Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/01500/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/01500/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Martin Freestone Proposal : Convert existing single storey stables adjacent to the main house into 6 self contained holiday apartments and extend the stables by adding a first floor to provide spacious accommodation and maximise the countryside views Site Address : Rose Hill Farm Richmond Hill Douglas Isle Of Man IM4 1JG
Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken : 01.02.2023 Site Visit : 01.02.2023 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 23.02.2023 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The site is not designated for development, is not within any settlement boundary and is not a building of historic, architectural or social interest warranting it an exception to development in the countryside contrary to Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, Environment Policy 1, General Policy 3(b), Housing Policy 11 and Environment Policy 16 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 2. The site contains some previously developed land, however its proposed redevelopment would result in an increased impact on the environment and landscape beyond the current situation contrary to General Policy 3(c) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 3. The proposal by reason of its increased level of activity, upwards height increased and proximity to neighbouring property within the courtyard would result in an adverse overbearing and overlooking impact harming the adjacent properties privacy, overall outlook, living conditions and general amenity contrary to General Policy 2 (b, c, g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 4. By reason of the increased level of activity at the site as a result of the proposed tourist units and their associated traffic movements, it is not considered that sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate safe access and egress onto and from the main arterial route which is three lanes wide and subject to high traffic speeds and passing vehicles without resulting in any highway safety issues or highway network and safe flow of traffic issues
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/01500/B Page 2 of 5
contrary to General Policy 2 (h and i) and Transport Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site comprises an existing single skin, block built, single storey stables with timber veranda and timber doors.
1.2 The stables form an 'L' shape arrangement around a courtyard enclosed by other buildings on the adjacent eastern side which fall outside of the red line.
1.3 South of the buildings is an existing open area sitting between the buildings and a landscape tree area.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The current application seeks approval for the alteration, extension and conversion of the existing stable building to provide 6 new tourist units.
2.2 The proposal includes the upwards extension to create a first floor above the entire building finished with a pitched slate roof and including a number of projecting peaked gables with windows and some with large feature patio doors opening onto balconies. A large extension is proposed on the north-west corner providing accommodation at both ground and first floor.
2.3 Composite cladding is proposed throughout the upper floor.
3.1 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site has been subject to a number of previous applications including two relating to the conversion of disused storage buildings in living accommodation which were refused, and other applications for modifications to the adjacent property including utility and cloakroom extension in 1998.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area not designated for development on the Area Plan for the East 2020 and is outside of any settlement boundary. As such, there is a general presumption against development as set out in Environment Policy 1 which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake, Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policy 5 direct development to designated settlements. There is however a provision within General Policy 3 for rural conversions and re- development of previously developed land where the impact would be less visually intrusive, or that in rural conversions that the works accord with the constraints listed in Environment Policy 16 and Housing Policy 11 in ensuring only structurally sound buildings of architectural, historic or social interest are retained and that works to them are sensitive in maintain their special character and appearance. Strategic Policy 8 and Business Policies 12 and 14 support tourist development that makes best use of existing built fabric where it does not have any adverse environmental impact and provides good quality accommodation. Business Policy 11 indicates that development plan policies will be given as much weight in the assessment of tourist uses as they are to for any other types of development. Transport Policy 4 and 7 seeks to ensure suitable highway access and safety for any new development and Environment Policy 4 seeks to protect habitats.
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/01500/B Page 3 of 5
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Braddan Parish Commissioners - No Objection (dated 24/01/2023) - had no objection to the following application, however they did request that any planning approval should ensure that it is restricted to tourist accommodation with limited term residential use.
5.2 Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division - Do not oppose (03/01/2023) - no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking. The Applicant is advised to consider secure and enclosed bicycle storage and installation of an electric vehicle charging point.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this current planning application are (i) the principle of development; (ii) the visual impact (iii) any impact on adjacent trees (iv) neighbouring amenity, and (v) impact on highway safety.
(i) the principle of development; 6.2 The application site is not within any settlement and is not designated for any specific use or purpose (it's in the countryside) and so there is a general presumption against any kind of development as per StgP 2, SptP 5 and EP1, unless it meets with any of the exceptions in GP3. GP3 allows for conversions of existing rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest subject to strict criteria (HP11) or re-development of previously developed land where its redevelopment would reduce the impact of the site on the landscape and environment compared to the current situation.
