**Document:** Planning Statement for Retrospective Application **Application:** 13/91528/B — Erection of four tourist units with ancillary laundry facilities (retrospective) including part demolition and alterations of adjoining building to provide private garaging **Decision:** Refused **Decision Date:** 2014-03-31 **Parish:** Douglas **Document Type:** report / planning_statement **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/42637-douglas-ard-na-mara-quines-hill-demolition-alteration-retrospective/documents/1363870 --- # Planning Statement for Retrospective Application ## Mr And Mrs Marlow Ard Na Mara House Quines Hill Port Soderick Braddan Isle of Man. IM4 1BA RECEIVED ## Planning Statement IN SUPPORT OF PLANNING APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING 4 TOURIST UNITS FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING OUTBUILDINGS (RETROSPECTIVE) AT ARD NA MARA HOUSE QUINES HILL PORT SODERICK BRADDAN ISLE OF MAN 23/12/13 1391528 A MAILING ADDRESS TO MR. MARLOW TO: MR. MARLOW ## Kaz Ryzner Associates Chartered Town Planning Consultants 36 Woodlands Park, Guildford, Surrey. GU12TJ. Tel: 01483 570982 Email: kazryzner@aol.com ## Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. The Application Site and Surrounding Area 2 3. The Proposals 2 4. Review of Relevant Planning History 4 5. Review of Relevant Planning Policies 7 6. Summary and Recommendation 12 7. Attachment of Photographs of Original Barns 15 ## 1. Introduction. 1.1. This Planning Statement is provided in support of the planning application submitted on behalf of Mr and Mrs Marlow (“the Applicants”) which seeks retrospective approval for; a. the retention of a building constructed without the benefit of planning approval which accommodates four tourist units and b. part demolition and retention of the building immediately adjoining the four tourist unit building that has also been built without the benefit of planning approval. In addition to the part demolition, it is proposed to lower the roof height of the remaining part of this building from two to single storey. This presently vacant building is to be used as garaging for the main house. 1.2. The above existing development is sited to the immediate north west of the Applicants’ house Ard Na Mara which is located at Quines Hill, Port Soderick, Braddan. 1.3. This application seeks retrospective approval and has been submitted following receipt by the Applicants of an Enforcement Notice dated 27th September 2013 requiring the demolition of unauthorised development of seven tourist units on the site and the making up of the ground exposed by the demolition to the same level as the adjoining ground and removal of all building material from the land. The seven tourist units buildings, the subject of the Enforcement Notice, comprise the two buildings referred to in a and b above. 1.4. The submitted application follows a site meeting with a representative from the Department of Planning held on 12th December 2013. This meeting was agreed on a “without prejudice basis” to the ongoing enforcement proceedings and was undertaken in order to review any potential areas of compromise in relation to the possible retention of parts of the unauthorised development. ### 2. The Application Site and Surrounding Area. 2.1. The submitted location plan confirms that the application site is located north west of the Old Castletown Road (A25) and directly west of Quines Hill, Braddan. The area is essentially rural in character being surrounded by open countryside together with several groups of nearby houses as well as some individual dwellings. 2.2. The existing development, the subject of this retrospective application, is located directly north west of the Applicants’ residence Ard Na Mara House and is accessed via a private tree lined drive directly off the Old Castletown Road. 2.3. Photographs provided as part of Plan Ref: WL/13/1296/1 illustrate the extent and character of the existing (as built) buildings the subject of the Enforcement Notice. For information purposes, photographs are also provided as an attachment to this Planning Statement illustrating the original buildings that existed on site prior to their demolition and replacement. ### 3. The Proposals. 3.1. The submitted planning application comprises; - Planning application forms, signed ownership certificate and Planning Application Check List. - Historical Plans Prior to Demolition at Scale 1:100 Plan Refs.: 06/1002/4 and 1. (As requested by Department of Planning) - Location Plan Ref: WL/13/1296/3 - Plans, Elevations and Photos as Existing Scale 1:200 Ref: WL/13/1296/1. - Plans and Elevations as Proposed Scale 1:200 - Ref: WL/13/1296/2. - Block Plan Ref.: WL/13/1296/4. - Floor Plans and Elevations as Proposed at Scale 1:100 Ref.: WL/13/1296/5-6. - Supporting Planning Statement. - Elevations as Proposed (coloured) Scale 1:200 Ref: WL/13/1296/7 3.2. The details of the proposals, the subject of this retrospective application, are illustrated on the submitted plans reference WL/13/1296/2,5,6 and 7. The application comprises two parts; a. The retention of an existing two storey building presently providing four tourist cottages, numbered 1 – 4, that was built following the demolition of existing barns. For the most part, this building is sited on the footprint of the original barns. b. Part retention of the building immediately adjoining the four tourist cottages which has also been built without approval following the demolition of the existing barn. As with the above building, the footprint for this building is similar to that of the barn that has been demolished. The proposals for this building will include the complete removal of the northern third of the building in its entirety with a reduction to the height of the remainder from two to single storey. The remaining part of this building will be used to provide garaging to the Applicants’ main house. The existing modest garage attached to the main house will, subject to planning approval being granted, be used to provide additional residential accommodation as part of the main house. 3.3. In relation to both parts of the proposals described above, there are also significant and material changes proposed to the architectural treatment of and finishes to the existing buildings to be retained details of which are provided on the submitted elevations set out in Plan Ref: WL/13/1296/2,5,6 and 7. The majority of the changes proposed reflect the discussions and agreements made at the site meeting on the 12th December 2013. 