Loading document...
Application No.: 10/01800/A Applicant: Mr Gerard & Mrs Julie MacQuillan Proposal: Approval in principle for erection of a dwelling to replace existing redundant shed Site Address: Agricultural Building Robin Hill Farm Cronk Y Dhooney Ballakilpheric Colby Isle Of Man Considerations Case Officer: Miss S E Corlett Expected Decision Level: Senior Planning Officer Written Representations Sunnyside Cronk Y Doonee Ballakilpheric Colby Objects to the proposal Kensa Ballakilpheric Colby Isle Of Man Interest expressed Consultations Consultee: IOM Water & Sewerage Authority (Water) Notes: no objection subject to the following conditions:- Consultee: Highways Division Notes: Defer Consultee: Rushen Commissioners Notes: no objection in principle Consultee: Manx Electricity Authority Notes: see note 2
Officer's Report THE SITE The site is the residential curtilage of an existing building situated on the eastern side of the road which runs through the scattering of dwellings known as Cronk y Dhooney, to the east of the 15 March 2011 10/01800/A Page 1 of 6
Ballakilpheric Road (B44). The building on the site is a large industrial styled agricultural building which has a footprint of 21 m by 18 m and 6 m in height. The building is constructed from bricks and has a corrugated sheeted roof and various horizontally proportioned windows.
To the north is Rose Cottage, an existing dwelling. To the south of the building is Robin Hill Farm which is owned by the applicants. This site accommodates a farm house, stone outbuildings which have recently been converted to tourist accommodation, stabling, a manege and farmland which extends to the Colby River to the east.
The site includes the footprint of the building and a small hardstanding at the front - approximately 4 m to the front of the building.
The site lies within an area of an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance on the Arbory and East Rushen Local Plan. On the draft Southern Area Plan published in January 2011 the site lies within a wider area of Incised Slopes where the following advice is available: "Incised Slopes - Ballamodha - Landscape Character Area 2 - Ballamodha, Earystane, and St Mark's: This is a fairly resilient landscape which has accommodated incursions of modern built development without severe detriment. However, some of the larger-scale residential developments lack either the topographical setting or the groups of trees which might have mitigated their visual impact."
The draft Planning Policy Statement 2/09 - The Role of Landscape Character in Development states:
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:-
Also, the plan identifies groups of houses and buildings in the countryside including Cronk y Dhooney and where the draft Written Statement states:
"(c) Ballakilpheric/Cronk e Dhooney:
Proposed is the replacement of the existing building with a dwelling. The footprint of the dwelling is 9.5 m by 6 m with a rear conservatory and a small front porch and the dwelling is to be 6.9 m high. The dwelling is traditionally styled in accordance with Planning Circular 3/91.
Parking is shown to the side of the new property. One space is shown, with a generous provision for manoeuvring which could accommodate further vehicles.
As the site is not designated for development, General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 2 are applicable:
General Policy 3: Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10) b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, 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".
In respect of "previously developed land", the following definition is important: Appendix 1: Previously Developed Land "Previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. The definition includes defence buildings, but excludes,
There is no presumption that land that is previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed."
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".
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".
The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority indicate that they have no objection to the application subject to conditions regarding the disposal of foul and surface water. The application proposes to discharge of foul and surface water as required so there is no need for such conditions.
Rushen Parish Commissioners raise no objection to the application and note that the building would be set back further than the existing building which would assist other traffic using this lane.
The owner of Sunnyside which sits to the south of Robin Hill Farm and alongside the public footpath, expresses concern that the area is slowly becoming less rural and approval of this application could represent a precedent for other existing buildings to be redeveloped for housing. She suggests that the building could be useful as an indoor exercise area for the applicant's horses or in future years if the farm were to revert back to accommodating sheep or growing crops, the barn may once again be required. Further dwellings are also likely to lead to more traffic and the blocking of the road which is narrow.
The owners of Kensa, across the lane from the site, state that they have no objection to the principle of the proposal but suggest that the proposed wall should be made of or finished in stone not rendered, the dwarf walls on the porch are finished in stone, and they also indicate that they would welcome the use of additional stone to help the dwelling integrate into the locality.
The Manx Electricity Authority request consultation regarding the provision of electricity supplies. This is not a material planning consideration and should not be referred to in the planning decision notice.
The site is not designated for development and the draft Area Plan suggests that whilst additional development could be accommodated without significant adverse impact, the area in general is unsustainable and further dwellings are not proposed.
The existing building is undoubtedly unattractive and provision is made within the Strategic Plan for redevelopment of previously developed sites at GP3c above and Strategic Policy 1a which states: "Development should make the best use of resources by: a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials."
Previously-developed land is defined in the Strategic Plan as "that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. The definition includes defence buildings, but excludes: land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings...there is no presumption that the land that is previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed" (Appendix 1 - Definitions and Glossary of Terms). As this building is/was agricultural the term previously developed land cannot be applied in this case.
The applicant's agent confirms that the building is redundant and suggests that this distinguishes this building from others in the vicinity - such as at Cronk y Dhooney Farm and Ballakilpheric Farm, where, the agent suggests these buildings are fully utilised. There is a suggestion, however from the owner of Sunnyside, that there may be a use for the building in the future which is also a possibility. The agent's response to this is that the building is not large enough for the exercising of horses and the existing buildings at the farm provide more than enough indoor space for storage and animal housing for the on-going activities on the holding. The lambing undertaken on the farm tends to be in May/June and as such there is no need for a building for this activity. The agent suggests that the building was used for storage and repair of vehicles rather than for agricultural purposes. The barn was approved under IDO 36160 where the proposed use was described as agricultural.
There is some suggestion that the barn may have been used for car repair - when the previous owner owned the site the building was used for vehicle storage and agricultural storage and they acquired the site in the mid 2000s. Thus if the building has been used for non-agricultural purposes, this has not been the case for the ten years required for the use to have become authorised. As such the use should be considered as agricultural which excludes its consideration as previously developed land.
Whilst the appearance of the area would undoubtedly be improved by the removal of the existing building, this would be contrary to the provisions of the Strategic Plan and the emerging Southern Area Plan which describes the site as not sustainable and where further dwellings would not be encouraged. In addition, there are other buildings in the vicinity - Cronk y Dhooney Farm and Ballakilpheric Farm - which could be described as similarly unattractive and whose replacement by a new traditionally styled dwelling would be difficult to resist if this current application were permitted. On balance, the unsustainable location of the site and the existence of other similar buildings in the vicinity lead to a recommendation that the application should be refused.
The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.
The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
The owners of Kensa and Sunnyside are alongside the site and should be afforded party status in this instance.
The Manx Electricity Authority raise issues which are not material planning considerations and as such should not be afforded party status in this case.
Recommended Decision: Refused
C 1. The site is not designated for development and in the emerging Southern Area Plan, the following advice is provided in respect of Cronk y Dhooney: "Whilst a small number of additional dwellings could be added without visual detriment to either the group or its setting, the group is not sustainable, is served by a poor access road, and is not distant enough from Colby to generate a valid local need for housing. Additional dwellings are not therefore proposed." Whilst provision is made within the Strategic Plan for the redevelopment of previously developed sites, this specifically excludes buildings which have previously been used for agriculture, which is the case here. In addition, approval of this application could be used as a precedent for the redevelopment of other similar buildings in the vicinity - Cronk y Dhooney and Ballakilpheric Farms in this unsustainable location. As such the proposal is contrary to the provisions of General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made : Refused Date : Signed : Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown