**Document:** Officer Report 09/01945/B
**Application:** 09/01845/B — Erection of a garden room/store to replace existing outbuilding (comprising amendments to PA 09/01148B)
**Decision:** Permitted
**Decision Date:** 2010-01-08
**Parish:** Braddan
**Document Type:** report / officer_report
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/64241-east-baldwin-ballawyllin-beg-replacement-outbuilding/documents/1392849

---

# Officer Report 09/01945/B

**Application No.:** ** 09/01945/B **
**Applicant:** ** Mr David Crowe **
**Proposal:** ** Erection of industrial units and associated services at **
**Site Address:** ** - Field Adjacent To - Field 434711 - Stoney Mountain Road - Eairy - Isle Of Man ### Considerations **Case Officer:** Miss S E Corlett **
**Photo Taken:** ** 18.01.2010 **
**Site Visit:** ** 18.01.2010 **
**Expected Decision Level:** ** Senior Planning Officer ### Written Representations - **The Ridings:** Foxdale Road, Eairy Isle Of Man - **Objects to the proposal** ### Consultations **Consultee:** Highways Division **Notes:** Objects **Consultee:** Malew Parish Commissioners **Notes:** Object **Consultee:** Manx Electricity Authority **Notes:** See note 2

### Officer's Report

#### The Site

The site represents a small field located to the south of Stoney Mountain Road. To the north is an existing dwelling - Athen Rye; the access from Stoney Mountain Road passes this and an industrial unit which was erected in association with the bungalow some time ago. To the south is a site occupied by two operatives - Minimix and FPL (see below). To the south east is a site which has had some infilling undertaken on it without the benefit of planning permission and to the south of this is a landfill site which has planning permission (see below).

#### Planning Status

The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as "white land", that is, not designated for development, and within a wider area of interest to nature conservation.

19 January 2010 09/01945/B Page 1 of 7

On the draft Southern Area Plan published on 23rd October, 2009 the site is not designated for development and lies within an area identified as the Foxdale Incised Slopes which is described in the draft Planning Policy document - PPS 2/09 - The Role of Landscape Character in Development as follows:

## 4.5 Type D: Incised Slopes

The overall strategy for the protection and enhancement of the Incised Slopes Landscape Character Type is to conserve and enhance: the remote and rural character; the relatively sparse settlement pattern of traditional hamlets and scattered farm buildings; the network of sunken and enclosed rural roads; and the substantial hedgerows and sod banks dividing irregularly-shaped pastoral fields. Key landscape planning considerations in relation to the protection and enhancement of this Landscape Character Type are as follows:- Care should be taken to ensure that housing and business development does not detract from the distinctive identity and setting of settlements, and avoids coalescence with other settlements within this Landscape Type; The design and layout of new housing and business development should include appropriate native structure planting to soften urban edges and enhance the transition to the wider landscape; Approach routes, key views, and gateways to settlements within these landscapes should be enhanced; Linear development along roads from settlements that extends urbanising influences into the wider countryside should be avoided; The use of local vernacular building styles and materials should be encouraged; New farm buildings that would compromise the pattern and scale of farmsteads across the undulating Incised Slopes landscapes should be discouraged; Care should be taken to minimise loss of hedgerows, sod banks, and other distinctive boundary features along road corridors; Tourist-related development, such as camp-sites, should avoid visually prominent locations, particularly those which can be viewed from higher land and those which would extend urbanising influence along the coast; Care should be taken to avoid the suburbanisation of river valleys and stream corridors; Tall vertical telecommunications masts or structures which detract from the sloping landform or create visual clutter should be avoided.

### Planning History

The land to the south of Stoney Mountain Road which is roughly an elongated triangle shape, was originally in the ownership of two parties - the two fields on the western side in one ownership and the two fields to the east and the field at the southern end in the other.

This overall area is now divided into six distinct areas: 1) Athen Rye with the building to the west, 2) the land to the south of this, formerly part of the area where Athen Rye now stands, formerly known as Chadwick's Yard, 3) land to the south now occupied by FPL Ltd (also known as The Yard), 4) an area to the west occupied by Minimix, 5) land to the east of this on which infilling and excavation has been partly implemented and 6) land to the south of this in which authorised infilling is nearing completion.

The planning history of this area is as follows:
Planning permission was sought for the erection of a machinery store with facilities for vehicle dismantling under PA 84/0466. This represents the large shed which is to the west of Athen Rye. This application was initially refused but approved on review and the shed was erected.

In 1987 a manager's bungalow was approved and another small industrial building to the south of the large building referred to above (PA 87/4303).

An application in principle for the erection of a further dwelling on land to the east of what is now Athen Rye was refused on appeal under PA 89/1022. The site of this application extended to the south, east and north, encompassing Mountain View Farm and did not include the Athen Rye site or the field to the south.

In 1994 approval was sought and granted for the addition of a conservatory on the building now known as Athen Rye (PA 94/1736).

In 1998 planning permission was sought and granted on appeal for the creation of an access and hard cored track to gain access to the field to the south - PA 98/0581. Planning permission had originally been refused by the Planning Committee but the Inspector overturned that decision and recommended approval on the basis that all of the fields on the eastern side of the area (areas 5 and 6 above and the field to the north of these, immediately adjacent to Stoney Mountain Road) were in agricultural use and the northernmost field was boggy and not suitable for access to the remainder of the land.

PA 00/1442 is perhaps one of the more significant applications in the history of the development of this land and proposed the change of use of the land on the western side to accommodate the storage of concrete materials and the mixing of concrete. The application form and officer's report indicate that this land was previously used for the storage of scrap vehicles. This permission, for Minimix required the removal of scrap vehicles on the site. A further application within this site was permitted for the storage of bulk cement (PA 00/2484).

Planning permission was sought and refused for the principle of light industrial units under PA 01/1783. This proposed a courtyard of industrial buildings to the south of Athen Rye and to the north of Minimix and was refused for the reason that "The proposal would be contrary to the provisions of the adopted plan for the area in that the land is not zoned for this type of development".

On the site to the south, permission was granted for a landfill operation, on appeal, under PA 00/1949. The microfiche for this is missing, but the conditions of this approval require that only the tipping of soil and sub-soil may be undertaken, vehicles may only visit the site between 0800 - 1730 hrs Monday to Friday and 0800-1300hrs on Saturday and that the infilling must be completed prior to 1st December, 2006. This operation was extended in terms of the time in which the infilling may be completed under PA 07/0806 - see below.

The site encompassing the site of the industrial units which were refused, Minimix and the scrap vehicle storage building was the subject of PA 01/1884 which proposed the change of use of the land to create an inert building materials recycling facility. The appeal inspector describes the site as "semi derelict" and "north of the site the land is generally overgrown together with what appear to be abandoned vehicles adding to the appearance of dereliction" (paragraph 1).

The Inspector concludes that "Although the land is not designated for any industrial type uses, it is a matter of fact that it has had a valid approval and use in the past for industrial type uses and new industrial operations have been approved on the cleared area of which the appeal site forms part. The use of the site for the proposed recycling unit for inert materials seems to me to be compatible with the adjoining concrete mix plant operation. Access from the Stoney Mountain Road already exists and I note that the Planning Committee require further details of site splays to be provided for the junction as well as the provision of a wheel washing facility. I fully understand the concerns about the increased use of Stoney Mountain Road by HGVs. In the absence of any contrary evidence from the Department of Transport I have to accept that the road is still a designated route for HGVs but I find it unsatisfactory that no information is available about the potential traffic generation of the proposed recycling unit. I have noted that the Committee's decision specifically excludes any approval for development of Phase 1B and/or Phase 2. That will provide the opportunity for consideration of cumulative traffic generation at the time of any further development proposals within the master plan area or in the surrounding area. In the meantime I must assume that the highway authority will

maintain the route to an appropriate standard. The increase in the volume of HGV traffic will inevitably have some impact on any properties close to the road, but given the previous use of the site, I am not persuaded that it is sufficient to warrant refusal" (paragraphs 13 and 14).

Planning permission was then sought for the principle of a dwelling - PA 02/02350. This was refused initially for reasons relating to the designation of the site and also in relation to nature conservation. The reason for refusal relating to nature conservation was rejected by the Inspector at appeal but the application was refused as the site was not designated for development.

PA 07/0482 proposed a maintenance shed on the Minimix and recycling site and was permitted PA 08/0806 sought and gained approval for the continuation of the infilling approved under PA 00/1949) such that the infilling must be completed by 17th March, 2012, after which period the importation of material must cease and within such time the tipped material must be graded, top soiled and allowed to re-seed naturally.

PA 08/0321 proposed the erection of a storage building and shows the Minimix site defined separately from that of the re-cycling operation to the immediate east. This application was permitted.

PA 08/0764 proposed the principle for the erection of a building on the land to the south of Athen Rye and to the north of the Minimix and re-cycling facilities - the site where the industrial units had previously been refused (PA 01/1783) and the new dwelling (PA 02/2350). This was proposed by Magill Construction and was permitted subject to a condition that "This permission relates to the principle of the erection of a building for the purposes of the storage of materials, equipment and vehicles in association with the operation of a construction business (incorporating groundworks, construction and drainage works) as shown generally in the drawings received on 14th April, 2008." The applicant's agent clarified in the application that the unit would be used for the storage of her client's vehicles and equipment. Her client has no other premises and currently stores the items on the site which has led to theft and unauthorised access to the materials. The administration of the business is undertaken from the applicant's home. She stated that the applicant intends to move into New Bungalow which will give greater supervision of the site and materials stored on it.

New facilities and buildings were proposed on the recycling site, now operated by FPL (Foxdale Precast Limited) and were permitted and further buildings were permitted on this site under PA 08/2293.

## The Proposal

Now proposed is the erection of industrial units: three in terms of the number of buildings, one - A shown as an industrial store and workshop, B as an industrial store and the building to the south subdivided into six industrial buildings with a substation. Each of the industrial units have a floor area of 8 m by 6 m and are up to 5.25 m to eaves. Building A is 30 m by 18 m and 5.25 m to eaves level and Building B is the smallest of the structures, 12 m by 18 m and 5.25 m to eaves level.

Building A has nine parking spaces shown and a significant area for the storage of materials and further parking, Building B has four parking spaces shown with space for further spaces and the 6 industrial units have one parking space shown alongside but not blocking the unit door.

All buildings are to be finished in rendered walling with sheeting of an unspecified colour above and on the roofing.

No levels are shown - existing or proposed.

### Representations

Malew Parish Commissioners object to the application on the basis that the site is not designated for development and they have concerns about lack of infrastructure.

Manx Electricity Authority request liaison regarding the provision of electricity supplies to the site. This is not a material planning consideration and as such should not be referred to in the planning decision notice.

Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division object to the application on the basis that the proposed access onto the public highway has inadequate visibility and the use of the access by additional traffic is contrary to the interests of highway safety and the applicant has no control over the land required to improve visibility. Also, they determine that there is insufficient information regarding the proposed uses and likely level of traffic generated and the Department has concerns regarding the level of industrial traffic using Stoney Mountain Road and it is not satisfied that it is suitable to accommodate additional traffic.

The occupant of The Ridings, which is on the A24 to Foxdale and not immediately alongside the principal access to the site, or the site itself, expresses concern at the existing level of traffic using the roads in the neighbourhood.

**ASSESSMENT**

The site is not designated for development and as such, the provisions of General Policy 3 should be applied, which states: Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10) b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historical, or social value and interest (Housing Policy 11)

c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of buildings where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environmental and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment

d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14) e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry

g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative and

h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage.

It is not considered that the application fulfils any of the above criteria.

In addition, the highway authority advise that neither the access nor the highway network serving the site are suitable for additional traffic and as the proposal involves up to eight separate operators on the site at any one time, the amount of traffic is likely to be significant. Whilst permission was given for the erection of a building under PA 08/0764 and the information provided in the application was that the applicant proposed to store items in the building, which were already being stored on site. There is no such argument in this case and it would appear from the photographs submitted with the application, that there is no industrial use, or in fact any active use of the site at present. It would appear from the photographs that a certain amount of levelling has been undertaken and it would not appear to be in the same condition as when the 2008 application was submitted.

The photographs also illustrate that the access to the site, which continues south to serve the Mini Mix and FPL sites is used for car parking. Part of this access is concreted with vehicles parking on the unmade part.

19 January 2010

There is land within Foxdale which is identified on the Foxdale Local Plan of 1999 as suitable for Light Industrial Use and which is has yet to be developed and is closer to the village centre and existing infrastructure.

As such, the site is not designated for development and it is not considered that there are material considerations which would justify over-ruling this presumption against development. The existing development in the vicinity - the infilling, Minimix and the re-cycling, together with the operation of the quarry all have resulted in this area becoming untidy, unmanaged and frequented by large, heavy vehicles on a road network which is unsuitable for this in terms of the width of the road, the fact that there are residential properties along Stoney Mountain Road and the nature of the junction of Stoney Mountain and the Tosaby Roads which offers limited visibility and restricted space for manoeuvring around the corner. The increase in traffic using this highway network is not considered acceptable and the increase in the amount of buildings and industrial activity in an area which is not designated for development, is considered unacceptable.

## **PARTY STATUS**

The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.

Manx Electricity Authority raise issues which are not material planning considerations and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.

The occupant of The Ridings is not directly affected by the proposal and should not be afforded party status in this instance. **Recommendation** **Recommended Decision:** Refused **Date of Recommendation:** 19.01.2010 **Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal** **C : Conditions for approval** **N : Notes attached to conditions** **R : Reasons for refusal** **O : Notes attached to refusals**

## **R 1.**

The site is not designated for development on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982. Whilst exceptions to this may be made, as set out in General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan, it is not considered that the proposal satisfies any of these criteria and as such, the proposed development would be unwarranted and would represent an unfortunate precedent for further development in the countryside, contrary to Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan.

## **R 2.**

The access and the highway network serving the site are not considered suitable to accommodate the additional traffic which would be generated by the proposed development, both in terms of the

19 January 2010

access from the lane onto Stoney Mountain Road and the width, alignment and character of Stoney Mountain Road and the propeties which abut it.

- 1. It should be noted that the planning permission which was granted for the erection of an industrial building under PA 08/0764 was based upon the evidence of the applicant's agent that the site was already being used for the storage of material, which would ultimately be stored in the building which was proposed to be built.

- 2. There is land within Foxdale which is identified as suitable for Industrial use and which is not developed or occupied. As such, the development of this site would undermine the provisions of the Foxdale Local Plan and the principle of containment of development close to and within in established centres (Spatial Policies 3, 4, 5 of the Strategic Plan).

I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular No 10/09, Delegation of Functions (Development Procedure), GC No 11/09 (Advertisements) and GC No 12/09 (Registered Buildings) all to the Senior Planning Officer

Decision Made : Refused Date : 22/2/2020

Signed : __________________________

Senior Planning Officer

---

*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/64241-east-baldwin-ballawyllin-beg-replacement-outbuilding/documents/1392849*