3.4. The external changes include use of natural stone facing materials, the alteration to window patterns, the replacement of white rain water goods with black, replacement of white fascias and barges with wood or wood effect finish, the repainting of the white rendering with grey or other agreed colour, overcladding of part of rendered walls with rustic timber boarding and the removal of the existing quoins. These significant material changes will provide a clear distinction in architectural terms between the main house and both new buildings resulting in an overall development more sympathetic to a barn conversion than presently exists. ## 4. Review of Relevant Planning History. 4.1. There is considerable planning related history to the application site that has culminated in the serving of the Enforcement Notice dated 27th September 2013. For background consideration, the following provides a summary of previous planning applications considered relevant to the current application. ### Planning Application PA. 05/02024/B 4.2. On the recommendation of the area planning officer, this application sought and received approval by decision notice dated 20th December 2005 for alterations and extensions to provide additional living accommodation and granny flat to the main house. The alterations and extensions were subsequently completed. ### Planning Application PA. 06/00964/B. 4.3. This application sought in principle approval for the conversion of redundant barns into four holiday cottages on the site the subject of the current application. Photographs of these barns are included in the attachment at the end of this Planning Statement. This application was refused by the Director of Planning under delegated powers by decision notice dated 14th September 2006 on the grounds that; 1. The proposal is considered to be contrary to the provision of Planning Circular 3/89 – Renovation of Buildings in the Countryside in that the existing barns are not considered to be structurally capable of renovation. As such, the proposal would be tantamount to the construction of new buildings in the countryside for tourist accommodation, such a proposal being contrary to the established policies of the Department. 2. The proposed car parking area, which is in excess of the requirements for the number of units proposed, would introduce a large area of hard standing, to the site,, and limited soft landscaping and amenity space for tourists occupying the units, to the detriment of visual amenity. 4.4. A subsequent appeal was upheld by the Minister by decision letter dated 28th March 2007, notwithstanding a recommendation by the Inspector that the appeal be dismissed. In the decision letter allowing the Applicants' appeal, the following explanation is provided for the support of the application; “The Minister has considered the report, and, whilst he accepts the appointed person’s principal conclusion that the part of the building which would be converted is structurally sound and capable of conversion, he does not concur with all of the remaining conclusions. It is clear to the Minister that, whilst this building may in itself be of little interest, it is nevertheless a visible part of the build group, an element of the evolution of the farm, and a resource which can be adapted for use as tourist accommodation. In these circumstances and having regard to the general intention of emerging policies which support the provision of tourist development in rural areas, the Minister does not accept the recommendation in paragraph 33 of the report, preferring rather to adopt the suggestion in paragraph 32. Accordingly, he has directed that the Appeal should be upheld, and the approval in principle should be granted as set out in the notice attached hereto.” Planning Application PA.09/00385/REM. 4.5. On the recommendation of the area planning officer, approval of Reserved Matters for the above in principle application was granted, subject to three conditions, by the Senior Planning Officer by decision notice dated 8th May 2009. Planning Application PA.11/01583/B. 4.6. This application sought approval to convert the existing barn adjoining the above referred barns to form three additional holiday cottages. This application was withdrawn as the barn the subject of the application together with the other barns approved for conversion into four tourist cottages had been demolished following major structural damage to the existing barns cause by a falling tree. Planning Application PA. 12/00233/B. 4.7. Following the demolition of the existing barns, the Applicants built replacement buildings with the intention of providing seven tourist cottages and this application was submitted seeking retrospective approval for the demolition of existing barns and the erection of seven tourist units. 4.8. On the recommendation of the area planning officer, this application was refused by the Planning Committee by decision notice dated 11th July 2012 on the ground that; “1. The development represents new development in the open countryside contrary to established planning policy for which no acceptable justification has been given. The design and character of the proposal does not serve to contribute to or enhance the visual amenities of the locality.” 4.9. A subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Minister on the recommendation of the Appeals Inspector. In the third paragraph of the decision letter dated 1st March 2013, it was stated that; “I can inform you that the Deputy Minister has advised that he found the arguments both in support of and against this proposal to be finely balanced.” 4.10. Notwithstanding the above comment, the decision letter confirmed the Inspector’s recommendation to dismiss the appeal and uphold the Planning Committee’s decision to refuse the application but on the basis of an amended reason for refusal as set out in the decision notice dated 1st March 2012 which stated; “1. The proposal is contrary to General Policy 3 and Business Policy 11 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the development represents new development in then open countryside contrary to established planning policy for which no acceptable justification has been given. The design and character of the proposal does not serve to contribute to or enhance the visual amenity of the locality.” Planning Statement 4.11. The subsequent Enforcement Notice dated 27th September 2013 was issued to the Applicants requiring the demolition and removal of all of the unauthorised development and the removal of all building material from the land. The time for compliance was confirmed as 12 months from the date of the notice. 