DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 21/00680/B Applicant: Mr James Cubbon Proposal: Erection of a detached storage building Site Address: Louisa House East Foxdale Road Foxdale Isle Of Man Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 29.07.2021 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. There is insufficient justification for the siting of the building of this size and height to outweigh the presumption against development here or the policies which seeks to over-ride the level of harm to the character and appearance of the countryside. As such, the proposed development fails to comply with General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan which aims to control development to areas zoned for development. - R 2. By reason of its size and location the proposed building constitutes unwarranted and visually harmful development within the countryside. As such, the proposed development is contrary to the provisions of Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - R 3. The size, scale, form, and design of the building would increase its visibility within the landscape and would harm this part of the countryside contrary to Environmental Policy 1 and Strategic Policy 5. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of Louisa House situated on the southern side of East Foxdale Road, Foxdale. The dwelling is a large detached property which sits centrally within the site with large grounds that have a generally open character. The site has a frontage

• of about 250m to the A24 on the northern side of the site with the vehicular access situated on the northwest section of the frontage.
• 1.2 The site lies between Ard Jerkyll (MSPCA) and the village of Higher Foxdale. To the east of the site is open agricultural land which is being invaded by gorse, and a dwelling. To the west is open farmland which is designated for residential development on the Local Plan. To the south of the site is open agricultural land. To the south east is a facility operated as a transfer station/ plant yard and to the east of that, Billy Goat Park, the home ground of Foxdale Football Club. The land immediately to the south has been planted with young trees and is well maintained.

2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a detached storage building within the curtilage of the site, in the north eastern corner with front elevation overlooking the A24. The shed would be used as a store for machinery used solely for the maintenance of the 5 Hectares of grass and hedges around the residence. - 2.2 The shed would be 16m long, 10m wide and 7.4m high (4.8m to eaves). The building would have two windows 2.4m x 1.5m and a roller shutter door 4.4m x 4m on the front (north) elevation, a roller shutter door 4.4m x 4m and a pedestrian access door 2m x 900mm on the rear (south) elevation, and a pedestrian access door 2m x 900mm on the west elevation. The side gable walls would be finished in natural stone to match the main dwelling, while the front and rear elevations would be finished in painted render (in cream) to match main dwelling. The roof would be finished in natural slate. - 2.3 Access itself would be shared with the existing access for the main dwelling as it would be connected to the hardstanding area on the site. - 2.4 The building will be positioned about 39m from the highway and on a slightly elevated part of the site. - 2.5 No details have been provided on the specific materials to be stored here beside the statement that it would be used to store machinery used solely for the maintenance of 5 hectares (12.3 acres) of grass and hedges around the residence.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The site is designated as "Area for reclamation" on the Foxdale Local Plan of 1999. The site is not within a Conservation Area or flood risk area, although parts of the broader site area are prone to flood risk. There are two sites of interest for nature conservation on the site. These relate to Hawkweed Hierarcium and Rosa rugosa on the site. - 3.2 The following parts of the Local Plan Written Statement are considered relevant: - 3.3 Paragraph 2.13: "It is suggested that the site should be reclaimed with an end use of Open Space which if properly managed could provide a valuable asset in terms of ecological and archaeological conservation for the village and the Island as a whole. The site should be capped at the eastern end around the old reprocessing plant and planting encouraged of indigenous species of gorse, broom, heathers and grasses. The slopes of the western and northern part of the plateau should be remodelled at a lower angle, infilled around the old chute which itself should be removed or buried. The central part should be appropriately landscaped with indigenous species and where possible mining structures should as the remnants of the wheelcase and concrete buddle should be retained and preserved. In the western part of the site there is little which needs to be done but should be appropriately managed in view of the botanical and industrial interest. Due to the possible problems of ground stability and hot spots of contamination which may be identified, it is recommended that access by livestock and the public be appropriates restricted."

3.4 A series of policies were introduced for the different levels of contamination of the area. The most heavily contaminated areas were subject to a list of conditions relating to dealing with the contamination, landscaping, drainage and surface materials. - 3.5 The site has however been the subject of remediation activities which enabled the erection of the existing dwelling on site approved under PA 12/01053/B and 13/00387/B. - 3.6 There are general policies presuming against development outside of designated areas

• as set out in General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1, but for the exceptions set out in General Policy 3.

3.7 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. - 3.8 Strategic Policy 5: "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."

- 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The site has been the subject of four previous planning applications, two of which are particularly relevant to the current application. - 4.2 PA 12/01053/B for Remediation of site, erection of a detached dwelling and associated landscaping works. This was approved by the planning Committee in October 2012. A case note on the application states that "DCM agreed to a new scheme as an acceptable alternative to condition 11 on 19/2/14." - 4.3 PA 13/00387/B for Remediation of site and erection of a detached dwelling with associated landscaping works (comprising amendments to PA 12/01053/B). This was approved by the Planning Committee on 24 March 2014 and has enable the erection of Louisa House which now stands on the grounds of the site.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.

5.1 The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division have indicated that there is 'No Highway Interest' in a letter dated 28 June 2021. - 5.2 Patrick Parish Commissioners asked that determination of the application be deferred until week after 12th July 2021. They have, however, not sent in further written representation

• at the time of concluding this report.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 As stated earlier in this report, the application site is not zoned for development under the on the Foxdale Local Plan of 1999, as such the application site comprises the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling located within the countryside. Whilst planning policy sets out a general presumption against development in the countryside there are also planning policies

• that recognise the existence of dwellings in the countryside and allow related development such as the extension of such dwellings. Interestingly, there is no provision within planning policy for detached new build development within such residential curtilages but there has been a general acceptance of such development being appropriate provided it is to a suitable scale to the existing dwelling, for example a standard size detached garage is generally seen as a reasonable expectation for an existing dwelling in the countryside. It is therefore considered that the planning application needs to primarily consider the impact of the proposed building on the rural amenity and the reasonableness of the proposed building.
• 6.2 The planning application submission states that the building is to be utilised by the applicant for the storage of machinery used solely for the maintenance of 5 hectares (12.3 acres) of grass and hedges around the residence. Whilst it is noted that a site as large as the application site would benefit from the erection of such a structure for the storage of machinery used for site maintenance, the application site already contains two garage buildings (an integral garage for three cars and a detached garage for two cars and a space dedicated to the storage of lawn mower and garden store) that provide storage within the application site. The detached garage which has a footprint of 92.4sqm also has a storage space within the entire roof space, which would be sufficient to house lighter materials which can be moved to the roof space. As such, it is considered reasonable to say that the combined total amount of storage space provided by these existing buildings is more than sufficient for the average domestic situation.
• 6.3 It is also considered reasonable to say that the size of the proposed building and amount of storage space it provides (which measures approximately 160sqm) is significantly beyond what might be normally expected within the average domestic situation; even for a site as large as the application site. The footprint and height of the new building (at 7.4m high and 4.8m to eaves) is capable of supporting a standard sized two storey detached dwelling. Thus, it would be difficult to provide justification for a building this large just for the maintenance of the grass and hedges around the residence; given that the site already has large storage spaces.
• 6.4 The above situations are not automatic reasons for refusal of the planning application if it is concluded that the impact of such building on the amenity of the area is acceptable, but in this instance the application site is readily visible from the highway which abuts the site, with the building positioned at a part of the site where it would be prominent at various vantage points along the highway; making it very visible and conspicuous within the area. The impact of this would be unacceptably harmful to the rural amenity and designation of the area which is predominated by open fields. Besides, the design of the building which is basic would not make a positive contribution to the environment of the site or the surrounding countryside. Whilst it is noted that the building would be finished to bear some features that exist on the main dwelling such as the painted render and natural stone walls, the building would not contribute to the character of the main dwelling or the broader site area as it design does not reflect the architectural style of the existing buildings on site.
• 6.5 Overall, it is concluded that the potential harm of the proposed building is not outweighed by any reasonable need for it. As such, the proposal is contrary to General Policy

• 3, Environment Policy 1 and Strategic Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 For the above reasons, it is considered that the erection of the storage building given the lack of justification, the size, position within the countryside, and being apparent from public views would result in a detrimental visual impact and harm the character and quality of the landscape contrary to Environment Policy 1 and Strategic Policy 5. - 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:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material. 8.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner 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: 30.07.2021 Determining officer Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton Principal Planner

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.