6.3 In this case the existing stable building is not traditional, it has a modern single skin concrete block built construction and is not of any historic, social or architectural interest and so fails the key tests of EP16 or HP11 that both make clear that only buildings of architectural, historic or social interest are to be retained and converted. While the building appears to be substantially intact, in proximity to existing services and perhaps capable of renovation the proposed significant modifications and extensions both upwards and outwards would significantly change its original appearance and would increase its visual appearance and impact.
6.4 The increased visual impact combined with the increased intensification of the use of the site as a result of the 6 tourist units and the activity that comes along with that number of units would also increase the overall impact of the site beyond the current situation on both the landscape and the environment contrary to GP3(c).
6.5 The development is not considered or evidenced to be of any overriding national need in planning terms for which there is no other reasonable or acceptable alternative to warrant it being an exception to development in the countryside and so fails GP3 (g) and EP1.
ii) visual impact 6.6 As mentioned above, the proposal results in significant upwards and outwards extensions to the existing building increasing its visual impact beyond the current situation. While it could be argued that the application building remains clustered amongst existing development and would be read in conjunction with them mitigation some of its visual prominence, the works would result in an increased impact beyond the existing situation and on the landscape, and still fails to pass the first tests of GP3, HP11 and EP16 and so in principle are not to be supported.
iii) Impact on trees
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/01500/B Page 4 of 5
6.7 The proposed parking area for the units is to be within an existing clearance between the buildings and a landscaped tree area. After visiting the site it was clear that this area was already being used as a level parking area and for turning of vehicles. The proposal to utilise this area for parking would not result in any new or increased impacts on any trees beyond the existing situation.
(iv) neighbouring amenity 6.8 The proposal would increase the impact of the building as viewed by any of the nearest neighbours and its proposed intensive tourist use would bring about an increased level of activity, this would have some impacts on the immediate dwellings in terms of changes to general outlook, but more so on the immediate property adjoining the courtyard through the increased height changes and the introduction of new windows including at first floor, both which would result in a dominating and imposing impact on the adjacent property and their general living conditions, privacy and amenity levels. Its notes that the land ownership and blue line encapsulates the nearest adjacent dwellings it is likely that the applicant is also the occupant of the properties and ultimately aware and accepting of the changes being sought. However on a planning policy assessment, the proposals would be considered to have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity and living conditions.
(v) impact on highway safety. 6.9 Whilst it is acknowledged that DOI highway services have not opposed the application, on visiting the site, particularly on exit it was noted that the highway traffic speeds, width of road and minded that it was a heavily trafficked arterial route that pulling off the junction was somewhat lengthy and challenging particularly heading back into Douglas. The proposal would see an increased intensity of users at the site, and potential people not familiar with local roads and it is not considered that there is sufficient evidence or justification to demonstrate that the proposal would not result in any highway safety or highway network issues as a result of the increase of 6 units and the associated increased traffic movements expected, and is not considered to meet the general standards set out in GP2 (h and i) and Transport Policy 4.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The site is not designated for development, is not within any settlement boundary and is not a building of historic, architectural or social interest warranting it an exception to development in the countryside contrary to Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, Environment Policy 1, General Policy 3(b), Housing Policy 11 and Environment Policy 16. The site contains some previously developed land, however its proposed redevelopment would result in an increased impact on the environment and landscape contrary to GP3(c).
7.2 The proposal by reason of its increased level of activity, upwards height increased and proximity to neighbouring property within the courtyard would result in an adverse overbearing and overlooking impact harming the adjacent properties privacy, overall outlook, living conditions and general amenity contrary to GP2 (b, c, g).
7.3 By reason of the increased level of activity at the site as a result of the proposed 6 tourist units and their associated traffic movements, it is not felt that sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate safe access and egress onto and from the main arterial route which is three lanes wide and subject to high traffic speeds and numbers of passing vehicles without resulting in any highway safety issues or highway network and safe flow of traffic issues contrary to GP2 (h and i) and TP4.
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;
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/01500/B Page 5 of 5
(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: 24.02.2023
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