4.12. On the basis that the Deputy Minister considered the arguments for and against the previous application to retain the unauthorised development of seven tourist units as “...finely balanced.”, together with other mitigating circumstances set out below, the Applicants have submitted this current application which they consider represents a fair and reasonable compromise solution for the unauthorised development undertaken on their site. ## 5. Review of Relevant Planning Policies. 5.1. It is considered that the following represent the main planning policies relevant in the assessment and determination of this retrospective planning application. ### Braddan Local Plan 1991. 5.2. The Braddan Local Plan 1991 (“the Area Plan”) represents the relevant “Area Plan” referred to in paragraph 1.4.1 of the extant Strategic Plan in which the application site is located. As the site is not allocated for any development in the Area Plan, the site is designated as being of High Landscape Value (Ref.: Policy 13.3 of the Area Plan). 5.3. Policy 13.4 of the Area Plan does not permit further development in the countryside. However, Policy 13.5 does permit alternative and acceptable uses to be identified for redundant buildings in the countryside under the scope of Planning Circular 3/89. To date, Planning Circular 3/89 has not been superseded. It is however accepted that following the demolition of the structurally damaged barns the application does not involve the use of any redundant buildings. ### Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. 5.4. The most up to date guide on matters relating to the control of development in the Isle of Man is the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 (“the Strategic Plan”). In his decision to refuse retrospective approval for the retention of the buildings accommodating seven tourist units on the application site under PA. 12/00233, the Minister was of the view that the proposal was contrary to General Policy 3 (“GP3”) and Business Policy 11 (“BS11”), as referred to in the decision notice. As such, these are considered the principal policies that need to be reviewed under the extant Strategic Plan. ### General Policy 3 (“GP3”). 5.5. GP3 does not permit development in areas outside of those allocated for development with the exceptions listed under subparagraphs (a) to (h) of paragraph GP3. It is accepted that the Applicants’ proposals do not satisfy any of the exceptions listed in GP3, including those that relate to “previously developed land”. However, it is considered that exceptional circumstances merit consideration in setting aside the principal requirements of GP3. In particular, it is considered appropriate to review the main planning issue raised by the Inspector in relation to his assessment of PA. 12/00233/B that was also referred to by the Deputy Minister in assessing the merits of the proposals. This essentially expressed concern regarding potential adverse impact on the Manx countryside from unwarranted development. The issue of impact on the countryside is reviewed in more detail below. ### Business Policy 11 (“BS11”). 5.6. BS11 relates to tourism development and states that; “Tourism development must be in accordance with the sustainable development objectives of this plan; policies and designations which seek to protect the countryside from development will be applied to tourist development with as much weight as they are to other types of development. Within the rural areas there may be situations where existing rural buildings could be used for tourist use and Environmental Policy 16 sets out the circumstances where this may be permitted.” 5.7. Whilst BS11 includes reference to the potential use of existing rural buildings to tourist use, specific details of such development are set out under Business Policy 16. BS11 does however, refer to sustainable development objectives and the policies and designations which seek to protect the countryside. 5.8. In this regard, the Applicants consider that the site represents a sustainable location in that on site facilities and services exist to provide for high quality tourist accommodation with facilities for the disabled for which there is an acute shortage in this area. In relation to protecting the countryside, which appears as the key concern in the previous decision to dismiss appeal PA. 12/00233/B, the changes to the scale of development to be retained together with the amendments to the design and external appearance of the buildings will result in a development that will have minimal visual impact on the surrounding rural countryside. **Summary Assessment of Planning Policies.** 5.9. Taking into consideration the Minister’s comments in relation to the previous retrospective application in that he judged that the arguments for and against the proposal were “finely balanced”, the Applicants are of the view that the significant and material changes to the proposals previously refused now provide a development that will have a minimal impact on the rural countryside. 5.10. The proposed changes to the previous proposals are significant and material. 5.11. The removal in its entirety of the northern third of the previously refused building that had been designed and built to accommodate three tourist units will make this part of the building not visible from the public road. Furthermore, and for the most parts, the remainder of this building with its reduced height will be screened from public view (ie. the public road) by the main house. A site visit will confirm that the main house and amended proposals are a considerable distance away from the nearest public road to the east of the application site. --- *Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).* *Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/42637-douglas-ard-na-mara-quines-hill-demolition-alteration-retrospective/documents/1363870*