1 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND AGRICULTURE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999 TOWN AND COUNTRY (DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE) (No2) ORDER 2013 Agenda for a meeting of the Planning Committee, 12 th March 2018, 10.00am, in the Ground Floor Meeting Room of Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas 1. Introduction by the Chairman 2. Apologies for absence 3. Minutes To give consideration to the minutes of a meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 26 th February 2018. 4. Any matters arising 5. Delegated Decisions To note the decisions on those applications determined by the Director of Planning and Building Control, Head of Development Management or the Senior Planning Officers by the authority delegated to them by the Department under the appropriate legislation, for the period 20 th February to 5 th March 2018. 6. To consider and determine Planning Applications Schedule attached as Appendix One. 7. Appeals lodged To note any planning appeals lodged between the period 20 th February to 5 th March 2018. 8. Site Visits To agree dates for site visits if necessary. 9. Any other business 10. Next meeting of the Planning Committee Set for 12 th March 2018.
Transcript
1
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999 TOWN AND COUNTRY (DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE) (No2) ORDER 2013
Agenda for a meeting of the Planning Committee, 12th March 2018, 10.00am, in
the Ground Floor Meeting Room of Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas
1. Introduction by the Chairman 2. Apologies for absence 3. Minutes To give consideration to the minutes of a meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 26th February 2018. 4. Any matters arising 5. Delegated Decisions To note the decisions on those applications determined by the Director of Planning and Building Control, Head of Development Management or the Senior Planning Officers by the authority delegated to them by the Department under the appropriate legislation, for the period 20th February to 5th March 2018. 6. To consider and determine Planning Applications Schedule attached as Appendix One. 7. Appeals lodged To note any planning appeals lodged between the period 20th February to 5th March 2018. 8. Site Visits To agree dates for site visits if necessary. 9. Any other business 10. Next meeting of the Planning Committee Set for 12th March 2018.
2
Appendix One PLANNING COMMITTEE Meeting, 12th March 2018
Schedule of planning applications
Item 1 Field 234710 Orrisdale Kirk Michael Isle Of Man PA17/00988/B Recommendation : Refused
Erection of detached farm workers dwelling and garage
Item 2 Barn At Ballanorris Castletown Road Ballabeg Castletown Isle Of Man PA17/01323/B Recommendation : Permitted
Conversion of redundant barn in to new dwelling, including demolition of attached steel framed barn, reinstatement of barn unit in part of field 424807 and associated works to existing access, new driveway and garden areas, and new access in to field off new drive area
Item 3 Bluebell House Braaid Farm Braaid Road Braaid Isle Of Man IM4 2AW PA18/00015/B Recommendation : Permitted
Erection of stable to replace existing building and formation of equestrian manege
Item 4 Ballakillingan Farm Churchtown Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 2AL PA18/00010/B Recommendation : Permitted
Change of use of part of field 135010 to campsite from 1st May to 30th September annually, and installation of two hook up points (retrospective)
Item 5 Part Of Playing Fields Nobles Park Douglas Isle Of Man PA18/00104/B Recommendation : Permitted
Erection of a temporary building to be used as a bar and hospitality facility during the TT and Festival of Motoring periods
Item 6 154 Woodbourne Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 3BD PA18/00118/B Recommendation : Permitted
Installation of replacement windows to front elevation
3
PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 12th March 2018
Item 1 Proposal : Erection of detached farm workers dwelling and garage Site Address : Field 234710
Orrisdale Kirk Michael Isle Of Man
Applicant : Mr Ian Stevenson Application No. : Case Officer :
17/00988/B- click to view Miss S E Corlett
RECOMMENDATION: To REFUSE the application
______________________________________ Reasons and Notes for Refusal R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes (if any) attached to the reasons R 1. The site lies within an area not designated for development and of high landscape value and scenic significance where there is a presumption against new built development. It is not considered that there is sufficient agricultural need for the dwelling to outweigh this policy against development, given the limited amount of acreage owned by the applicant, the fact that the occupant would be a tenant farmer with limited term security of tenure and where the tenant farmer would not appear to be in need of a dwelling or indeed employed full time in agriculture. In addition, it would appear that there have been three dwellings previously associated with this land, two of which have been sold off in the past. The proposal fails to accord with Environment Policies 1, 2 and 15, General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 7. R 2. In the absence of agricultural need sufficient to justify this, the proposed dwelling and garage and particularly the proposed access lane leading to them would introduce built development in an area not currently so characterised, in conflict with the draft Landscape Character Appraisal contained within draft Planning Policy Statement 2/09 - The Role of Landscape Character in Development - which refers to the need to protect the existing field pattern and pattern and scale of farmsteads in the area. In addition the development would be contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 2 which protect the countryside for its own sake and where the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration and Environment Policy 15 and Housing Policy 9 which require new development to be built within or next to existing development.
Interested Person Status – Additional Persons It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4): The owners of Lowfield, Ballamenaugh Farm and Kionedroghad Farm all of whom live close to the site and who would be affected by the development
It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4): The owners of 18, Maple Avenue, Onchan and Meadowcroft, Ballabooie Road neither of whom lives close enough to the site to be directly affected by the proposal.
Planning Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL THIS APPLICATION IS BEING FURTHER CONSIDERED AFTER A DEFERRAL OF ITEM 6.2 WAS AGREED BY THE MEMBERS AT ITS SITTING FEBRUARY 26TH 2018. THE SITE 1.1 The site is part of a larger piece of land which sits to the north of the Orrisdale Road which runs south from just north of Bishopscourt to the northern side of Kirk Michael. The red line area is an elongated piece of land accessed from the Orrisdale Road, is around 154m long and contains a number of trees and what looks like the remains of a former building along with more modern, brick mono pitched roofed structures. The wider area, edged blue lies to the south east in the form of two fields and to the west and north which comprise at least another thirteen fields. The area in total amounts to around 69 acres. 1.2 There are various dwellings scattered around the area but the general character of the area is rural. 1.3 There is currently a field access into the field to the south of the site onto the Orrisdale Road. There is access across the field to the north of the site from alongside the existing farm bungalow which sits to the north of the site (around 65m away) and alongside this is an existing agricultural building which accommodates equipment associated with the running of the farm. Whilst this property, Ballamenaugh Farm House, is correctly not included with the land edged red or blue, it is understood that it is owned by the applicant's mother (see paragraph 2.4). There is nothing to suggest that the applicant is in any way entitled to use this property or that he would have sole access to it in the future. 1.4 To the north of the site is a group of dwellings - Ballamenaugh Farm House, Lowfield immediately alongside to the east and Cregbane to the south east of that all sharing the same access. Opposite these dwellings are Pharlane Cottage, Orrisdale Farm house and Tanglewood. To the south of the site is another group of dwellings - Ballamenaugh House, Kiondroghad Cottage and the newly created dwelling formed from the conversion of the barn alongside Kiondroghad Cottage. Across the road from these is Hazeldene. Between the two groups of dwellings, on the other side of Orrisdale Road are Dale Cottage and Woodlands. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a three bedroomed dwelling at the northern end of the red line area together with a garage alongside to the south east. The dwelling has a footprint of 16.5m by 8.5m and the garage 8.2m by 8m with internal dimensions of 7.5m with one of the parking space lengths impaired by the introduction of a shower which reduces the available length to 5m. The dwelling is single storey with accommodation within the roof, finished in stone with substantial stone chimneys on each gable which will be rendered with some additional stonework. A small porch is proposed on the front. The garage has a ceiling hatch to provide access to the space above (around 30 sq m),
5
2.2 A new sod hedge, constructed under the guidelines of Planning Circular 1/92 is to be introduced along the eastern boundary of the driveway with various trees (ash, alder, aspen, birch, cherry, crab apple, eucalyptus, oak, holly, maple, rowan, poplar and willow). 2.3 The property will be connected to a new bioDisc facility with the treated effluent discharged to a soakaway. The application provides a drawing which demonstrates that there is visibility from the bottom of the lane, of 2.4m by 80m to the east and 2.4m by 90m to the south. The lane will be finished in gravel over a proprietary honeycomb stabilisation system. 2.4 The applicant explains that his grandparents purchased the land, known as Ballamenagh Farm in the late 1940s and that his parents farmed until illness prevented him from actively running the farm and it was leased and for the last 30 years has been leased to various tenants. The farmhouse was sold by his father in the 1970s as he needed support his family who moved next door to Kiondroghad Cottage. Ballamenaugh Farm House was built and has been occupied by the applicant's retired mother since 1976. They state that this property is not tied to the farm. The income derived from leasing the land has not been enough to cover the cost of repairing and maintaining the fences, waterways, hedges, gates and water troughs. The applicant explains that he has been seriously ill for the last 2 years after having lived his life overseas although prior to his illness he suggests that he had been active in maintaining the land. He hopes to retire and bring the farm back to its former glory. The addition of a farm dwelling will provide a further income to enable him to make the necessary improvements and provide accommodation for the tenant farmer. He refers to existing historic stones which he would like to expose. He is interested in supporting the local wildlife. 2.5 The applicant explains that the dwelling will allow a full time worker to have more of a full time presence on the farm rather than having to travel. The present tenant farmer lives in Kirk Michael village which is the closest he could find to the site. The tenant has a family association with the land and his family also help out. The better management of the land, including removing encroaching gorse and bracken will prevent new born animals from being hidden and on a few occasions this had led to the animals dying. The land has previously been naturally fertilised with seaweed and other natural fertilisers. 2.6 The applicant owns 69 acres which form the application site - all agricultural land. The current tenant owns 20 acres at somewhere called "Cooley" for which no map has been provided and this is understood to be the tenant's family farmland. The tenant currently leases a further 37 acres at Ramsey, 39 acres at the Claddagh in Sulby, 6 acres on the shore fields in Kirk Michael and almost 41 acres in Foxdale. The tenant has leased the application site land for 4 years and is looking to extend his lease in November: the tenancy is a 364 day lease renewable annually. Prior to him having the lease, it was with his mother for 5 years. The largest number of animals the tenant has are kept on the application site and home farm land (Cooley) and a dwelling on one of the other pieces of land he leases would mean him being further from the greatest number of his animals. If a dwelling is not allowed on this site, this would prevent equipment and vehicles being kept here securely and being near the animals would be useful at calving and lambing times as well as saving time and money for the tenant. They consider that agricultural need includes the repair and maintenance of fencing, hedges and the land. The animals live outside all year round. The present stock on all of the land (217 acres) is 70 beef cattle with 20 calves at calving, 550 sheep and lambs at lambing. They suggest that this amounts to 3890 man hours which justify a dwelling. 2.7 They suggest that in the past there were at least 7 working farms in the area - Ballarhenny, Camell, Glyonya, Kiondrghad, Ballamenaugh and Orrisdale Farm all of which are now private dwellings with some holiday accommodation. They cannot understand how 7 new dwellings have been allowed since the 1940s and why there is presently a barn
6
