies in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan are considered relevant. Strategic Policy 1: 'Development should make the best use of resources by: optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials; ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards; and being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and (a) (b) (c) services. Strategic Policy 2 states: '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 [General Policy 3].' 4.3 Strategic Policy 5 states: 'New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies.’ 4.4 Strategic Policy 10 states: 'New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: 4,5 (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; make best use of public transport; not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and encourage pedestrian movement.' (b) (c) (d) 4.6 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.' 4.7 General Policy 3 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); conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); previously developed land(l) which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current (b) (c) 14/01276/C Page 3 of 10

==== PAGE 4 ====

situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment; the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14); location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; buiiding and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture (d) (e) (f) 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 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.' 4.8 4.9 Environment Policy 2 states: 'The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLVs) 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 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.’ 4.10 Environment Policy 10 states: 'Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission, The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4.' Environment Policy 13 states: 'Development which would result in an unacceptable risk 4.11 from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted,' 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Lonan Parish Commissioners, on 28th November 2014, recommended approval to the 5.1 application. Highway Services advised on 24th November 2014 that they had no objection to the proposal, subject to the imposition of a condition: 5.2 "Visibility splays of 2.4 x 36 (23 minimum) metres required. Nothing must be planted, erected of allowed to grow above 1.05 metres in height within the visibility splay." They also requested that the applicant contact the Network Operations Section of the Department of Infrastructure prior to carrying out any works within the highway, including the installation of dripped kerbs. 14/01276/c Page 4 of 10

==== PAGE 5 ====

On receipt of an additional plan showing that visibility was less than that condition was seeking, they advised on 1st December 2014 as follows: "2.4 x 36 metres can be achieved to the north/east when exiting the access. 2,4 x 23 metres (acceptable) can be achieved to the south/east." The Fisheries Division within the Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture were asked for their view on the proposal. On 4th December 2014, they commented (In part) as follows; "We...agree that there are no concerns regarding this application, as long as the use is as a residential garage and not a mechanics workshop. The site is very close to the watercourse and if there are to be any alterations the applicant should get back in touch." 5.3 The owner / occupier of Ballacowin Farm, who own land adjacent the site boundary, commented on the application as follows (in part) in a letter date-stamped as having been received 5th December 2014; 5.4 "We own the lands immediately abutting the western boundary of the site and the applicant has coloured the 1:100 scale Site Plan with a red line along a noted "boundary wire fence". This is in fact our fence on lands wholly owned by our farm and the actual boundary is the centre tine of the hedge described as "banking". The location Plan is also incorrectly edged red and our concern is that the application will be partly judged on lands not in the applicant's ownership, "Should the Planning Officer make a site visit prior to reaching a decision on this proposal, it will be apparent where the existing building sits in relation to the dimensioned boundary lines and also where the proper boundaries lie. "We also have a concern regarding the wording of the proposal as it is seeking a retrospective change of use of the building into a residential garage. The building has been used as a general store in the past and within two recent previous planning applications made by Mr Perry, both refused, it has never been described as a residential garage." 6.0 ASSESSMENT Planning histor/ and matters for assessment The site has an unusual and ambiguous history. The applicant previously sought to / establish, by way of a Lawful Development Certificate, the use of the site for light industrial, workshop, storage, motor repair and business usage. However, the application was refused on the grounds that the applicant was unable to demonstrate that such use had been carried out continuously for the ten years preceding the date of the application. The applicant claimed that the site had been used over the decades for storage of concrete posts and vehicle repairs. The most recent active use of the site, as a base for the applicant's vehicle recovery business as well as vehicle maintenance, commenced towards the end of 2012, well under the period of ten years' continuous use required to demonstrate a lawful use. It is therefore highly unlikely that any lawful use of the site can be established because of a material change in the use of the land in 2012. 6.1 6.2 However, what does seem possible to conclude is that the building is itself lawful, even if it remains unauthorised. It has seemingly been in place (its appearance materially unchanged) for some decades, and therefore is immune from enforcement action. It is currently not in active use, despite the application being described as retrospective. The agent has no knowledge as to how long the use of the building has been as a residential garage and advises "it would be difficult to prove a time in any case". 14/01276/C Page S of 10

==== PAGE 6 ====

Whether an application is retrospective or not should neither act in its favour or to its detriment in any case, so the length of time the building has been in such use is something of a moot point. The key issue is whether or not such a use would be acceptable for this location. Any such assessment must take account of the fact that the building is present, is immune from enforcement action, and also appears to be well-maintained and in a fairly good condition as a result. It will also be appropriate to consider to what other uses the building could be put if the current proposal is found to be unacceptable. While, of course, the planning application process is not about making comparative hypothetical assessments, it is always appropriate to consider what would be the outcome of a refusal, 6.3 The previous decisions on this site are therefore material to the determination of the application in that they are fairly clear that: (I) the building is fairly low-key and is not significantly detrimental to the visual amenity of the area; (ii) no lawful use can be established, and (ill) the construction of a dwelling would be unacceptably obtrusive and would result in new development in the countryside, which would also be unacceptable. It is also true that there is no "fallback'' position - that is, any likely impact arising from the implementation of the proposal must be balanced against the fact that no use could commence here without planning approval, which is a fairly unusual situation in the consideration of an application seeking a change of use, (Normally it is the case that whatever is proposed would need to be balanced against the existing or most recent use; such a balance here is not consequently possible.) 6,4 For approval to be granted, a change of use application must be judged acceptable in terms of its impact on highway safety, neighbouring residential amenity and also the visual impact that would arise in respect of the proposed use. Also important are considerations in respect of flood risk and water quality issues given the site's proximity to a watercourse. 6,5 Highway safety It is noted that Highway Services do not oppose the application; although the preferred visibility splay cannot be provided, they are of the view that an acceptable level of visibility can be provided. From the site visit, it was evident that the site’s location on a valley floor and a sharp bend provides for good visibility in both directions. The use of the building as a residential garage would not result in significant vehicle movements and the amount of land around the site would provide for enough room to park vehicles off the highway. 6.6 It is also noted that the case officer considering the application for Approval in Principle for a new dwelling concluded "that access and parking arrangements are acceptable and there are no reasonable grounds to refuse the application on this issue". Although a very different form of development was being proposed at that time, it is still worth noting this view. 6.7 It is therefore considered that the application is acceptable from a highway safety 6.8 point of view. Neighbouring residential amenity There will be associated comings and goings with a residential garage, and it is fair to assume that these will be greater - or, at least, more noticeable - with relation to a garage in such a secluded position than would be the case in respect of a garage associated with a garage adjacent a dwelling in a built-up area. This is a very rural location and vehicle movements are rare and so additional ones would have a greater impact here than might be the case in a built-up area. 6.9 14/01276/C Page 6 of 10

==== PAGE 7 ====

However, it is unlikely that the vehicle movements would be so regular as to result in 6.10 a nuisance to occupants of Riverside, which is adjacent the site on the opposite side of the highway. 6.11 The active use of the site as a residential garage is also likely to bring some form of noise nuisance in terms of the activities that could be undertaken from the garage and, while these would also be more noticeable in such a secluded area compared to a built-up area, it is unlikely that any such noise or disturbance would be so great as to warrant the application's refusal, Any statutory nuisance that did occur would be controlled by Environmental Health legislation, Visual impact 6.12 As noted, the building comes with an area of land that could be used for the parking of vehicles. This would create a visual intrusion into the countryside if used excessively. While it is not clear how many vehicles could park on the site, it is considered that the use of the site by more than perhaps three vehicles, and especially if those vehicles were kept on the site for extended periods of time, could be said to indicate that a change of use of the site from a residential garage to vehicle storage might have occurred. This is a particular concern given the use of the site in the past, and it is also related to the issue of residential amenity as discussed above. Moreover, the site is situated with an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance where protection of the character of the landscape is the most important consideration. 6.13 While regard can be had to the previous use, and potential use, to which a site may be put, it is not appropriate to place undue material weight on hypothetical outcomes of the issuing of planning approval. Instead, what might be considered the "normal" use of the building and site as a residential garage to include perhaps 1 or 2 cars, with these being moved as per the owner's requirements, along with occasional maintenance work and storage of tools and the like, is considered to be acceptable. Such a use would not result in the site having a materially harmful visual impact above the existing impact. 6.14 It is also noted that the application description relates solely to the building, albeit that the red line of the application site is wider than this and incorporates a larger area (some small area of which may indeed, as indicated by a representation, be in different ownership). This means that, technically, if planning approval were granted then the land surrounding the garage could not be put to any lawful use. 6.15 Despite the conclusion in paragraph 6.13, it was judged that the application provided an opportunity to improve the current impression of the site. While it has been considered by an Inspector be a low-key building of the kind periodically found in rural locations, it remains the case that the site offers the domed appearance of a building many decades old and the countryside in this location would be improved by either its removal or natural screening. It does not appear that the former option is immediately likely, so the second option was explored. The Forestry team of DEFA were informally contacted for their advice, and they advised against the planting of any significant trees in the area as these could undermine the foundations or stability of the existing building. In response to officer concern on this point, the applicant provided an additional 6.16 drawing that expanded on the initially-submitted site plan, and showed something in the way of a soft landscaping scheme. This involves the planting of some 9 leylandii trees around the rear perimeter, with a further three cherry trees planted prominently to the frontage. There would be grass around the hut to replace with existing scrub vegetation, while the frontage of the unit (currently lime green and white) would be painted an olive green. All of this is considered to be an improvement over the existing situation and, if the application is 14/01276/c Page 7 of 10

