70698

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      22/00244/C                                     Page  1  of  5

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No. : 22/00244/C Applicant : Mr Christopher Looney Proposal : Additional use of living space above detached garage as tourist living accommodation (class 3.6) Site Address : Ballahutchin House Ballahutchin Hill Union Mills Isle Of Man IM4 4AT

Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Refused Date of Recommendation: 27.09.2022 __

Reasons for Refusal

R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons

R 1. The existing building is not of any historic, social or architectural interest or of any visual attraction to warrant its conversion and so fails Housing Policy 11 (c) and Environment Policy 16 (b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

R 2. The proposal does not fit within or meet any of the accommodation types and the high level criteria sought by 'Policy on the Development of Non-serviced Accommodation' to complement and enhance the Island's visitor economy and is not considered to be of any overriding national need as to outweigh Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

R 3. The proposal would undermine established policies of the Strategic Plan which indicate a presumption against the creation of new habitable units in the countryside. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Strategic Policies 2 and 8, Spatial Policy 5 and General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan.

R 4. By reason of its failure of Housing Policy 11, Environment Policies 1 and 16, Strategic Policies 2 and 8, Spatial Policy 5 and general Policy 3, the proposal also fails to meet Business Policies 11, 12 and 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. __

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

None

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      22/00244/C                                     Page  2  of  5

Officer’s Report

SITE 1.1 The application site comprises the extents of existing detached dwelling Ballahutchin House located on the south side of Ballahutchin Hill part way between Glen Lough Farm/Campsite and the centre of Union Mills.

1.2 The existing dwelling is set back around 70m from the main road and is fairly visible through the breaks in vegetation around the access and given that the dwelling is on land sloping down into the valley of River Dhoo.

1.3 Although only approved in 2000 the dwelling has a traditional Manx farmhouse design with a 5 bay frontage, integrated gable stacks, white render finish and a slate grey roof. The footprint of the main house measures 12.8m x 9m, with a smaller 3m x 5m single storey extension on the side elevation and a small porch on the front. The dwelling measures approx. 5.5m high to eaves and 8.8m to central ridge.

1.4 Recently approval was granted subject to conditions for the erection of a detached double garage with a studio/hobby room above. More details for this are included at 3.0 of this report.

PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal now seeks the additional use of the upper floor of the detached garage for tourist use (use class 3.6).

PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The garage subject to this application was approved under PA 21/00267/B. The approved garage sat alongside the main dwelling measuring 7.8m x 6.6m and 3.5m to eaves and 6.6m to central ridge. At ground floor there was a large garage door and a window, with a single access door on the side elevation and three windows at the rear. The first floor was to be served by roof-lights and one oriel bay window on one elevation, access to the upper floor was provided by an external staircase on the opposite side gable.

3.2 The officer report for the garage stated at paragraph 6.2: "6.2 Use of the garage structure has been assessed in association with the main dwellinghouse 'Ballahutchin House' only. The Town and Country Planning Act 1999 sets out at Part 2 Section 6 3(b) that "the use of any buildings or other land within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such" does not constitute development. So as long as the use of the garage including the upper floor remains for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the main dwelling it would not be considered development, however any separate or intensification of the garages use would result in a material change constituting development requiring a separate application. With this in mind, a suitably worded condition shall be added to the application linking the garage with the main dwelling, and for the avoidance of doubt the PDO rights in respect of fencing, walls and gates will be removed to ensure no separation to the curtilage."

3.3 As such the application was approved subject to the following condition: "C3. The first floor accommodation of the garage hereby approved shall be used only for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of 'Ballahutchin House' as a dwellinghouse. No separate curtilage shall be formed and the residential annex shall at no time be used as an independent dwellinghouse without the express grant of planning approval from the Department. Reason: The application has been assessed only in terms of this restricted use and any other use may have an adverse effect on the character and amenity of the area contrary to relevant Polices in the Strategic Plan 2016 and its use as an independent residential unit would not comply with the Strategic Plan 2016 policies regarding new residential development in the countryside."

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      22/00244/C                                     Page  3  of  5

3.4 There were also two other conditions added to the approval, one stating only one garage on the site and another that Class 16 - fences, walls and gates of the PDO was to be revoked.

PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The application site is not designated for development on the Area Plan for the East 2020. In terms of planning policy conversions to rural buildings into residential accommodation are to be assessed against Paragraph 8.10 and Housing Policy 11 of the Strategic Plan 2016, and the reuse of rural buildings for tourist use against Environment Policy 16. These policies make clear that only buildings of historic, architectural or social interest being suitable for conversion. Business Policies 11, 12 and 14 also support tourist uses but only if they comply with Housing Policy 11 and Environment Policy 16, and also that they do not undermine other policies within the Strategic Plan such as Strategic Policies 2 and 8, and Spatial Policy 5 which seek to direct development to existing settlements and to protect the environment and countryside. Environment Policy 1 makes it clear that the countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake and only development which would not adversely affect it or which is considered to be of overriding national need being permitted.

