82636

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      22/00968/B                                     Page  1  of  4

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No. : 22/00968/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Kevin & Voirrey Minay Proposal : Erection of a barn type building for use as a private garage Site Address : Ballabunt Croft Cooil Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM4 2AQ

Planning Officer: Mr Toby Cowell Photo Taken :

Site Visit :

Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Refused Date of Recommendation: 16.12.2022 __

Reasons for Refusal

R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons

R 1. The proposed development does not meet any of the exceptions as listed in General Policy 3, and there is no overriding national need demonstrated as to outweigh both General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1, both of which seek to protect the countryside from unwarranted development for its own sake. The development is therefore contrary to Spatial Policy 2, Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan (2016). __

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

None. __

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The extent of the red line for the application comprises the extents of an existing dwelling known as Ballabunt Croft and adjoining field number 521730 located at the Lhergy Cripperty and Cooil Road to the north-west of Douglas. The dwelling and field sit on the north- western side of the junction and both their southern boundaries abut Cooil Road.

1.2 Access to the property is from the Lhergy Cripperty road via a sweeping driveway which has a hardstanding area in front of the house and an existing detached triple garage store building.

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      22/00968/B                                     Page  2  of  4

1.3 There is a row of mature trees separating the garage and the house from field 521730, and further trees dotted around the site but mostly clustered in the western corner of the field and between the rear of the existing garage and the road.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached building for the storage and maintenance of private motor vehicles. The building is to sit within field 521730 and running parallel to the trees, comprising a conventional dual pitched roof with a ridge height of 4.6m and eaves height of 2.75m. The building would comprise a total width of 15m and a depth of 11.4m, with its gable ends facing south towards Cooil Road and north towards the adjacent field.

2.2 The building is to be finished in green box profile cladding for the entirety of the exterior, aside from roller shutter doors on the front (northern) and side (eastern) elevations. A further pedestrian door would be added on the east side elevation, whilst a total of 3 no. clear rooflights would be installed in either roof slope.

2.3 Access to the building is to be via the existing driveway for the main dwelling and in order to facilitate this access a number of trees (5 or 6) are to be removed from the belt of trees between the house and field. Additional tree planting is proposed along the site southern boundary adjacent to Cooil Road.

2.4 The proposals represent a resubmission of a previously refusal application for a similar form of a development as discussed further below. The revised application includes a reduction in width from 20 to 15m, a reduction in ridge height from 5.5 to 4.6m and eaves height from 3.2 to 2.75. The external finishing of the building has also been changed by removing the timber boarding and stone clad plinth, whilst further reducing the total number of rooflights by 2 and a further reduction in general fenestration. The general appearance and siting of the development remains largely similar to the previous application however, whilst the intended use is identical.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Various applications exist between 1985 and 2009 with relate to the principle dwelling and adjacent buildings; none of which are of relevance to this application. A further application was however previously submitted in 2019 (PA 19/00978/B) for the erection of a building to be used for a similar purpose and of a similar appearance to the subject application. Planning permission was refused on the basis that the site falls within the countryside and outside of the property's defined residential curtilage within an adjacent field, with the development not confirming to one of the exceptions to the presumption against development in the countryside.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The application site is identified as 'white land' in the Area Plan for the East and therefore within an area of countryside that is not designated for development. The site is not within a Conservation Area or within a Flood Risk Zone.

4.2 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application;

Strategic Policy 2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages 3 To respect the character of our towns and villages 5 Design and visual impact

Spatial Policy 5 Development in accordance with General Policy 3

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      22/00968/B                                     Page  3  of  4

General Policy 2 General Development Considerations 3 Exceptions to development in the countryside

Environment Policy 1 Protection of the countryside

Transport Policy 4 Highways safety

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Braddan Parish Commissioners - no objection (19.08.22)

5.2 Highways Services - development would have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking (19.08.22)

5.3 Highways Drainage - request additional information is provided of the drainage system demonstrating surface water run-off would not drain onto the public highway (11.08.22)

5.4 Manx Utilities Authority - no response received at the time of writing.

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of a new detached garage building on land adjoining Ballabunt Croft for the private storage and restoration or motor vehicles. The proposed building is to be situated within field 521730 and on land which is not designated for development. The proposal does not meet any of the exceptions for development in the countryside as set out in General Policy 3 and the development is not recognised as being of overriding national need, nor has it been demonstrated that there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative available such as within an area designated for such development, as a replacement of the existing garage or elsewhere within the curtilage of the exiting dwelling.

6.2 Indeed, whilst the supporting letter has stated that the remainder of the site is constrained as such that the building has to be sited in its proposed location, no evidence has been provided as to what such constraints may be which would prevent such a building being sited within the property's residential curtilage. The only constraint which is noted as passing through the north-eastern corner of the site is a gas pipeline, however it is clear that a substantial portion of the residential curtilage remains potentially developable to facilitate the erection of a domestic garage/storage building.

6.3 Consequently, in respect of the principle of a garage building in this location outside of a defined residential curtilage, the proposal is considered to fail General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 along with Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policy 5.

6.2 No concerns were previously raised over the scale, siting and appearance of the building in visual impact terms, which was considered likely to be read as an agricultural building and forming part of the cluster of existing development in the adjacent residential plot. The reduction in width and scale, with minor changes to the building's external appearance, have further negated the visual impact of the development on the character and appearance of the countryside and wider landscape setting, but nevertheless fail to overcome the principle objection to the proposals.

6.3 The loss of the trees would likely have an immediate impact on the area but suitably positioned replacement tree planting would help to mitigate this loss in the long term and help reimburse any affected biodiversity. No comments have been received from Manx Utilities on this occasion, but it is noted that when commenting on the previous application, they

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      22/00968/B                                     Page  4  of  4

confirmed that the development would be positioned a sufficient distance from the natural gas line as to limit any impact of its use and maintenance.

6.4 Comments from Highways Drainage in relation to surface water run-off are noted, however it is considered likely that a suitable surface water drainage system could have been provided to prevent any discharge onto the public highway. Had the principle of development been found acceptable, further information would have been requested in this respect, either as part of the application or via condition.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposed development does not meet any of the exceptions as listed in General Policy 3, and there is no overriding national need demonstrated as to outweigh both General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1, both of which seek to protect the countryside from unwarranted development for its own sake. The development is therefore contrary to Spatial Policy 2, Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan (2016), and is recommended for refusal.

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: 06.01.2023

Determining officer

Signed : C BALMER

Chris Balmer

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.