==== PAGE 8 ====

approved, all of this proposed planting should be carried out prior to the change of use itself being implemented. A planning condition could ensure this. Flooding and water quality 6.17 The site is situated immediately next to a river. Although the applicant has not submitted a Flood Risk Assessment, the alteration in the use of the site is unlikely to result in any additional flood risk concerns: no additional hardstanding is proposed to be laid, for example. It is considered that any flood risk issues have therefore been satisfactorily addressed. 6.18 Moreover, the Fisheries Division of DEFA is satisfied that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the watercourse or fish population as long as the building was to be used as a residential garage as proposed and not as a mechanics workshop (which was previously the case here), Other matters 6,19 It was considered that it might be appropriate to tie the proposed garage to a specific dwelling via a Section 13 legal agreement. Such agreements can only be entered into in order to make an application otherwise acceptable in Planning terms. In light of the fact that the assessment of the application has, on balance, resulted in a favourable outcome, it is considered that a legal agreement would accomplish nothing more than that which could be ensured via Planning condition. 6.20 Perhaps the greatest concern is that the site could return to its former use • or at least have the impression of so doing - if this planning application is granted approval. The application (and the applicant) is clear that the building would be used as a residential garage only, and to ensure this took place a condition to that effect could be applied. 6.21 It must also be concluded that it is difficult to envisage what other use the site could reasonably be put to. Given the generally favourable assessment of the proposal has turned much on the somewhat residential nature of the proposal, and the fact that such a use would be itinerant and fairly low-level, it seems likely that a business use here might not be viewed as favourably. A business use could operate more regularly and with more noisy or disturbing effects. It is noted that the Fisheries Division would have strong concerns with respect to the use of the building / site as a commercial workshop. It is further noted that even the principle of a residential dwelling here has been found to be unacceptable. As such, and while this is of course not determinative of the appropriateness of this application, it is considered that the use of the site for any other use would quite likely attract more significant, and possibly fundamental, objection from the Department. 6.22 Although concern has been raised by the adjacent landowner with regards to the drawing of the red line around the application site, there are no works proposed to the area in which ownership is in dispute. This land is essentially half the width of a hedgerow (rather than 'banking' as annotated on the submitted plans) and measures approximately 0.4m in width. On the basis that the only element of the proposal likely to affect the adjacent land is the planting of trees, and that this could take place with or without an issued planning approval to the current application, it is considered that an objection on this ground could not be sustained. Normally a plan showing accurately the relationship between the two parcels of land might be requested but, given the circumstances outlined above, it is not considered that such a request is either necessary or likely to achieve anything. The application has not been prejudiced by the lack of clarity surrounding the land ownership, nor by the use of the word 'retrospective' in the proposal's description. Page 8 of 10 14/01276/C

==== PAGE 9 ====

7.0 RECOMMENDATION Taking all the above into account, it is recommended that planning approval be granted, subject to a number of conditions. 7.1 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 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. 8.1 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and Article 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application; 8.2 The owner/occupier of Ballacowin Farm, Baldhoon Road, Lonan, and The Fisheries Division within the Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture. 0 0 Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 20.04.2015 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 C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Reason: Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C2. Nothing must be planted, erected of allowed to grow above 1.05 metres in height within the visibility splay as shown on Plan 1020/PL02, date-stamped as having been received 27th November 2014. Reason: In the interest of highway safety. C3. The soft landscaping scheme, as shown on Plan BD-MP-2 Revision A, date-stamped as having been received 12th March 2015, must be carried out prior to the change of use hereby 14/01276/c Page 9 of 10

==== PAGE 10 ====

approved being carried out. For the avoidance of doubt, this means that the 6 no, leylandii trees, the 3 no. cherry trees and the grass seed must be pianted prior to the change of use hereby approved being carried out. Reason; To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development. C4. The building within the application site shall only be used as a residential garage. Reason: To ensure no commercial activity takes place on the site and to ensure that the visual amenity of the area is protected. C 5. No more than 3 private cars shall be parked on the site at any one time. Reason: To ensure that the visual amenity of the area is protected. C6. No use related to commercial activity of any kind shall be carried on at the site. Reason: To ensure no commercial activity takes place on the site and to ensure that the visual and residential amenities of the area are protected. C 7. No vehicles related to any kind of commercial activity or enterprise shall be parked on the site at any time. Reason: To ensure no commercial activity takes place on the site and to ensure that the visual and residential amenities of the area are protected. The approval hereby issued shall not be carried out except in accordance with the plans carrying the following reference numbers: 1020/PL01 (date-stamped as having been received 6th November 2014), 1020/PL02 (date-stamped as having been received 27th November 2014), and BD*MP-2 Revision A (date-stamped as having been received 12th March 2015). 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. Date; Decision Made: Permitted Determining officer (delete as appropriate) Signed :... Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer Signed :... Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer f
Signed :... Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Head of Development Management Signed ;... Jennifer CnahVe 14/01276/C Page 10 of 10