4.2 Further to the above another material considerations is the 'Policy on the Development of Non-serviced Accommodation', dated March 2019, adopted by the Department for Enterprise in order "to shape a future development strategy for the sector, help inform planning policy and to guide the Department as to what support mechanisms may be required to maximise the potential benefits of an expansion on non-service accommodation in the Island." This document is helpful in outlining what type of tourist accommodation the Isle of Man is looking for and states that the focus for the future "will be on the types of non-service accommodation identified as being in shortage within the study, namely; 8.2.1 developments of multiple units; 8.2.2 those that cater for families; 8.2.3 those that cater for individuals with disabilities 8.2.4 proposals which incorporate leisure and entertainment facilities; 8.2.5 high quality, luxury, boutique developments; 8.2.6 clusters or separate small scale units which complement existing tourist activities or leisure facilities; 8.2.7 glamping units and 8.2.8 those catering for group experiences."

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

5.1 Marown Parish Commissioners - no objection 25/08/2022.

5.2 DOI Highway Services - Do not oppose - no negative impacts on highway safety, network or parking in the area (17/08/2022).

5.3 No comments received from neighbouring properties.

ASSESSMENT 6.1 The officer report for the original garage makes it quite clear that the use of the garage including the upper floor for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the main dwelling house would not constitute development (Part 2 Section 6 3(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999). It then states that any separate use or intensification of use would result in a material change to its use and this would constitute development.

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      22/00244/C                                     Page  4  of  5

6.2 The proposal now seeks to apply for use of the upper floor of the garage for tourist purposes and which would also be considered a separate residential use tantamount to a new dwelling in the countryside.

6.3 Established planning policies make it quite clear that new development should be located within existing settlements and only on those exceptions to development listed in General Policy 3 being allowed in the countryside. The conversion or re-use of existing buildings in the countryside for new tourist or residential uses is permitted but development must comply with the strict criteria contained in Housing Policy 11 and Environment Policy 16. These policies both stipulate that the existing rural buildings must be of historic, social or architectural interest to warrant their conversion.

6.4 It is evident that the existing building is not of any historic, social or architectural interest nor of any other visual attraction to warrant its conversion into a new dwelling or separate tourist unit, and so fails both Housing Policy 11 (c) and Environment Policy 16 (b).

6.5 Both HP11 and EP16 also require the existing use of the building to be demonstrated as redundant. This application was only approved in 2021 and so the level of redundancy is questioned. There is often concern in the spread of incremental and piecemeal development throughout the countryside which results in an undermining of those policies that ultimately seek to protect it.

6.6 Garages are not uncommon for private residential dwellings in fact the Permitted Development allows for such subject to conditions, and so to some degree it might seem unreasonable to allow such garage structures to serve a dwelling in the countryside so long as they do not adversely affect the countryside or contravene planning policy. These garages are often designed to allow for some additional accommodation in the roof space, which is presumably being included at the applicants' need. In assessing such applications if the overall design is considered to be acceptable, the Department may be seen as being unreasonable if they resist such additional accommodation in the upper floor minded that Section 6 of the Act indicates that use of such space incidental to the main house would not be development. However, this does not mean that a subsequent proposal for that same space being used for separate tourist purposes should be accepted.

6.7 It is matter of fact that a separate tourist use would have additional comings and goings by people not associated with the main dwelling, and it may be hard to resist the accommodation being rented out for longer term lets, which is effectively a separate unit of residential accommodation - a new dwelling. The overarching strategic and spatial policies in the Strategic Plan aim to provide for a sustainable island by directing all new development including residential development to existing town centres and within existing settlements. Proposals for new tourist/residential accommodation in the upper floors of newly built garages in the countryside is neither sustainable nor development supported by policies.

6.8 Taking into account the Non-serviced Accommodation Study (see 4.3 of this report) it is also evident that the proposal does not fit within or meet any of the accommodation types and the high level criteria which is being sought for to complement and enhance the Island's visitor economy. For this reason the proposal is also not considered to be of any overriding national need as to outweigh Environment Policy 1.

CONCLUSION 7.1 On the basis of the above the proposal is considered to be unacceptable and to fail Housing Policy 11 (c), Environment Policy 16 (b), Environment Policy 1 and Business Policies 11, 12 and 14. The proposal is also considered to undermine Strategic Policies 2 and 8 and Spatial Policy 5.

INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      22/00244/C                                     Page  5  of  5

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: 29.09.2022

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.