conversion which will be used for a private dwelling and it is so difficult to obtain planning approval for a simple farm worker's dwelling which would be tied to the farm and which would be of benefit to the area and the countryside. 2.8 Evidence is also provided of a previous calculation for agricultural man hours for the tenant at Ballacooley which involved 40 beef cows, 450 ewes and lambs, 270 other sheep and 393 acres of land dated 2011 and a further assessment for Angela Kelly which involved the same acreage but with 48 beef cows, 17 other cattle, 450 sheep and lambs and 270 other sheep. 2.9 The applicant submitted additional information on 26.01.18 to support the application including a statement from the intended occupant of the property, Michael Kelly and a statement from Island Land-Based Services Limited. Mr. Kelly explains that he works very hard in the farming industry and enjoys what he does. He suggests that he works regularly in the day time for a haulage company, working 10 hours during the day and on average 4 hours after his day job and at weekends. He says a central location on the land that he leases would be a time saving benefit to him and those that help him. The 69 acres at the site is the largest amount of land that he leases and is ideally located to all the other land. He has established cattle pens, cow crush and sheep pens and the land is used all year round, weathering the animals out in the winter. The farm is organic and he has had positive comments about and good sales of his stock. He explains that the Stevenson family (the applicant) help out when required, when lambing and when they see other issues that need attention. He has been approached about a longer lease but at the moment neither he nor Mrs. Stevenson feel the need for this: at present they have a 364 day lease including a 6 month notice period and a longer lease would contain the same clause so would serve no benefit. He clarifies that he presently lives in Kirk Michael in a rented semi-detached house which is "adequate at present" but has no storage. In the future he would like to have a family and have a house which provides storage and an office for his business. 2.10 Island Land-Based Services Limited, has been employed by the applicant to present his case, the writer of the report having an Honours Degree in Agricultural Science and is a Member of the BASIS Registry (BASIS is an independent standards setting and auditing organisation for the pesticide, fertiliser and allied industries). She worked for DEFA and has provided technical and financial advice to the agricultural industry on the Isle of Man since 1993, setting up her own business in 2005. She describes the situation whereby the application land has been leased to the Kelly family for the last 9 years with Michael Kelly soon to take over his mother's business and running it with his own. She describes the land as being classified as 3/4 with the soil being predominantly loamy sand and suitable for mixed farming. The farm is stocked and managed to provide top quality beef and lamb for local consumers as well as enhancing and protecting the wildlife in the area. Of the land parcels owned by the Kelly family, this is the driest and used for grazing all year round. She suggests that the current stocking levels are 60 cows and bulls and 256 ewes lambing in the spring. She describes the labour calculation for the whole of the Kelly's business as 2.09 units and as the units which make up the business are scattered, it is difficult to calculate what is the number for the application site alone. However, given its position and importance to the overall farming business it is estimated that the farm could realistically support enough stock for just under one labour unit. She describes Ballamenagh Farmhouse which accommodates Mrs. Stevenson and suggests that Mrs. Stevenson undertakes some of the duties required but at 85 it is unrealistic to expect her to assume all of the responsibility for the checking of the livestock and helping with emergencies. 2.11 She considers it essential to have a dwelling at Ballamenagh Farm to ensure that full cover is provided for calving and lambing, general management of stock which involves daily supervision, feeding and checking water is available. She states "the vast arrange of duties
7
can only be carried out efficiently and safely if the farmer is living close to where most of their stock are". She suggests that an on site dwelling would also help with the prevention of and dealing with disease and suggests that "to ensure adequate monitoring, farmers need to live on site". 2.12 Whilst previous dwellings have been associated with the land, none is now so tied and there have been a number of approvals for the creation of dwellings nearby. She describes the proposed dwelling as "adjoining the main group of farm buildings" and where the environmental impact is acceptable. She suggests that the local agricultural industry is struggling to ensure long term sustainability due to the lack of enthusiastic young people wanting to have a career in agriculture where hours of working are long and pay is relatively low. PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as not for any particular purpose and within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. A site of archaeological interest/Ancient Monument is identified to the north west (Cronk Koir, referred to by the applicant). As such, there is a presumption against development as set out in General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 2. General Policy 3 includes provision for the development of buildings, including housing where this is essential for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work. Environment Policy 15 and Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10 go on to provide more advice on this topic: Environment Policy 15: "Where the Department is satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building (including a dwelling), sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside, and that the impact of this development including buildings, accesses, servicing etc. is acceptable, such development must be sited as close as is practically possible to existing building groups and be appropriate in terms of scale, materials, colour, siting and form to ensure that all new developments are sympathetic to the landscape and built environment of which they will form a part. Only in exceptional circumstances will buildings be permitted in exposed or isolated areas or close to public highways and in all such cases will be subject to appropriate landscaping. The nature and materials of construction must also be appropriate to the purposes for which it is intended. Where new agricultural buildings are proposed next to or close to existing residential properties, care must be taken to ensure that there is no unacceptable adverse impact through any activity, although it must be borne in mind that many farming activities require buildings which are best sited, in landscape terms, close to existing building groups in the rural landscape." Housing Policy 7: "New agricultural dwellings will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where real agricultural need is demonstrated." Housing Policy 8: "Where permission is granted for an agricultural dwelling, a condition will be attached restricting the occupation to a person engaged or last engaged solely in agriculture; or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants." Housing Policy 9: "Where permission is granted for an agricultural dwelling, the dwelling must be sited such that; (a) it is within or immediately adjoining the main group of farm buildings or a group of farm buildings associated with that farm,
8
(b) it is well set back from any public highway, and (c) it is approached via the existing farm access." Housing Policy 10: "Where permission is granted for an agricultural dwelling, the dwelling should normally be designed in accordance with policies 1- 7 of present Planning Circular 3/91 which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement." 3.2 The draft Landscape Character Appraisal Planning Policy Statement 2/09 - The Role of Landscape Character in Development defines the site as being within a wider area of Incised Slopes where the following advice is provided: "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:- (a) 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; (b) 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; (c) Approach routes, key views, and gateways to settlements within these landscapes should be enhanced; (d) Linear development along roads from settlements that extends urbanising influences into the wider countryside should be avoided; (e) The use of local vernacular building styles and materials should be encouraged; (f) New farm buildings that would compromise the pattern and scale of farmsteads across the undulating Incised Slopes landscapes should be discouraged; (g) Care should be taken to minimise loss of hedgerows, sod banks, and other distinctive boundary features along road corridors; (h) 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; (i) Care should be taken to avoid the suburbanisation of river valleys and stream corridors; (j) Tall vertical telecommunications masts or structures which detract from the sloping landform or create visual clutter should be avoided." PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The application site has been the subject of two applications which were determined: 12/01324/B proposed the re-roofing of the existing agricultural shed and 01/00146/B proposed the erection of an agricultural shed on land to the north of the application site but within the blue line area. The 2012 application showed the application site and Ballamenagh Farmhouse within the same site. 4.2 There have been a number of relatively recent applications in the vicinity of the site: Hazeldene has been the subject of two applications, both approved, for replacement of the existing dwelling (12/00703/B and 16/01183/B) and the barn alongside Kiondroghad Cottage has been the subject of three applications, all approved, for its conversion to residential
9
accommodation (16/00220/B, 15/00846/B and 10/01089/B). Since 2010 Kiondroghad Barn has been in separate ownership to Kiondroghad Cottage. 4.3 The applicant's family applied for approval in principle for two dwellings (now Ballamenaugh Farmhouse and Lowfield) under IDO 28892 and this was approved on appeal. No reference in the application can be found to any justification on the basis of agricultural need other than Mr. Stevenson indicating that one of the properties would be for his parents and the site of the application was simply the site of the two dwellings with a section of field behind and not the whole farm. There would not seem to have been any agricultural occupancy condition attached to the approval or to the two further applications for the details of the bungalows (IDOs 32883 and 32885). REPRESENTATIONS Local authority 5.1.1 Michael Commissioners object to the application on the basis that the land is not owned but tenanted and the applicant is not farming any of it. They consider that the access to the site is problematic and there is a covenant on the land which crosses onto a neighbour's land. The Commissioners consider that there is no need for the farm dwelling and is too large to be used for an agricultural dwelling (05.10.17). Statutory authorities 5.2.1 Highway Services raise no objection making the following comments: The proposal is to erect a dwelling and garage. Adequate off-street car parking is provided and the proposed access is acceptable. Highway Services does not oppose this application subject to the following condition: 1. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the garage, car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided and remain free from obstruction thereafter. Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety (29.09.17). Local residents 5.3.1 The owners of Lowfield object to the application, suggesting that there is a covenant on the land to prevent the development of the land to the south west of their property [the existence of a covenant is not a material consideration and a submission which deals exclusively with that matter would not generally be deemed to be sufficiently affected by the development to warrant being granted interested person status]. These parties also refer to previous correspondence and reiterate this, acknowledging that errors in the previous application about land ownership have been corrected. These comments include concern that the amount of land owned by the applicant and his mother - 21 hectares - is insufficient to justify a new farm dwelling and that even this amount may be dispersed in the event of her death. The tenancy agreement is between her and the tenant, not the applicant. The tenant manages land which is not in the ownership or control of the applicant. They suggest that one of the people who is alleged to work on the farm is a 16 year old school girl and the others, Jayson and Allan Craine rarely work on the farm. They suggest that all of the tenants have full time employment and are therefore part time farmers. 5.3.2 They are of the view that as Mr. and Mrs. Kelly reside in a Government dwelling in Sulby and Michael Kelly rents a property in Kirk Michael, there does not appear to be an issue with them finding somewhere to live. They consider that the applicant has never farmed the land and that his mother has always rented the fields to tenants and is therefore not a retired
10
farmer. They consider that the applicant's family has had a farmhouse which was sold and then two further dwellings built and that the land has been tenanted for some time (04.10.17 and 28.04.17). 5.3.3 Further to the latest information, they add that Mrs. Brenda Stevenson obtained permission for an agricultural barn which was erected but the tenant farmer has never had access to this as it is used as a leisure workshop and to accommodate her partner's vintage vehicles. She also suggests that in the 15 years they have lived in Orrisdale they have never witnesses any of the applicant's family helping out with the lambing as is suggested in Mr. Kelly's letter (19.02.18). 5.4.1 The owner of Ballamenaugh House comments that her own house was the original farmhouse which was sold by the applicant's family at some point in the last 30 years and following that, two further dwellings were built, one of which was sold on. She does not understand how money from the rental of the property can cover the costs of improving the farm when usually the rental money goes towards meeting the costs of the maintenance of the dwelling. There is no explanation as to why the money derived from the rental of the fields has not been used for the upkeep of the farmland. There is also very little evidence of his direct involvement in this parcel of land. She worries about any intention of encouraging wildlife, on the birds that use her garden as she currently sees over 20 different species. Given that the land is rented on a 364 day basis, there is no guarantee that the tenancy will continue and she wonders whether what is proposed is suitable for the current tenant who is a 25 year old young man who rents land in various other parts of the Island. She questions whether access is safe and whether the surrounding roads are suitable for additional traffic. She refers to the covenant and is of the view that this is an attempt to build a luxury dwelling in the countryside which should be protected as an area of outstanding beauty (12.10.17). 5.4.2 Further to the submission of the latest information, the owner of Ballamenagh House submits further reservations, suggesting that the agricultural adviser may not be fully aware of all of the facts involved in this case. She stresses that the applicant is not a farmer, the owner of the application site as a whole nor someone who has tenanted the site for nine years and the application site has not been farmed by the applicant's family for two generations. She suggests that the previous two tenants left after rent increases and since the Kellys have assumed the tenancy there have been no farm improvements. She fails to see how the tenant's current practices are relevant to the consideration of the current application. The applicant's family do not, in her view, help occasionally with the farm, as is suggested and whilst the Kellys are excellent farmers, they work together as a family unit and Michael Kelly is not farming alone but part of a team and they are usually farming together with generally six or more people involved. 5.4.3 She says that the livestock are not on the land all year round with a rotational grazing system used and this means constantly moving the livestock between the holdings. Most times if not all, the application fields are empty. As such, the labour unit calculations are inaccurate. She reports that the Kellys recently built a shed for calving and lambing on their home farm and this is where they take animals with problems. There is therefore no need for a building here. She casts doubt on the applicant's facts and figures as an earlier application for this same development was based upon land which was not managed by his tenant. Michael Kelly works full time elsewhere and until recently lived at the family farm. If he wants to farm full time she suggests that he would surely want to do this at the family farm which has buildings and is more central to the rest of the holdings. If Michael became a fully time farmer would he be able to afford the rent of the new house and if not, would he be able to live there rent free? As Mrs. Stevenson is elderly, it may be that her property may be vacated and available to a farm worker if she chooses to move into sheltered accommodation.(19.02.18).
11
5.5.1 The owners of Kionedroghad Farm objects to the application, noting that a previous application was refused and that the applicant's family have previously been granted permission for two new dwellings one of which was sold on. The ever increasing number of dwellings created means that a once quiet idyllic road is becoming ever busier. He believes that some parcels of land have been purchased to help justify the application and what is proposed is not a farm dwelling due to its size and the tenant farmer already has his own accommodation. He is concerned that an approval would represent a precedent for further development (received on 12.10.17). Other parties 5.6 A party who walks regularly in the area, resident at 18, Maple Avenue, Onchan, objects to the application, stating that the character of the area should be maintained any a dwelling not approved here and is aware that traffic levels using the road have increased and that there are a number of local objections. He suggests that the continued tenancy with this particular tenant cannot be guaranteed (12.10.17). 5.7 Parties who live at Meadowcroft, Ballabooie Road in German support the objection submitted by the owner of Lowfield and others. He considers the justification is fabricated as the land is tenanted and there is no viable business run by the applicant. The farm business is spread among a number of sites by the tenant and what is owned by the applicant is not sufficient to justify a new dwelling. They consider that land owners by the applicant's mother is in different ownership and should not be considered to support this application. He too refers to the original farmhouse having been sold by the applicant's family and in total, if this application were approved there would have been four dwellings associated with the farmland over time. The photographs provided do not include the dwelling occupied by the applicant's mother and they are concerned that the size of the proposed dwelling is not commensurate with its proposed use and it is not of a traditional design. They consider the application to be in conflict with Strategic Policies 2 and 3, General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 2 (20.101.17). 5.8 Following the submission of the additional information, the owners of Meadowcroft submit further representations, adding that they believe that the land ownership statement is incorrect in that Mr. Stevenson does not own the land and he appears from the Land Registry to own only fields 234034 and 234035 which amount to 6.26 acres, purchase in 2013 from his mother. They believe that the application should not proceed until this is clarified. They suggest that Ballamenagh Farm was clearly shown in 12/0324/B as being attached to the farm. They do not consider that the Kellys' business is relevant to the application as this involves another site, other land and buildings and other people. There is very little at the application site by comparison. The applicant is not employed in agriculture and the tenant works full time outside of agriculture. They suggest that the application fails almost all of the relevant Strategic Plan policies and if a dwelling really is needed by Michael Kelly, it should be sited at Cooley Lodge where the majority of the farm buildings are and where calving and lambing is likely to take place. They confirm that they fully support local agriculture where there are cases of genuine agricultural need but care needs to be taken to prevent the system from being abused (18.02.18). Applicant's response 5.9 The applicant responds to the objections raised, acknowledging that he is not a farmer but that the land has been farmed by his family and that they wish to keep it in their ownership and he considers that the total area of almost 70 acres warrants two full time workers without other land being taken into consideration. Whilst there are other pieces of land rented by the tenant, this is the largest area and other applications have historically been granted on similar bases. He confirms that he owns 6.99 hectares (17.3 acres). If the
12
current tenant does not continue, there are others who would want to. If one chooses to live in the countryside, mud on the road and farm vehicles going about their business is a small price to pay. He considers that the proposed dwelling is not excessive and that the design uses traditional materials and that the dwelling will blend into its surroundings. He believes that the former dwellings was a dwelling as it has a fireplace and numerous household items have been unearthed in the surrounding area and it appears on old area maps as a small holding and outbuildings. He believes that the applicant once owned the derelict farm building that Glion Yeiy now sits on and before selling that plot to a developer he should have applied for planning approval for himself. Whilst they have had two dwellings built for agriculture, many others in the area have been built and sold and converted. He suggests that the amount of traffic on the roads may be reduced if the tenant lives on site as he will not need to travel to and from the site 3 or 4 times a day when lambing, calving and farming. He points out that many properties built in association with farming are larger than what is proposed here. Whilst the tenant has accommodation, it is more beneficial to him to live close to where he can store his equipment and livestock. 5.10 He notes that Department of Infrastructure have no objection to the application and covenants are not a material planning consideration and in any case the covenant does not apply to the planning application site. The labour calculation clearly indicates that a dwelling is required and is unaware of specified sizes of properties. He confirms that he would not consider it objectionable to have an agricultural occupancy condition on the property and suggests that in the past money earned from tenancy income has been used to improve the site. He does not accept that the development will affect the wildlife visiting properties in the vicinity and wishes to use a fast track SIPS method of constructing the dwelling. ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issue here is whether there is sufficient agricultural need for the dwelling to override the general presumption against development in this area; whether the development would have any adverse impact on the character of the area, as one identified as of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance and having regard to the draft Landscape Character Appraisal guidance that "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" are important elements of this character. Finally it is relevant to consider whether the proposal would conform to the general principles of development as set out in Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10 and General Policy 2, particularly whether the proposal can be safely accessed, whether it would have any adverse impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent property, whether the proposal is appropriately designed. Agricultural need 6.2 This can be assessed either in terms of the particulars of the application site, or the personalities involved, or both. The applicant's case is that it would be useful in terms of animal husbandry to have the tenant farmer living on the site to provide security for the animals and his equipment and vehicles. Whilst this may well be the case, this does not represent need. It is also confused by the fact that it would appear that none of the other parcels of land that the tenant farmer manages, has a dwelling on it and even if they did, he cannot live in more than one dwelling at any one time. Whilst the applicant's agent states categorically that "to ensure adequate monitoring, farmers need to live on site", in this case, as the farm business is spread over a number of areas, this is not physically possible and adherence to such a suggestion would result in a farm dwelling being on every parcel of land which is owned and managed for agricultural purposes. Security of farmland can be achieved by a variety of ways - the on-site presence of others (in this case it could be argued that the occupants of Ballamenaugh Farm House could provide this and indeed, it is suggested by the tenant that this is already the case), the installation of security cameras or other equipment
13
and it must also be asked why now an on-site presence is needed when a dwelling in this location has not previously been here in recent times. 6.3 It must also be taken into account that leased land may change hands and given that the tenancy agreement appears to be less than a calendar year, there is very little security that the current situation will continue into the future. Indeed, the tenant has indicated that neither he nor the owner wishes to have a longer tenancy and in any case, there is a notice period which could reduce the tenancy to half - effectively 6 months. This is particularly worrying in terms of establishing agricultural need. What may happen then is that the current tenant farmer chooses not to renew the agreement, or that it is not available to him, and the next tenant does not need a dwelling because they have a dwelling elsewhere, or manage the land in a way which does not require an on-site presence. It would be difficult to argue that a holding of no more than 70 acres necessitates a dwelling on site sufficient to prevent any agricultural occupancy condition being removed in the future, particularly when two dwellings have been associated with this land in the past and it would appear that neither is occupied by anyone with an active involvement with the running of the farm. 6.4 In terms of the agricultural need of the tenant farmer, he is clearly not employed full time in agriculture and as such, even if a dwelling were approved, it would be difficult to attach an agricultural worker's occupancy condition in the knowledge that it would be breached on first occupation. What would be produced is a new dwelling in the countryside, completely contrary to policy. 6.5 Whilst the applicant's agent has produced a labour calculation, this applies to the tenant's business as a whole and if this is to be relied upon, the whole amount of land needs to be considered, not just the application site. It is certainly the case that the majority of the farm buildings are elsewhere and that there is a farm dwelling elsewhere. Whilst it is not accepted that there is agricultural need for the tenant farmer to have a dwelling, if it were, it would appear that the optimal location is not here where there are limited buildings and where it is unlikely that the majority of the calving or lambing would take place due to the lack of buildings. Even if the labour calculation supports a full time post (even the estimated calculation for the application site was less than one), this does not mean that the worker needs to live on site if there are other means of providing supervision and the responsibilities required for the management of the land (see paragraph 6.2 above). There are no dwellings on the other parcels of land managed by the tenant and no applications being made for them. It is clearly not essential to have a dwelling on every piece of land that the applicant manages and even if it were, he could not live in all of them at once. 6.6 It is not considered that the justification for the proposed dwelling is sufficient to represent agricultural need which would satisfy General Policy 3, Environment Policy 15 or Housing Policy 7. Landscape impact 6.7 The landscape is protected against all but warranted development as set out in General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 2 with the latter two emphasising the importance of the protection of the countryside for its own sake and safeguarding the visual character of the area, this supported further by the Landscape Character Appraisal. The property is single storey which will reduce its impact in the landscape. It will, nevertheless be a new development of two buildings 6.5m in height, located where there are currently no significant buildings. The impact of the buildings will be heightened by the introduction of a new access way straight to the buildings. Environment Policy 15 and Housing Policy 9 provide advice which is intended to reduce the landscape impact of new agricultural development. Both suggest that new buildings should be within or immediately adjoining the main group of farm buildings or a group of farm buildings associated with that farm, as close as is practically
14
possible to existing building groups as well as being well set back from any public highway, and it is approached via the existing farm access. The proposed development only accords with the requirement to be well set back from any public highway but in landscape terms, the benefit of that is reduced by the proposed driveway which both creates a visual impact that isn't currently there as well as drawing more attention to the buildings. Whilst there may well have once been a dwelling in this location, the impact of that within the landscape has long since disappeared (the building that has resulted from the rescue of the remains of that building does not look like a dwelling) and this is not accepted as a reason for allowing a dwelling here now. 6.8 The siting and resulting impact of the buildings and driveway would not comply with the provisions of Environment Policies 1, 2 and 15 and Housing Policy 9. 6.9 Housing Policy 10 also requires that new agricultural dwellings are designed as traditional Manx cottage in accordance with Planning Circular 3.91. This mainly describes two storey dwellings but includes reference to "smaller volumes can also be accommodated by the use of single storey forms. The width should be similar to the two storey basic double cube whilst the length can be much more variable" (page 4). What is proposed exceeds the recommended width of 5.5m (it is 8.5m) but retains a rectangular plan and simple form as recommended in Policy 3 of this document. The garage is of a similar width but square in plan but the Circular does not prescribe the form or appearance of outbuildings other than stating "outbuildings and detached garages should be given as much consideration in their appearance as main buildings. They should match the main structure by the use of similar external materials and building form as and be directly linked if possible, to any external boundary walls" (page 9). It is therefore considered that the design of the dwelling and garage is not objectionable. 6.10 In terms of impact on those in adjacent property, there would be limited impact due to the position of the development some distance (minimum of 100m to all but Lowfield and Ballamenaugh Farmhouse which are 94m and 99m away respectively). Whilst the proposed access will formalise a vehicular entry and exit to and from the field, close to Ballamenaugh House, this property is close to the existing highway and given the existing trees between the proposed lane and the house, and the fact that there is currently a gate here which provides access into the field, it is not considered that the proposed development will have an adverse impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent property. CONCLUSION 7.1 It is not considered that there is sufficient agricultural need for the proposed dwelling to overcome the presumption against development as set out in General Policy 3, Environment Policies 1 and 2 and 17 and Housing Policy 7. In addition, the siting and the introduction of the new access would have an adverse impact on the character of this part of the countryside, contrary to Environment Policies 1, 2 and 15 and Housing Policy 9. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
15
8.2 The decision-maker must determine: * whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and * whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.
16
PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 12th March 2018
Item 2 Proposal : Conversion of redundant barn in to new dwelling, including
demolition of attached steel framed barn, reinstatement of barn unit in part of field 424807 and associated works to existing access, new driveway and garden areas, and new access in to field off new drive area
Site Address : Barn At Ballanorris Castletown Road Ballabeg Castletown Isle Of Man
Applicant : Mr & Mrs Tom Austin Application No. : Case Officer :
17/01323/B- click to view Miss S E Corlett
RECOMMENDATION: To APPROVE the application
______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the conditions C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. Prior to the erection of the new agricultural building hereby approved, the colour of the sheeting must be approved in writing by the Department and the development must be undertaken in accordance with these details. Reason: to ensure that the new building has an appropriate visual impact on the countryside. C 3. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwellings, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species. Reason: The landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme and must be implemented as approved. N 1. No approval is hereby approved to the removal of any fabric other than where new apertures on the east and southern elevations are proposed.
___________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
Planning Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSALS THE SITE 1.1 The site is two parcels of land which both lie on the eastern side of the A28 Castletown Road which links Ballabeg and the A7 with the A5 coast road at Ballakaighen. This road is part of the Southern 100 motorcycle and sidecar course. One parcel lies at the southern edge of a group of farm buildings, mostly old, stone buildings, and contained and existing two storey stone building with a smaller stone building to the north alongside the road, and a more modern building which is attached to the southern elevation. The second parcel lies at the northern edge of the same farm group and is a rectangle with a frontage to the highway of 15m and a depth of 70m. 1.2 The rest of the farm group comprises two storey stone buildings and some single storey, mostly with their ridges running at right angles to the road. One modern building sits at the northern end of the group and is a double pitched open sided structure which is formed by metal stanchions and corrugated sheeting to the roof and upper parts of the sides. 1.3 At the time of the site visit in July, 2017, the modern building was half full of round bales of hay. The stone buildings were either empty, or contained domestic and maintenance materials. The modern barn at the southern end of the group was used for the storage of a couple of tractors. 1.4 Access into the site is from a field gate to the south of the group. There is also an access between two of the existing stone barns in the middle of the group and another in front of the modern building at the northern end of the site. A fourth access leads into the field at the north of the group, the location of a notable retirement in one of the Southern 100 Races in 1979, leading to the entrance being named Joey's Gate. 1.5 On the other side of the road are three dwellings - Sycamores and Sycamores East which are two modern bungalows which face south and sit to the south of Lower Ballanorris, a handsome and old quarterland style farm house which faces the road. These are all currently occupied by persons connected or formerly connected with the operation of the farm. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the conversion of the southernmost stone barn to a dwelling, the removal of the modern building attached to it and the construction of a new barn to the north of the group. 2.2 Access to the converted barn will be as it currently is but with the existing gate post removed to promote better visibility to the north (70m by 2.4m) and a hawthorn tree to the south will be removed to achieve this in this direction (100m by 2.4m). 2.3 On the northern elevation of the stone barn, the existing apertures, external steps and doors will be retained as is with an existing timber structure to be removed. On the western elevation facing the road the existing timber door on the first floor is to be replaced with a single glazed window. 2.4 The greatest changes are to be on the eastern elevation facing into the field and the southern elevation where the existing modern building hides the elevation of the barn. The
18
existing eastern elevation has no openings and what is proposed is the creation of a mostly glazed elevation with vertically proportioned glass elements beneath an angled timber triangle which follows the shape of the roof above. The southern elevation currently has a few, small openings and what is proposed is the creation of two full height large glazed apertures along with two small single square lights at ground floor level. A door is to be introduced into the side of the single storey lean to on the road side of the barn. 2.5 The unit will provide two bedrooms, a hall, lounge and bathroom on the ground floor linking in with a guest lounge and en-suite bathroom in the single storey stone building alongside. Upstairs there is to be the master bedroom, kitchen, dining and family rooms. 2.6 Car parking will be provided to the south of the building with the area partly hard surfaced and the remainder grassed, A new access into the field to the south will be introduced with the main access being shared with agricultural vehicles. 2.7 The new agricultural building is a standard sheeted agricultural building with dimensions of 9.1m by 22m, 4.3m to the eaves and 5.6m to the ridge. The building will be finished in olive green sheeting, or any other colour required by the Department. The building will be positioned parallel with the existing barn but to the north. 2.8 The application includes a report from a Structural Engineer who reports that the building is structurally sound, does not appear to be suffering from any structural defects and other than the treatment or replacement of flooring, the building is suitable for conversion as proposed in the detailed drawings. He recommends the removal of a sycamore tree which is growing very close to the eastern gable of the barn. This is shown as being removed in the proposed plans. In mitigation, the applicant proposes to introduce new trees in the area between the barn and the access, in the form of 3 rowan trees, 3 cherry, 2 holly and 2 crab apple trees. 2.9 The applicant is hoping to consider further conversions of the remaining stone buildings to tourist or residential use. 2.10 The applicant has commissioned a report from the Manx Bat Group, dated 16th February, 2018 which reports that the nature of the building's roof and the lack of suitable crevices on the sunny side precludes the presence of a bat roost and the lack of droppings or other signs leads them to conclude that there are no bats using the building. Should any bat be found during the course of construction the worker should contact the Biodiversity Officer at DEFA for further advice before works continue. PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South (2013) as not for any particular purpose. On the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 the site fell within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. The Area Plan for the South identifies a number of Landscape Character Areas and the site falls within an area of Undulating Lowland Plain where the following guidance is provided: "Poyll Vaaish and Scarlett Peninsula (F8) The overall strategy is to conserve the strong sense of openness throughout the area, with strong field pattern as well as the setting of the numerous archaeological sites and wartime structures within the area. Key Views Open and panoramic views out to sea, up to the Southern Upland peaks over open fields and towards the built-up areas of
19
Castletown and Ballasalla are obtained from various slightly elevated positions within the area, where the cumulative effects of hedgerow trees does not intervene. Foreshortened views in some flatter areas where the accumulated effects of hedgerow trees create a wooded horizon." The implications of the landscape character assessment are: "i. To protect the tranquil, rural character of the area with its open views. ii. Sensitive location of new buildings and the use of screen planting. iii. Avoidance of physical or visual amalgamation of roadside housing. iv. Protection and enhancement of the identity of Ballabeg and Colby by the conservation of the rural character of the adjacent landscape." 3.2 As such, there is a presumption against development as set out in Environment Policies 1 and 2 and General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan. The latter sets out exceptions to this general presumption, including the conversion of existing buildings of architectural, historic or social interest to dwellings and the erection of buildings which are essential for the carrying out of agriculture. 3.3 Further advice is provided within the Strategic Plan on these types of development as follows: Environment Policy 15: "Where the Department is satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building (including a dwelling), sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside, and that the impact of this development including buildings, accesses, servicing etc. is acceptable, such development must be sited as close as is practically possible to existing building groups and be appropriate in terms of scale, materials, colour, siting and form to ensure that all new developments are sympathetic to the landscape and built environment of which they will form a part. Only in exceptional circumstances will buildings be permitted in exposed or isolated areas or close to public highways and in all such cases will be subject to appropriate landscaping. The nature and materials of construction must also be appropriate to the purposes for which it is intended. Where new agricultural buildings are proposed next to or close to existing residential properties, care must be taken to ensure that there is no unacceptable adverse impact through any activity, although it must be borne in mind that many farming activities require buildings which are best sited, in landscape terms, close to existing building groups in the rural landscape." Housing Policy 11: "Conversion of existing rural buildings into dwellings may be permitted, but only where: (a) redundancy for the original use can be established; (b) the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation; (c) the building is of architectural, historic, or social interest; (d) the building is large enough to form a satisfactory dwelling, either as it stands or with modest, subordinate extension which does not affect adversely the character or interest of the building; (e) residential use would not be incompatible with adjoining established uses or, where appropriate, land-use zonings on the area plan; and (f) the building is or can be provided with satisfactory services without unreasonable public expenditure.
20
Such conversion must: (a) where practicable and desirable, re-establish the original appearance of the building; and (b) use the same materials as those in the existing building. Permission will not be given for the rebuilding of ruins or the erection of replacement buildings of similar, or even identical, form. Further extension of converted rural buildings will not usually be permitted, since this would lead to loss or reduction of the original interest and character." PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The modern building attached to the stone barn was approved under 86/00177/B. This is the only application associated with the site. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services comment "The application is for the conversion of a redundant barn into a new dwelling including a new driveway. A number of supporting documents were supplied with the application including the drawing "Visibility and access Plan" which shows that visibility splays of 70m to the right and 100m to the left can be achieved as long as the wall and gate pillar to the right are reduced to below 1050mm in height and the Hawthorn to the left is removed. Accordingly, Highway Services does not oppose this application subject to the following condition: 1. Prior to any construction the visibility splays as shown on the drawing titled "Visibility and access plan" no 1712405 dated Nov 17 shall be facilitated by reducing the wall and pillar height to the right to below 1050mm in height and removing the Hawthorn and vegetation to the left. The visibility splays shall remain unobstructed at a height of 1.05m thereafter. Reason: In the interest of highway safety" (18.08.17). 5.2 Arbory Parish Commissioners have not commented at the time of writing. 5.3 DEFA Senior Biodiversity Officer recommends a survey to ascertain whether there are any bat roosts in the existing buildings and if so, then a method statement of how they would be dealt with, protecting the bats which are protected under the Wildlife Act 1990 (12.01.18). 5.4 DEFA Assistant Arboricultural Officer, Forestry, Amenity and Lands Directorate seeks clarification of the existing and proposed trees (08.01.18). ASSESSMENT Conversion of the barn to a dwelling 6.1 Whilst the site is not designated for development, the Strategic Plan clearly acknowledges that it can be acceptable, and often beneficial to find new uses for older, interesting buildings rather than their falling into disrepair and ultimately falling down. In this case, the building, and indeed the group are not only interesting due to their traditional architecture and arrangement, but they are also attractive and old, and also part of a group on a well-known race circuit which is often photographed and publicised internationally as well as being well known within the Island, thus being of historic, architectural and social interest, although the policy only requires that the building is one of these. 6.2 The stone buildings are clearly redundant for their original agricultural purposes as they are not used for agricultural purposes and are used for the storage of miscellaneous items (see 1.3 above). The stone building to be converted is currently half hidden behind a more modern sheeted building which hides its interest from public view. Its removal would be welcome although it is clearly used for agricultural purposes (tractor storage). Its replacement therefore is accepted as being necessary for the operation of the holding.
21
6.3 The works to the stone barn on two elevations are restricted to the re-use of existing apertures and are thus not contentious and comply with the requirements of HP11 in respect of retaining the original appearance of the building. The introduction of the large area of glazing on the eastern elevation is not a current feature of the building but will enable the living space to be maximised and for light to be allowed into the building and in a manner which will not be publicly visible. The shape of the glazing and timberwork compliments the shape of the gable and as such is considered acceptable. 6.4 The southern elevation is not currently visible and as such its appearance is not publicly known. Large apertures are often found on the ground floors of traditional buildings to allow vehicular access and to allow equipment to get into them. The areas of glazing appear as if they are responding to existing large apertures and will allow light and outlook for the occupants of the building. The lack of existing apertures in this elevation, as well as on the northern elevation would likely lead to additional windows and it is considered that what is proposed is as suitable as a greater number of smaller windows and lights, and is acceptable. 6.5 The loss of the sycamore is more than compensated for by the introduction of additional planting and the applicant is happy to take the appropriate action before and during works to protect any bats found on site. Erection of new agricultural building 6.6 The siting of the new replacement building is close to the other modern buildings and whilst in an area where there are currently no buildings, will look as if it is part of the existing farm group, a similar distance away from the road and using an existing access. The use of dark green sheeting will help minimise this impact and may also reduce the impact of the existing modern building. CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposal is considered to accord with GP3, EPs 1 and 2, HP11 and EP15 and is recommended for approval. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 The decision-maker must determine: * whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and * whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. 8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
22
PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 12th March 2018
Item 3 Proposal : Erection of stable to replace existing building and formation of
equestrian manege Site Address : Bluebell House Braaid Farm
Braaid Road Braaid Isle Of Man IM4 2AW
Applicant : Nicholas & Patricia Wait Application No. : Case Officer :
18/00015/B- click to view Miss S E Corlett
RECOMMENDATION: To APPROVE the application
______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the conditions C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. The building hereby approved may be used only for the shelter and care of horses owned or managed in association with the occupation of Bluebell House as shown in the submitted plans, and for storage of feed and equipment incidental to this. Reason: to manage the traffic generated by the proposal and to ensure that the development is appropriate for this rural location. C 3. Prior to any demolition or alteration of the existing barn, a survey must be submitted to and approved by the Department, for bats and nesting birds, to ensure that the building is not accommodating either as damage to such is an offence under the Wildlife Act 1990. The survey must also include mitigation and a method statement for dealing with any protected species and the development must be undertaken in accordance with these details. Reason: to accord with the Wildlife Act 1990 and Environment Policy 4.
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS OBJECTED TO THE APPLICATION AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL THE SITE 1.1 The site is part of the curtilage of Braaid Farm which lies on the eastern side of the A26, to the north of the Braaid crossroads. The site accommodates the dwelling, now called Bluebell House which has a stone barn attached to it, separating the house from the highway, along with a garage which sits to the south west of the house and barn and a small stone barn to the north east. 1.2 The site is visible from immediately alongside on the A26 as well as from the higher perspective from the A24 to the south east from where the site is one of a number of properties with buildings as well as open agricultural land alongside. In the wider landscape the site is not particularly prominent or noticeable. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the demolition of the stone barn to the north of the house and its replacement by a stable which is L shaped and partly on the footprint of the existing building. The elevation facing the road will be stone faced and unlike the existing which has a single ridge running parallel with the road, this will have a ridge running at right angles and with a smaller section running into this with a ridge running parallel with the road. The stable will accommodate two loose boxes and a hay store with an internal walkway and tack room. The elevations facing into the site will be finished in timber cladding. 2.2 Also proposed to the north east of the proposed stable, is an outdoor exercise area or manege. This will be 40m long with the length running parallel with the road, and a width of 20m. The ground will be levelled with some excavation on the inward side. A 1.4m high fence will be introduced around the manege. The surface of the manege will be finished in brown coloured chips (either rubber or timber). 2.3 The facilities are intended for the applicant's horse which is presently kept elsewhere. PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as not for a particular purpose and outwith any area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. General Policy 3 sets out where exceptions may be made to the general presumption against development in such areas and despite not being one of the exceptions in General Policy 3 to the presumption against development in the countryside, as set out in Environment Policies 1 and 2, the Strategic Plan contains the following advice that is relevant to the development of stabling: Environment Policy 19: "Development of equestrian activities and buildings will only be accepted in the countryside where there will be as a result of such development no loss in local amenity, no loss of high quality agricultural land (Classes 1 and 2) and where the local highway network can satisfactorily accommodate any increase in traffic (see Environment Policy 14 for interpretation of Class 1 and 2)." Environment Policy 20: "There will be a presumption against large scale equestrian developments, which includes new buildings and external arenas, in areas with High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance unless there are exceptional circumstances to override such a policy." Environment Policy 21: "Buildings for the stabling, shelter or care of horses or other animals will not be permitted in the countryside if they would be detrimental to the character and
24
appearance of the countryside in terms of siting, design, size or finish. Any new buildings must be designed in form and materials to reflect their specific purpose; in particular, cavity-wall construction should not be used." Environment Policy 4 makes provision for ecological protection of important species and habitats. REPRESENTATIONS 4.1 Marown Parish Commissioners indicate that they have no concern about the stable but object to the manege on the basis that the site of it is immediately adjacent to the highway and is a poor location for it, in addition to changing the landscape. They are concerned that there is what they consider to be a profusion of maneges in the vicinity despite a presumption against equestrian developments in the countryside. They also suggest that the site lies within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance or as close to one as makes no real difference. If the application is approved they recommend a condition to require that it is for private use only (18.01.18). Following the submission of further information regarding the surface of the manege, the Commissioners confirm their objection, considering that the surface materials have no relevance to their concern about the size and location of the proposal (22.02.18). 4.2 Highway Services raise no objection, noting, "The application has a previously approved planning application (reference no. 17/00770/B) for improvements to the property including an extension and new entrance gates to both the drive and the rear yard. For the current application, the proposed stable would replace an existing building that is to be demolished enabling the applicants to keep their horse on the site rather than elsewhere as at present. The applicant has confirmed that there would be no changes to the site access arrangements or existing site parking provision as a result of the development. There should be no highway issues provided that the proposed use of the stable and menage is for the sole use of the applicants and not for any commercial purposes. Commercial use could significantly increase the number of vehicle movements and site parking demand generated by the site which has not been assessed as part of this development. In view of the above, Highway Services do not oppose this application subject to the following condition: The stable and menage shall be used only for private and domestic purposes and no trade or business use shall be carried out therefrom. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and amenity." (19.01.18) 4.3 DEFA Senior Biodiversity Officer notes that the building has potential for accommodating bats and birds and prior to the demolition or alteration, a survey for bat and bird use should be undertaken as bats are protected all year long and birds and their nests, whilst nesting. Mitigation and the provision of nesting opportunities in the new building (01.02.18). PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The site has been the subject of recent applications for alteration and extension of the house (92/00003/B, 16/00262/B and 17/00770/B. ASSESSMENT 6.1 Whilst the Commissioners suggest that there is a presumption against equestrian developments in the countryside and that the site is within or as close to an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance as makes no difference, the policies actually make provision for the development of equestrian activities in a way that is different to other
25
restrictive policies in the Strategic Plan. For example, the policies dealing with agricultural development use phrases such as "Where the Department is satisfied that there is agricultural need for a new building sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside…" and "Only in exceptional circumstances will buildings be permitted in exposed or isolated areas or close to public highways…", "buildings which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry". 6.2 By contrast, the equestrian policies contain phrases such as "Development…will only be accepted" (implying that they will be accepted subject to certain provisions) and "buildings will not be permitted if…". The reference to the presumption against large scale developments is not relevant here as firstly, the development is not of a large scale and secondly, the site is not within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. Whether it is close is not relevant: the policy clearly states that this will apply IN areas of such landscape value and that is not the case here. 6.3 It is agreed that the stable is not unacceptable: it is modest and appropriate in construction and scale to its intended purpose and will sit where there is an existing building of similar scale, finish and appearance. 6.4 The issue is with the proposed manege. This will be seen as the facility will be close to the road but it will have a limited impact as viewed from the A26 as it will be screened by existing hedges and trees. From the A24 the manege will be visible although its brown surface colour is likely to help it blend with its surroundings. 6.5 The potential for damage or harm to bats and birds can be dealt with by a suspensive condition which prevents any demolition before a survey for bats and nesting birds has been undertaken which should also include mitigation should bats or nesting birds be found to be present. CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposal is considered to accord with EPs 1, 19, 20 and 21 and need not be contrary to EP4 subject to appropriate conditions and is supported. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 The decision-maker must determine: * whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and * whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. 8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
26
27
PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 12th March 2018
Item 4 Proposal : Change of use of part of field 135010 to campsite from 1st
May to 30th September annually, and installation of two hook up points (retrospective)
Site Address : Ballakillingan Farm Churchtown Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 2AL
Applicant : Julian John Edwards Application No. : Case Officer :
18/00010/B- click to view Mr Chris Balmer
RECOMMENDATION: To APPROVE the application
______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the conditions C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. The field may be used as a camp site only between 1st May and 30th September in any year. Reason: the application has been considered solely on the time periods proposed by the applicants and in the interest of the visual amenities of the countryside.
Planning Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE SITE IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR DEVELOPMENT AND AS SUCH THE PROPOSAL IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT RECOMMENDED FOR AN APPROVAL 1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is part of a farm holding situated on the northern side of the A3 TT Course immediately alongside the Sulby River. Ballakillingan, the principal holding contains a main,
large dwelling which is accessed separately from the farm buildings. The access leads down a narrow lane to a complex of modern and older stone outbuildings with a clear way through to the open agricultural land to the north which extends beyond the river. 1.2 There is a public footpath which runs through the site - down the access from the TT course towards the farm complex before turning west and heading up towards the river where there is a pedestrian bridge over the river to more of the applicant's farmland and to the Garey Road and to the A13 Jurby Road to the north west. 1.3 The land is relatively flat until the farm buildings where the land slopes downward to the fields. The site is approximately 11 acres in size (4.6 ha). 1.4 The site is part of field (135010) immediately to the southwest of the farm complex which is located to the western side of the farm lane. 1.5 The overall farm complex also accommodated Silly Moos Campsite which has been in operation since its approval in 2012. 2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the change of use of part of field 135010 to campsite from 1st May to 30th September annually and installation of two hook up points (retrospective). 3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance and close to an area of Woodland (south of field 135010) on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982. 3.2 As such Environment Policies 1 and 2 are applicable in this case along with General Policy 3: 3.3 Environment Policy 1 states: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative." 3.4 Environment Policy 2 states: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape of 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 difference 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." 3.5 General Policy 3 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)
29
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-dependant 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". 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The following previous planning application is considered relevant in the determination of this application: 4.2 Creation of a campsite and alteration to entrance driveway - 11/01595/B - APPROVED 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Lezayre Parish Commissioners do not oppose the application (02.02.2018). 5.2 DOI Highways Services initially (23.01.2018) raised a number of questions in relation to the width of the farm lane and whether it would result in vehicles entering the site to stop and wait on the highway while a vehicle exits the site. However, following discussion with the applicants who advises a number of alterations where made when the site gain approved for a camp site, they have made the following comments: "24.01.2018 - : Following the previous highway response dated 23rd January 2018, the applicant has provided additional information and Highway Services have undertaken a site visit. It is noted that the site access junction onto the A3 Lezayre Road has already been improved and there are passing places on the main farm drive which can accommodated two-way traffic. Site access arrangements and highway visibility are therefore considered to be acceptable and adequate to accommodate the traffic generated by the site. Highway Services does not oppose this application." 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The site is not designated for development and as such, the proposal would be contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan. It is also relevant that camping facilities are generally on land which is not designated for development and there are no sites which are designated for camp sites or tourism where a camp site could be accommodated. Glen Wyllin for example is within an area designated as Forestry Board Glen, Glen Lough in Marown is on land designated as Open Space and High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance and the only camp site on the Island which is on land designated for camping is at Peel within the town boundary. 6.2 In terms of the physical development, i.e. the two electric power points, will have little, to no impact upon the countryside given their size and position. Arguable the main visual impact would be the use of the site as a campsite and potential parking of two camper/caravans etc on the site. The applicants advise that the cost of providing power points to the main camp site (north of farm complex) is prohibitively expensive (£40,000).
30
They also comment that the size of the field proposed to be used was of limited use to the farming business. The field is also immediately adjacent to the main farm complex (closer than the main campsite) which accommodates toilet/shower facilities, wet weather barn and a wet weather building (games). 6.3 From a visual perspective, from the Lezayre Road to the south of the site, the site between the months of 1st May to 30th September would be well screened from public views given the amount of mature trees/landscaping between the site and the Lezayre Road. Outside these months the site will not be used for camping purposes. While some public views maybe achievable via the public footpath which runs to the west of the site; it is not considered the impacts would be so great to warrant a refusal. 6.4 The application is finely balanced. Whilst the site is not designated for development, there are no sites so designated and existing camp sites are on sites which are on agricultural land/open space, some in areas of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. The site is alongside a public footpath but this is generally well screened and the footpath passes close to the farmyard before passing alongside the field to the river crossing further to the north. The field is also immediately adjacent to the main farm complex (barns etc) and due to this and the surrounding landscape, does not appear to be in an isolated position nor are there open views of the site. The fact the site also has approval to operate as a campsite and that ancillary facilities can be/are located within existing buildings, rather than requiring new buildings, is of benefit for this site. Accordingly, given the site being well screened from surrounding public views and as it would only operate between May and September (same as rest of campsite) it is considered the proposal is acceptable. 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Given the planning history of the site which has established a campsite, the limited visual impacts and for the other reasons indicated within this report; it is concluded the application is acceptable and as such the application is recommended for approval. 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.
31
PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 12th March 2018
Item 5 Proposal : Erection of a temporary building to be used as a bar and
hospitality facility during the TT and Festival of Motoring periods
Site Address : Part Of Playing Fields Nobles Park Douglas Isle Of Man
Applicant : Department For Enterprise Application No. : Case Officer :
18/00104/B- click to view Mr Chris Balmer
RECOMMENDATION: To APPROVE the application
______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the conditions C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. In any given calendar year, the temporary building/s hereby approved on this site shall not be in situ more than 14 days before the first day of practice week for the TT and the Festival of Motorcycling or more than 14 days after the last race day of the TT and the Festival of Motorcycling. The site shall be restored to its former condition within 14 days of the temporary building/s being removed after each event. For the avoidance of doubt no approval is granted for the retention of the temporary building/s between any of the racing events. Reason: The application has been approved as an exception to the Development Plan on the basis of need for the TT and Festival of Motorcycling events only. C 3. The hours that live music/amplified can be operated should be limited to between 1000hrs and 2300hrs and any other music till 0000hrs midnight. Reason: in the interests of residential amenities of local residents. C 4. No tree shown as being retained on drawing G2TP-21218 shall be cut down, uprooted, or wilfully destroyed during the development phase. The protection measures and construction methods detailed in the Tree Survey and Report prepared by Manx Roots Tree Management Limited submitted 28th February 2018 in support of the application shall be adhered to in full including the , subject to the pre-arranged supervision detailed in appendix 1 by a suitably qualified and pre-appointed tree specialist for each racing event (i.e. TT & Festival of Motorcycling). This condition may only be fully discharged on completion of each racing event subject to satisfactory written evidence of contemporaneous supervision and monitoring of
the tree protection throughout a racing event by a suitably qualified and pre-appointed tree specialist. Reason: To safeguard the areas to be landscaped and the existing trees and planting to be retained within the site.
Planning Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE BECAUSE THE PROPOSAL COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT RECOMMENDED FOR AN APPROVAL 1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is located at Nobles Park, Douglas. It is situated just to the south side of Glencrutchery Road to the west of the TT Grandstand. The site forms part of the northern side of the playing fields and is relatively flat. It is bounded by Glencrutchery Road on its north side, although two mature can be found within the application site. To the east, the site boundary adjoins the site where the hospitality facility for the TT and Festival of Motorcycling is sited on a temporary basis during between May and September each year. Just to the south of the site is the location of the Snoozebox temporary hotel, which was approved for a permanent feature for all future TT events (13/91530/B). Further to the south is the Nobles Park sports centre and cafe. The application site is accessed from the north from an existing vehicular access onto the Glencrutchery Road. 1.2 To the opposite side of Glencrutchery Road to the north is the cemetery. The nearest houses to the site are on Mountain View, to the north side of Glencrutchery Road, approximately 110 metres from the edge of the site to the west. 2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks planning approval for the erection of a temporary building to be used as a bar and hospitality facility during the TT and Festival of Motoring (IOMFOM) periods. 2.2 The pub is made out of a total of four shipping containers linked together to forms two bars at ground floor level and a bar/VIP area at first floor. An additional container would be sited to the east of the main pub building which would be a refrigerator unit, while a smaller container with one side open, would be sited to the south which would accommodate live music acts (amplified music). It is also proposed to have a covering projecting from the southern elevation of the main pub in a southerly direction approx 12m and a width of 16m. 2.3 The application states that the marquee would take two weeks to erect and one week to dismantle. The applicants have agreed a handover of the site from 12th May from DBC and they must have it down a week after the last race. The applicants have also confirmed that the pub would be erected for TT then taken down after TT. The pub would then be put back up for the Festival of Motorcycling.
33
2.4 Once erected, in terms of operating the pub during the racing periods the applicants have indicated that preparation of the pub will need to begin at 08:30, and then the facility would be open to guests in accordance with the license terms which are anticipated to be from 1200hrs midday to 0000hrs midnight. It is proposed the pub would require a total of 40 staff. 2.5 The toilets planned are just off site as a set of ACE Hire provided multi units. There are also the permanent toilets on site just next to the grandstand and the other portacabin style toilets next to the previous beer tent. Additionally, and for the first time at the TT, the applicants have access to the toilets/showers in the Pavilion as a separate agreement with the Douglas Borough Council. 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The following planning applications on neighbouring sites are considered relevant in the determination of this application: 3.2 Erection of a hospitality facility for the TT and Festival of Motorcycling, including use for additional events, as detailed in the agent's email of 11th February 2014 - 14/00170/B - APPROVED 3.3 Erection of a temporary 240 bed hotel and marquee for a two week period (Practice and TT Race weeks) on a permanent basis - 13/91530/B - APPROVED 4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The Douglas Local Plan 1998 identifies the area as being Open Space or Woodland - Public Open Space. The site is not within a Conservation Area. 4.2 The following policies in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 are considered relevant: 4.3 Whilst General Policy 2 does not strictly apply, the principles contained within it are general planning principles that ensure good development, and in this regard are relevant: 'Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
34
(m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.' 4.4 Environment Policy 3 states: "Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value." 4.5 Environment Policy 22 states: 'Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of: i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater; ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution.' 4.6 Recreation Policy 2 states: 'Development which would adversely affect, or result in the loss of Open Space or a recreation facility that is or has the potential to be, of recreational or amenity value to the community will not be permitted except in the following circumstances: (a) where alternative provision of equivalent community benefit and of equivalent or better accessibility is made available; and (b) where there would be an overall community gain from the development, and the particular loss of the open space or recreation facility would have no significant unacceptable effect on local open space or recreation provision or on the character or amenity of the area.' 4.7 Transport Policy 7 states: 'The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards.' 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Douglas Borough Council have no objection - but request two conditions be placed - two mature trees be protected by tree preservation orders and drainage of soil be tested and fixed if not suitable (05.03.2018). 5.2 Highways Division make the following comments (02.03.2018): "The proposal is to construct a temporary structure to use as a bar and hospitality facility during motoring events. There are already food, retail and entertainment uses at the site during these events and it is therefore anticipated that the proposed development should not generate any additional vehicles trips to the site or create further parking demand. There is already car parking available on the site for these events. The application states that servicing requirements for the proposed bar would be as per the existing traffic management arrangements in place during these events for the other uses on the site, with access being provided from Glencrutchery Road. Highway Services does not oppose this application." 5.3 Arboricultural Officer (DEFA) initially sought additional information which has now been provided by the applicants. Accordingly, the Officer makes the following comments: "Yes, the amended/additional report addresses my concerns. Arboricultural supervision during site setup and takedown will be key to the success of the protection measures because there are still some unknowns (i.e. services). Exactly how these aspects will be dealt with will require some creative problem solving and having the input of the project arboriculturist during this time will ensure that the interests of the trees are borne in mind. I recommend you consider applying the following condition:
35
No tree shown as being retained on drawing G2TP-21218 shall be cut down, uprooted, or wilfully destroyed during the development phase. The protection measures and construction methods detailed in the Tree Survey and Report prepared by Manx Roots Tree Management Limited submitted [insert date] in support of the application shall be adhered to in full, subject to the pre-arranged supervision detailed in appendix 1 by a suitably qualified and pre-appointed tree specialist. This condition may only be fully discharged on completion of the development subject to satisfactory written evidence of contemporaneous supervision and monitoring of the tree protection throughout construction by a suitably qualified and pre-appointed tree specialist." 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 In terms of the material planning consideration it is considered the following are relevant in the determination of the application: principle of development; the potential impact upon neighbouring residential amenities; potential impact upon visual amenities of the area; and access and parking. Principle of development 6.2 Firstly, as indicated previously the site is designated as public open space under the Douglas Local Plan, therefore the proposal would not fall within this use. However, it is not considered an automatic reason to refuse the application in this case. 6.3 The applicants (DfE) have advised that the for a number of years they let space in the TT Paddock and Grandstand site for a beer tent as part of its food and beverage offerings at the TT and IOMFOM which local brewery Heron & Brearley (H&B) has operated for several years. The long term agreement came to an end in September 2017 offering an opportunity to consider options for the future. It was considered this previous offering was basic in terms of facilities, product offering and entertainment. It was also acknowledged that the standard at other major sports and entertainment festivals is significantly higher than has been available at the TT and IOMFOM to date. In order to achieve a more satisfactory situation, and provide a better overall TT and IOMFOM visitor experience, the applicants concluded that there was a requirement to move the alcohol provision facility from its traditional location which was considered no longer fit for purposes. It was proposed that a new 1,375m2 space was to be allocated in Nobel's Park, removing issues surrounding overcrowding and providing effective mechanisms for deliveries and servicing. 6.4 The need for the temporary building to be used as a bar and hospitality facility during the TT and Festival of Motorcycling is recognised and it would support the operation of the events and increase their attractiveness for visitors. The proposal would also support 40 temporary jobs and would have a positive economic impact, and this is welcomed. 6.5 Arguably, one of the main issues against the proposal is the loss of a section of the playing fields which will be unavailable for recreation use. However, it is noted, that this area is not part of the formal football pitches or any designated sports pitches. Further the adjacent hospitality facility for the TT and Festival of Motorcycling to the east of the site; which would be in place for longer periods than what is proposed now, would arguably sterilise this section of the park for any real recreational use. There obviously has to be careful consideration when considering each application for this type of development within Nobel Park that such development does not result in the erosion of the public open space. However, the TT and Festival of Motorcycling are very special and unique events with significant cultural and economic importance to the Isle of Man. The pub complex would be required on a temporary basis for each event (around five weeks for each, including setting up and dismantling time) and between the TT and Festival of Motorcycling events the pub complex would be removed from site.
36
6.6 It is felt that a reasonable exception can be made for the loss of public open space during the two motorcycling events, which equates approximate 10 weeks of the year the site being unavailable as public open space. Indeed, the recreational use of this land will already be significantly disrupted by the events themselves during this time. Having regard to these considerations, it is felt that the provision of the pub complex for events in connection with the TT and Festival of Motorcycling is acceptable in principle. Whether the proposal is ultimately acceptable overall should depend upon the consideration of the following planning impacts. The potential impact upon neighbouring residential amenities 6.7 The nearest residential neighbours are on Mountain View, located to the north side of Glencrutchery Road, approximately 110+ metres to the west. 6.8 Previously The Environmental Health Officer (DEFA) for the adjacent hospitality facility has provided interim comments, noting that no environmental impact issues arose and that it is unlikely that this aspect of the proposal will result in a statutory nuisance. Public entertainment / loud amplified music might be acceptable if before 2300hrs for occasional events in accordance with Code of Practice on Environmental Noise Control at Concerts. Advice has now been sought from the Environmental Health Officer's, but formal comments on the application are awaited and these will hopefully be reported to the Planning Committee. 6.9 Clearly, the proposal will increase the potential for impact upon neighbouring residential amenities, compared to the existing use (field). However, it is acknowledged that there is already likely to be more of an impact due to the other facilities connected with the TT and IOMFOM events, which have been in place for many years and are also nearby to residential properties. It is considered a condition could be attached which limits the hours that amplified music can be operated. The adjacent hospitality facility has a condition attached which limits amplified music to between 0930hrs and 2300hrs. It is noted that at the time of the consideration of this facility the officer commented that there was no loud amplified music within the hospitality facility, only public address system which was used to interview celebrities at the VIP events. 6.10 The applicants have provided further update since the submission of the application, where they have indicated: "On 22nd Feb the Licensing court approved provision for music from 10am to 11pm and background music till 12 midnight. The reasoning for the gradual reduction in noise was for a planned gradual wind down which helps with personnel dispersing from the site." 6.11 The formal comments of the Environmental Health Officer are awaited and these will be an important consideration in finalising how the planning conditions are to be framed. As a precautionary approach and given what has been approved by the Licensing Court, it is current recommended that amplified music is limited to between 1000hrs and 2300hrs and background music till 12 midnight. The amplified music restriction also falls in line with the adjacent hospitality building (which could have amplified music at the same time as the application site). The effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area 6.12 Nobles Park and the general area changes dramatically during the TT and Festival of Motorcycling events. This area of the park is used for parking and other temporary uses in connection with motorcycling. For example, the land to the immediate south of the site benefits from planning approval for a 240 bed modular hotel during the TT (albeit the firm that operated this has since gone out of business). The proposed marquee would be
37
proportionate with this change in the character of the area and, in the context of other TT related development and paraphernalia, would be visually acceptable. Access and parking 6.13 The proposed pub complex would utilise existing parking found within Nobels Park/Grandstand area. The site is also very close to existing bus routes. Highway Services have considered the scheme and raise no objection. Potential impact upon mature trees 6.14 Along the northern boundary of the site are two mature trees which are required to be protected by the proposed development. A Tree Report has been submitted in respects to this (as well as wider tree protection programme during the racing events, but which are not relevant in the determination of this application). Further, in relation to this site the applicants have provided additional tree protection following discussion with the Arboricultural Officer DEFA. It is considered an appropriately worded condition be attached which requires the development (at each racing event) to accord with the submitted Tree Report and Plan (Drwg Nr G2TP-21218) be attached to any approval, which would be sufficient to ensure the adequate tree protection. 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 For the reasons given it is recommended that the application should be approved subject to the conditions listed. 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 The decision maker must determine:
whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
38
PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 12th March 2018
Item 6 Proposal : Installation of replacement windows to front elevation Site Address : 154 Woodbourne Road
Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 3BD
Applicant : Mr Allan & Mrs Nelly Christian Application No. : Case Officer :
18/00118/B- click to view Mr Chris Balmer
RECOMMENDATION: To APPROVE the application
______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the conditions C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. For the avoidance of doubt windows 4, 5, 6 & 7 as shown on the Specification Sheet provided by Everest are required to have arch heads. Reason: In the interest of the character rand appearance of the Conservation Area.
Planning Officer’s Report THIS PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT RECOMMENDED FOR AN APPROVAL. 1.0 SITE 1.1 The application site relates to 154 Woodbourne Road, Douglas. The existing property is a two storey with accommodation with the roof space, mid terrace dwelling situated to the northern end of Woodbourne Road, near to the junction with Ballaquayle Road. The property sits within a terrace of 12 properties overlooking the playing fields of St. Mary's Primary School. 1.2 The terrace has a generally traditional Victorian appearance, set back from the road with small gardens at the front with bay windows at ground floor, gable peaks, rounded window heads on the upper floors, regular window sizes, decorative mouldings around the
window heads, chimney stacks and pots and ornate ironwork railings on the boundary wall. The terrace sits within the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area. All but two of the properties in the terrace (including application site) have uPVC casement windows installed. The application site and the neighbouring property Nr 156 are the only properties with their original timber sliding sash windows still in place. 2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the replacement of all 7 windows in the front elevation. The replacement would see the use of white Upvc casement windows (50/50 split) including curved and rounded heads within the existing apertures. The opening method would see the bottom half of the window being hinged at the top. The central window on the bay window would be fixed. 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The following planning application associated with the site is considered relevant in the determination of this application: 3.2 Installation of timber sash windows to front elevation and uPVC casement and sash windows to rear elevation to replace existing - 05/01978/B - APPROVED 3.3 The following planning applications on neighbouring properties are also considered relevant: 3.4 Installation of replacement windows to front elevation - 152 Woodbourne Road, Douglas - 16/00613/B - APPROVED at Appeal following the Department initially refusing the application on the following grounds. "R 1. As the method of opening of the proposed windows would not replicate the method of opening of the original windows, the proposal fails to accord with the provisions of Planning Circular 1/98 - The Alteration and Replacement of Windows. Furthermore, the proposed windows do not either preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the existing building and Conservation Area, as such the proposal fails to accord with the provisions of Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007." 3.5 Replace existing windows with uPVC casement double glazed units - 146 Woodbourne Road - 04/02129/B - APPROVED (loss of sliding sash windows) 3.6 Installation of uPVC casement windows to replace existing - 140 Woodbourne Road - APPROVED - 01/00795/B 3.7 Installation of uPVC windows to replace existing to front elevation - 01/02283/B - APPROVED 3.8 Installation of uPVC windows to replace existing - 144 Woodbourne Road - 99/01091/B - SPLIT DECISION uPVC casement windows to the front were refused, but approved to the rear. 3.9 Installation of replacement uPVC windows - 136 Woodbourne Road - 99/01430/B - REFUSED 3.10 Replacement uPVC windows, 142, Woodbourne Road, Douglas - 96/00508/B - APPROVED 3.11 Replacement of existing with PVC window - 150 Woodbourne Road, Douglas - 94/01426/B - APPROVED
40
4.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site lies within an area zoned as "Predominantly Residential Use" identified on the Douglas Local Plan 1998 and is within the Ballaquayle Road Conservation Area. 4.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains one policy which is considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application - 4.3 Environment Policy 35 states: "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development." 4.4 In terms of Planning Circular 1/98: The Alteration and Replacement of Windows sets down the policies in respect of the alteration or replacement of windows. (Part 6 Category b) Buildings in Conservation Areas states: "If the original windows are in place they should preferably be repaired. If repair is impracticable, replacement windows which would be readily visible from a public thoroughfare MUST HAVE THE SAME method of opening as the originals. Whatever the material used in their construction, the windows MUST HAVE THE SAME pattern and section of glazing bars and the same frame sections as the original windows" Windows not readily visible from a public thoroughfare must have the same or similar pattern of glazing bars as the original method of opening, whatever the material used in the construction." 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 No representation received at the time of writing this report. The publicity expires on the 09.03.18 and any representations received after the agenda will be verbally reported to the Planning Committee. 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are whether the windows preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Douglas (Ballaquayle Road) Conservation Area. It is pertinent to consider this application against Environment Policy 35 and Planning Circular 1/98. 6.2 The Planning Authority has a duty to determine whether such proposals are in keeping with not only the individual building, but the special character and quality of the area as a whole. With this in mind it is very relevant to consider Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (adopted 2016). This policy indicates that development within Conservation Areas will only be permitted if they would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development. 6.3 The alterations to the front elevation are the most important, being the elevation which is most publically viewable. The existing timber window frames and door frames are proposed to be replaced with uPVC casement (except 1 widow with is non opening). Accordingly, in the majority of cases, such proposal would be refused as the works would nether preserve nor enhance as uPVC casement windows are generally have thick frames compared to the thinner sliding sash frames. The method of opening when open also detracts from the original style.
41
6.4 However, in this case there are perhaps other material planning considerations to take into account; namely the neighbouring application (16/00613/B) which was approved at appeal and the existing character and appearance of the existing terrace which this site forms part of. 6.5 In relation to the neighbouring (Nr 152) application (16/00613/B), the original windows at first and second floor were timber sliding sash (50/50 split), while the ground floor three bay window where each a single panel of glass (i.e. with no horizontal bar 50/50 split). It was proposed to replace these windows with Upvc top hung casement windows, with a 50/50 split style. The Department refused this application for the reasons indicated within section 3.4 of this report. 6.6 However, the Independent Inspector made the following comments: "At present, the bay window at No 152 Woodbourne Road is conspicuously different from all the other fenestration in the front elevation of this terrace, in that the central transoms (which otherwise unify the appearance of these properties) are missing. I consider that this detracts from the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area. The proposed development would rectify this, by reinstating the missing central transoms. In my view, that would help restore the unified appearance of the terrace, thereby enhancing the character of the Conservation Area. I recognise the importance of Planning Circular 1/98 in seeking to preserve the original fenestration in Conservation Areas; and in requiring that, where the installation of replacement windows is necessary, the original method of opening should be retained. Doubtless when this terrace was built, each of its opening windows would have had a sliding sash mechanism. However, today, fewer than 30% of the opening windows in the front elevation of the terrace have sliding sashes. All the remainder appear to have top-hung uPVC casements. I think it unlikely that sliding sashes will be restored in these properties. I do not know the planning history of the existing replacement windows in this terrace, but I have seen no evidence to suggest that enforcement action has been taken against any breaches of planning control. I can well understand that the Appellant would feel aggrieved at being denied the opportunity to modernise his house in the same way that neighbouring houses have been modernised. The windows now proposed would be similar to those in most of the adjacent houses, contributing positively to the unified design of the properties in this terrace, and the appearance of the Conservation Area. With windows open, the terrace must now look significantly different to the way in which it would have appeared when built in the 1890s. But I do not accept that the installation of top-hung casement windows at the appeal premises would detract from the appearance of this part of Conservation Area, which is already characterised by fenestration of the type proposed. In the circumstances, I consider that the appeal should be allowed; and that planning approval should be granted, subject to the standard condition that the authorised development begin within four years." 6.7 There is an argument to be made that the neighbouring property (Nr 152), while it had sliding sash windows at its upper floors, the single panel windows within the bay window, without a central transom had a detrimental impact and therefore the replacements with a central transoms, albeit uPVC casement, where an enhancement and therefore a sufficient reason to approval the application. However, in the case of the current application that cannot be said, as the existing windows are all timber sliding sash with a central transom. Therefore, purely using this argument, it is considered the current application fails.
42
6.8 What is perhaps the most important aspect to consider is the window type/style of the remainder of the terrace, which is an aspect also mention within the above Inspector's comments. From the site visit to the terrace which the site form part of, it showed that the majority of properties have uPVC casement windows. It was observed properties Nos 138, 140, 142, 144, 146, 148, 150 and 152 on Woodbourne Road have white Upvc casement windows with either top or bottom opening casements, but all with central transoms (i.e. 50/50 split). Accordingly, out of the 12 properties within the terrace, only two have sliding widows, one of which is the application site. 6.9 As outlined by the Inspector; "I think it unlikely that sliding sashes will be restored in these properties.", which is likely with current planning policies as they are. 6.10 There is also a further argument in favour of the proposal, and that being the windows are not the only feature which adds to the main characteristics of the properties ion the Conservation Area. In this case the Victorian Terrace have a number of other features which add to the character and appearance of the street scene, such as; bay windows at ground floor, projecting gable peaks, rounded window heads on the upper floors, regular window sizes, decorative mouldings around the window heads, toothing detailing around the eves of the bay windows, decorative barge boards, red decorative ridge titles, chimney stacks and pots and ornate ironwork railings on the boundary wall. These features and the overall style, proportion and form also give a uniformity of the terrace which still exists today, irrespective of the changes of the majority of the windows. 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Overall, on the basis that 10 out of 12 properties along this terrace have uPVC casement windows installed; but also given the character, appearance and uniformity of the terrace still have other original features still in place; it is considered while the application cannot be argued to preserve or enhance the individual property, the works would have a more unified window design as the majority of the terrace, but also as the main overall character of the terrace would not be significantly affected. It is concluded the works would have a natural impact and therefore recommend the application be approved. 7.2 When making this recommendation, the Department is mindful that such decision could been seen to have an acceptance of allowing perhaps inappropriate development which would neither preserve or enhance the Conservation Area, especially in relation to replacement windows. However, as with all applications, each have to be considered on its own merit and second it is considered the two site specific reasons indicated previously are sufficient to ensure the polices which seek appropriate development in Conservation Areas/replacement window design are not undermined. 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 The decision maker must determine:
whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
43
whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.
