Loading document...
Application No.: 20/01311/C Applicant: Linda Thompson Proposal: Additional use of office/storage as tourist accommodation during the TT and Grand Prix periods Site Address: Allandale Farm Ballamanagh Road Sulby Isle Of Man IM7 2HB Senior Planning Officer: Mr Jason Singleton Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 12.01.2021 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The proposal is considered to fail the redundancy test, is not of sufficient quality or interest to warrant retention and re-use and therefore is considered contrary to Strategic Policy 8, Business Policy 11, 12 & 14, and Environment Policy 16 of the Strategic Plan. Similarly as the proposal fails to satisfy those aforementioned policies the proposal would also be contrary to Environmental Policy 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
None _____________________________________________________________________________
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is part of the farm holding of Allandale Farm, Ballamanagh Road Sulby. The property is a detached two storey dwellinghouse with a number of detached single storey agricultural building to the side (north east) of the dwellinghouse. The property sits to the north of Ballamanagh Road. - 1.2 To the side and rear of the dwellinghouse is a portakabin building.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is the change of use of the agricultural storage and office to holiday accommodation for 4 weeks for TT and MGP and one week for both to get ready, so six weeks
3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within the area covered by the Sulby Local Plan Order 1998. Under this the application site is within an area recognised as being in an area of open space (including agriculture). Under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982 the site is also within an area of high landscape value. - 3.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains a number of policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. - 3.3 General Policy 3 (in part) Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
3.4 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 overriding 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.
3.5 Environment Policy 2 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 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:
3.5 Strategic Policy 8 Tourist development proposals will generally be permitted where they make use of existing built fabric of interest and quality, where they do not affect adversely environmental, agricultural, or highway interests and where they enable enjoyment of our natural and manmade attractions. - 3.6 Environment Policy 16 The use of existing rural buildings for new purposes such as tourist, or small-scale
industrial/commercial use may be permitted where:
3.7 Business Policy 11 Tourism development must be in accordance with the sustainable development objectives of this plan; policies and designations which seek to protect the countryside from development will be applied to tourist development with as much weight as they are to other types of development. Within the rural areas there may be situations where existing rural buildings could be used for tourist use and Environment Policy 16 sets out the circumstances where this may be permitted. - 3.8 Business Policy 12 Permission will generally be given for the conversion of redundant buildings in the countryside to tourist use providing that the development complies with the policies set out in paragraph 8.10. - Housing Policy 11. - 3.9 Business Policy 14 Tourism development may be permitted in rural areas provided that it complies with the policies in the Plan. Farmhouse accommodation or quality self-catering units in barn conversions and making use of rural activities will be encouraged but must comply with General Policy 3 and Business Policies 11 and 12. Other forms of quality accommodation in rural areas will be considered, including the provision of hostels and similar accommodation suitable for walkers but must comply with General Policy 3 and Business Policies 11 and 12. - 3.10 Transport Policy 4 The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 09/01263/R - Retention of existing portakabin for use as ancillary living accommodation. Refused.
Landscape Value or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. Therefore the proposal is contrary to both adopted general planning policy within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, Sulby Local Plan and The Isle of Man Development Plan, which seek to restrict such development within the countryside. Approval of the planning application which is tantamount to the creation of a new residential dwelling would set an undesirable precedent for further such inappropriate development in the countryside.
impact upon the character and quality of the landscape and introduces an incongruous visual intrusion in the countryside contrary to both Planning Circular 3/91 and Environmental Policy 2 of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
4.2 10/00813/C - Erection of portakabin (Retrospective) for agricultural use. Refused
R1. The retention of the portakabin for the proposed use, is not considered to be essential for the conduct of agricultural activities on this site, consequently the proposal would be contrary to General Policy 3 and Environmental Policy 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
R2. Due the design, size and finish, the portakabin results in an adverse visual impact upon the character and quality of the landscape and introduces an incongruous visual intrusion in the countryside contrary to both Environmental Policy 15 and Environmental Policy 2 of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
4.3 10/01696/B - Erection of portakabin for agricultural use (Retrospective). Approved at appeal with conditions;
security, washing/changing facilities and farm office use and the building shall be used only for agricultural purposes.
green metal sheeting and fitted with a lean-to roof as shown in drawings 8, 9 and 10 submitted with the application.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Lezayre Parish Commissioners commented on (15/12/20) recommending refusal as they are unsure if the portakabin meets the requirements for use as tourist accommodation and would need to be inspected prior to use. - 5.2 Highways Services have commented (04/12/20) with no objection.
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;
6.2 Principle The proposed tourist accommodation building is a portakabin, where an exception was
made for the justification of agricultural need for "secure storage, bio-security, washing/changing facilities and farm office" to offset the presumption against development in the countryside. The use of such would be for TT and MGP periods totalling 6 weeks of the year. It is not clear what the use would be for the remaining weeks. If the building is of no further use to the farm then arguably its temporary nature of construction indicates it could be removed from site. The material test is whether the proposal meets the strict control for conversion of buildings in the countryside to tourist accommodation.
6.3 There is an underlying element to the Strategic Plan Policies which are relevant to the conversion of rural buildings to tourist use which must be taken into account. General Policy 3 allows for conversion of redundant rural buildings in the countryside, taking note of their aesthetic value and Business Policy 11 allows for "development" in the countryside for tourism subject to meeting the conversion tests of Environmental Policy 16. This is the expectation that the buildings should be redundant. Business Policy 12 provides that permission will generally be given for the conversion of "redundant buildings" in the countryside to tourist use, subject to compliance with paragraph 8.10, Housing Policy 11 and Environment Policy 16 of the Strategic Plan. Business Policy 14 provides that tourism development may be permitted in rural areas, but requires compliance with other Strategic Plan policies, including specific crossreferences to Business Policy 12, and through that policy to Housing Policy 11. As a result,
south but just because it is not visible isn't an automatic right to be permitted as the harm is to the countryside in planning terms. As the proposal fails to satisfy the criteria of the above policies which allow for exceptions for development in the countryside, the portakabin would be contrary to Environmental Policy 1 and 2 which would be deemed harmful to the character and quality of the landscape.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Accordingly, it is considered the proposal would fail the redundancy test, is not of sufficient quality or interest to warrant retention and re-use and therefore is considered contrary to Strategic Policy 8, Business Policy 11, 12 & 14, and Environment Policy 16 of the Strategic Plan. Similarly as the proposal fails to satisfy those aforementioned policies the proposal would be contrary to Environmental Policy 1 and 2 of the strategic plan.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status
Decision Made : Refused Date : 13.01.2021 Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown