Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/00725/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/00725/B Applicant : Ms Jane Caroline Shepherd Proposal : Erection of tourist accommodation, farm shop and toilet facilities Site Address : Ballacosnahan Farm Patrick Road Patrick Village Isle Of Man IM5 3AW
Planning Officer: Mrs Vanessa Porter Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 25.10.2022 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposal is not of a nature which would be supported in the countryside under those policies which set out the exceptional forms of development which would be allowed in the countryside. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that there is an overriding national need for the proposed works, taking into account that the site has acceptable alternatives as set out by the applicant. Therefore the proposal is considered to undermine General Policy 3, which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake and Business Policy 11 which states tourist uses must be in accordance with the policies as set out in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 2. The application site is not zoned for development and is within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. The creation of a standalone tourist unit and toilet/shower/utility facilities in an area not zoned for development would result in an inappropriate development in the countryside contrary to Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
R 3. The Department is not satisfied that there is sufficient justification for the proposed building to warrant setting aside the presumption against development outside of areas zoned for development. Furthermore, the proposed size and isolated position within the countryside is not considered appropriate and would harm the character and quality of the landscape. As such, the proposal is concluded to represent unwarranted development that is detrimental to the amenity of the countryside contrary to the provisions of General Policy 3, part (f) and Environmental Policies 1,2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/00725/B Page 2 of 5
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is within the wider site of Ballacosnahan Farm, which is an established farm holding situated to the South of the A30 Patrick Road. The farm is accessed via a long land that also serves another property.
THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The current planning application seeks approval for two separate structures, firstly a utility block which is to provide two disabled toilets, utility room and two shower rooms. The block is to measure 8.058m by 3.660m with an overall height of 3.592m. Secondly is the erection of a standalone two storey tourist accommodation measuring 11m by 9.3m with an overall height of 6.527m.
2.2 The proposed materials are either a metaslate or slate roof, shiplap timber style cladding in the colour pastel blue, white uPVC windows and the balcony to the tourist unit will have a glazed balustrade.
PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 Ballacosnahan Farm has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications which have been listed below:
PLANNING POLICY
4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as "not for development" on the 1982 Development Plan. The site also lies within an area of Woodland and wider Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV).
4.2 Given the nature of the application and the land designation the following are the most relevant policies; Strategic Policy 1 - development should be located to make best use of previously developed land, redundant and underused buildings and utilising existing infrastructure; Strategic Policy 2 - focuses new development in existing settlements unless complies with GP3; Strategic Policy 5 - development must be well designed; Strategic Policy 10 - development should promote integrated journeys, minimise car use and facilitate other modes of travel; Spatial Policy 3 - identifying service villages Spatial Policy 5 - new development will be in defined settlements only or in the countryside only in accordance with GP3;
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/00725/B Page 3 of 5
General Policy 2 - detailed 'development control' considerations; General Policy 3 - acceptable development in areas not zoned for development; Environment Policy 3 - development must not damage trees or woodland; Environment Policy 4 - development must not adversely affect ecology; Environment Policy 42 - new development should be designed to take into account the character and identity of the area. Business Policy 11 - tourism development must be in accordance with the sustainable development objectives of this plan; policies and designations. Community Policy 7 - designed to prevent criminal and antisocial behaviour; Community Policies 10 & 11 - implement best practice so as to reduce the outbreak and spread of fire; Transport Policy 1 - best located close to existing transport links Transport Policy 4 - safe and appropriate provisions for journeys; Transport Policy 7 - parking standards Infrastructure Policy 5 - methods for water conservation
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 The following representations can be found in full online;
5.2 Highway Services have considered the proposal and state "After reviewing this Application, Highway Services finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking." (06.07.22 & 14.09.22)
5.3 Patrick Commissioners have considered the proposal and state they have no objection. (22.07.22, 30.09.22 & 19.10.22)
5.4 DEFA Forestry have written in to state that they have no objections to the proposal. (05.08.22 & 12.10.22)
5.5 DEFA Ecosystems Policy Team have written in to note that there are trees which are to be removed and requested more information. (05.08.22)
ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are:
6.2 PRINCPLE
6.2.1 Fundamentally, in terms of Planning Policy there is a long established presumption against development within the countryside, unless it meets the criteria within the Strategic Plan, namely General Policy 3, which sets out acceptable development in areas not zoned for development.
6.2.2 When assessing the proposal against General Policy 3 we can see that the proposal fails the following, GP3 (a) as the proposal is not essential housing for agricultural workers, GP3 (b) as the proposal is not a conversion of a redundant rural building, GP3 (c) as the proposal is not on previously developed land, GP3 (d) as the proposal is not a replacement of an existing rural dwelling, GP3 (e) as the proposal is not location-dependent development in the connection with the working of minerals, GP3 (f) as the proposal is not essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry and GP3 (h) as the proposal is not a building or works required for the interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage.
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/00725/B Page 4 of 5
6.3 OVERRIDING NEED
6.3.1 Turning towards GP3 (g) and whether there is an overriding national need for the proposal. The information provided within this application states that they have structures within the site, which they will be looking at converting to tourist accommodation, as such they already have structures in place which could be viably changed and could be in line with the proposals. No information has also been provided which would override the existing policy's which are in place to protect the countryside for its own sake. As such, the proposal fails to comply with General Policy 3.
6.4 AREA OF HIGH LANDSCAPE VALUE
6.4.1 It is perhaps important to also note Environmental Policy 1 and 2 where Environmental Policy 1 indicates that the countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake and 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. It is not considered the various aspects of this proposal would have an over-riding national need and would be introducing an element of development and a level of material harm by introducing an incongruous urban built form in a protected rural area.
6.4.2 As the site is within an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, Environment Policy 2 also applies. This policy states that within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that, the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or the location for the development is essential.
6.4.3 As the principle of the development fails to satisfy the test of Environment Policy 1 and 2 which set out the exceptional forms of development allowed in the Countryside, and no information has been provided to suggest is of over-riding national need and a site for which there are no reasonable and acceptable alternatives. The proposal is considered to undermine those policies which seek to protect the countryside for its own sake.
6.5 OTHER MATTERS
6.5.1 Firstly turning towards the proposed utility block, whilst the proposal of the two toilets can be potentially found as acceptable for the proposed connection of use with the shop, the proposal includes the use of two showers and a utility room, both of which are above and beyond what would be accepted of a toilet block and suggest a further use of the site, which would require Planning Permission.
6.5.2 Secondly with regards to the proposed tourist unit, the proposal proposes a stand along two storey self-contained living accommodation, which would be tantamount to a new dwelling in the countryside in terms of its use and appearance, with the structure being completely separate from the main dwelling on the site, as such it is a self-contained unit which looks like and for all intents and purposes is, a new dwelling in an area which is not designated for such development.
CONCLUSION
7.1 To summarise, a) the application site is not zoned for development under the 1982 Development Plan, b) the proposal does not comply with the exceptions as outlined by General Policy 3, c) there is not an overriding national need for standalone tourist use, d) there are structures within the site, which the applicant has pointed out are suitable for the conversion to tourist, e) the site is zoned within an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/00725/B Page 5 of 5
Significance which seeks to prevent development, unless the development is essential or would not harm the character and quality of the landscape, which the proposal would fail on both counts and therefor a refusal can also legitimately be made on that basis 7.2 It is also relevant to note that approval of such a scheme would set a significant precedent for similar types of development throughout the countryside, which is protected for its own sake.
7.3 On balance it is judged, the proposal is contrary to those aforementioned Policies of the Strategic Plan and does not meet the tests for exceptional development within the countryside. It is therefore concluded that the planning application is recommended for refusal.
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: 27.10.2022
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal