**Document:** Planning Officer Report **Application:** 07/00958/A — Approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling with garage to replace existing workshop/store 2/10/09 Director of Planning agreed to an extension of the duration of the consent to the 29/08/10. **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2007-08-29 **Parish:** Michael **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/83136-ballaugh-carmodil-west-replacement-extension/documents/1499963 --- # Planning Officer Report ## Planning Report And Recommendations [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Considerations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Written Representations ### Consultations [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Officer's Report #### Site The site Carmodil West, Glen Road, Ballaugh, is a plot of land which is located on the western side of the Glen Road, and south of Ballaugh Village. Currently within the site exists a single storey detached shed (15 metres in length and 6 metres in depth), which is used as a workshop to repair agricultural equipment, as well as a store. ## Department Policies The site has been zoned under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982 as being within an area of 'woodland' not zoned for development; the site is not within a Conservation Area, but is within an area zoned as High Landscape Value or Costal Value and Scenic Significance. - Isle of Man Strategic Plan – 20th June 2007 – General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 2 - The Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982 ## Planning History Erection of an agricultural store, Carmodil Beg, Ballaugh Glen, Ballaugh - 87/00209/B - APPROVED ## Proposal The application proposes the approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling with garage to replace existing workshop/store. ## Representations Ballaugh Parish Commissioners:- No objections Highways Division have no objection subject to the imposition of the following conditions:- Sight lines of 2 metres by 18 metres shall be provided. On-site car parking shall be provided within the curtilage of the dwelling in compliance with Manx Roads 1. An on-site turning facility shall be provided within the vicinity of the parking area such that vehicles can enter and exit the site in forward gear. Drainage Division have no objection in principle In principle, subject to the following conditions: If this application is successful, the Drainage Division request that the applicant carries out a site flood risk assessment for land drainage approval prior to submitting a detailed application. The applicant is advised to contact the Land Drainage Engineer. The IOM Water Authority makes no comment on the merit of the proposed development but request that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice. S.P.M.C. & E have objected to the application on the grounds that no details whatsoever of the existing building or any justification for the proposed dwelling; these abound on farms etc all over the Island and if they are to be replaced by new houses in the countryside, the results could be catastrophic; and we don't consider this part of Ballaugh as being within the village and Open-countryside Policies must prevail. (we realise that the Minister's Decision on 05/1603 at Lonan has been claimed as setting a new Policy but, whilst very much regretting that decision, do not agree with that view. Two wrongs don't make a right) We have received no private representations objecting to the application. ## Assessment As the site is not within an area zoned for development the following Policies need to be taken into account, when considering this application. General Policy 3: 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, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); - (c) previously developed land(1) which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; 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. Environment Policy 2: The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that: - (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or - (b) the location for the development is essential. In my opinion this proposal needs careful consideration, due to its location, zoning and due to the existing use of the site. General Policy 3 paragraph (C) would be the specific policy for this application to be considered. Firstly the term "previously developed land" needs clarification. Under appendix 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan the term is defined as:- Previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. The definition includes defence buildings, but excludes: - Land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings. - Land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures. - Land in built-up areas such as parks, recreation grounds and allotments, which, although it may feature paths, pavilions and other buildings, has not been previously developed. - Land that was previously-developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time (to the extent that it can reasonably be considered as part of the natural surroundings). There is no presumption that land that is previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed. The existing workshop/store is used as an agricultural repairs garage, no commercial or private vehicles are repaired at this site. Due to the existing building on this site, I am of the opinion that the site is a previously-developed piece of land which would not contravene the definition as indicated above and in appendix 1, particularly as the existing building is not an agricultural building but a workshop/store. Due to this I consider the site could be described as previously developed land and therefore from this aspect the proposal is acceptable. General Policy 3 paragraph (C), goes on to state that the site should “contains a significant amount of building”. In my opinion this is a very subjective view, whilst this site only contains a single building, the building does take up approximately 1/3 of the site and the property does have a length of 15 metres and a width of 6 metres, which does not make the building a small structure. Therefore whether the site contains a significant amount of building, I consider this building on this particular site would constitute a significant amount of building. Paragraph (C) third issue is regarding redundancy of the existing building. Currently the Applicant still does some work at the site, doing repair works on agricultural equipment, however in recent years the requirement for agricultural repairs for equipment has declined significantly according to the Applicant, and therefore the Applicant is considering retiring from this line of work. Consequently it could be considered that the building is not completely redundant, however on the other hand, the type of building and works allowed at this site (agricultural repairs only), it could be thought that it is only a matter of time before the unit is redundant. The fourth and fifth issues are similar and inter-linked, “where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment”. As can be seen from the photographs the existing shed does not have any particular architectural interest, nor does it fit well within the site or the street scene. Accordingly, I consider the loss of the structure and replaced with a structure more in keeping with the area would be beneficial to the surrounding area. Additionally the use of the building as a workshop results in a significant amount of noise and general nuisance associated with a workshop to the surrounding residential properties, and therefore the removal of this type of use would result in a lot less adverse impacts upon the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties. As stated previously in my report the site is within an area of woodland. This consequently means that all trees within the site and the surrounding area are protected. In principle I consider that a dwelling could be constructed on the site, whilst not resulting in any of the trees within the site from being removed. However a condition should be attached to any given approval which states a full and detailed tree survey should be carried out and submitted with any future Reserved Matters application. Regarding Environment Policy 2, as the site is within an area of High Landscape Value or Costal Value and Scenic Significance, attention needs to be brought to ensure the proposal would not harm the character and quality of the landscape. As stated previously I consider a removal of the shed and replaced with a more appropriate building would be beneficial to the surrounding area and therefore comply with Environment Policy 2. The Drainage Division have requested that the Applicant carries out a site flood risk assessment for land drainage approval prior to submitting a detailed application. I consider for this site a FRA would be appropriate and should be submitted at a Reserved Matters stage. A condition should be attached to any given approval which states this. ### Recommendation The site is not zoned as within a residential area, but zoned in an area not zoned for development. However as indicated within my report I consider on balance that General Policy 3 paragraph C, does allow for development on previous developed land and in my opinion this particularly site would comply with the policies set out. Additionally the site is located within an area of a number of residential properties, i.e. to the north, east and south. I did have concerns that approval of this application could set a precedent for future development on similar sites. However I consider due to the location of the site within a residential area which is nearby to Ballaugh Village, the fact the site complies with the definition of previously developed land, and as the site complies with General Policy 3, particularly paragraph C, I am of the opinion that there are considerable amount of policies in place to ensure inappropriate development in the countryside cannot take place. For these reasons the proposal would seem appropriate in this location and therefore my recommendation is for an approval. ### Party Status I consider that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status: Highways Division Ballaugh Parish Commissioners Drainage Division I consider that the following parties that made representations to the planning application do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status: The IOM Water Authority ## S.P.M.C. & E ### Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 21.08.2007 ### Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal - : Notes attached to refusals C 1. This approval is in principle only and will remain valid for a period of two years within which time no development may take place until such time as details of the reserved matters (siting, design, external appearance, internal layout, means of access, landscaping) have been approved by the Planning Authority. Such reserved matters should form the subject of a single application. C 2. This approval relates to the submitted documents which are date-stamped 23rd May 2007. C 3. In the interest of road safety any future reserved matters application is required to provide for:- Sight lines of 2 metres by 18 metres shall be provided. On-site car parking shall be provided within the curtilage of the dwelling in compliance with Manx Roads 1. An on-site turning facility shall be provided within the vicinity of the parking area such that vehicles can enter and exit the site in forward gear. C 4. Any future reserved matters application must include an accurate and complete survey showing existing ground levels and a full tree survey showing positions, type and branch-spread of all trees. C 5. Prior to the commencement of any works, there must be submitted to and approved by the Department a construction method statement; this should address in particular the safeguarding of the river and retained trees. C 6. Any future reserved matters application must include a Flood Risk Assessment of the site with details of proposed mitigation measures. N 1. The Applicant is advised to consult with the Planning Authority regarding the design of the proposed dwelling prior to any future reserved matters application being submitted. N 2. For single connections to a water main (i.e. a single dwelling) the applicant should contact IoMWA Customer Services, tel. 69 59 49. I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer) Decision Made : Permitted Date : 28/01/07 Signed : M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control --- *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/83136-ballaugh-carmodil-west-replacement-extension/documents/1499963*