Planning Officer Report

Planning Officer Report And Recommendations {{table:19390}}

Officer's Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE AND ALSO THE LOCAL AUTHORITY EXPRESSSES CONCERN AND ONE OF THE OBJECTORS IS A MEMBER OF STAFF IN THE PLANNING AUTHORITY

The Site

1. The site is the residential curtilage of a relatively new dwelling, Cronk Breck, together with additional land which forms the setting of the site and is used as a paddock. The dwelling replaced a former Manx farmhouse and outbuildings. The dwelling is visible from the B14 to the south and west of the site and from the B7 Regaby - Kerrowgaroo road albeit through roadside vegetation and with the land rising up from the road to the buildings. From the north of the site the building is largely screened by the existing topography and vegetation.

1. The site is 2.3 hectares in size - 0.7ha of this is residential curtilage and 1.6ha is the paddock. The site lies on the eastern side of the B14 Bayr ny Hayrey to the south west of Andreas.

The Proposal

1. Proposed is the erection of a building which will be 16.5m by 13.5m and 5.5m to the eaves, 7.5m to the ridge. The building will be finished in Moorland Green sheeting with an olive green roof. The dwelling is 9m high and the new building will be positioned 36m to the east of the house.

1. The building will be used "to house necessary implements for the maintenance of the garden and surrounding field, together with garaging of the applicant's leisure vehicles including helicopter, cars and recreational vehicle". The proposal involves the removal of three trees and planting of eleven new trees - four rowan, four oak and three beech all 1.8m high. Also shown is a new access to the south of the house to the western boundary of the site and north to the existing access into the site. This new access will be 50mm compacted self-binding gravel on 150mm sub base.

1. The applicant has provided photographs of his property in the UK where he has a similar, but larger building which accommodates most of the things he wishes to store in this proposed building.

Planning Status And Policy

1. The site lies within an area designated as "white land", that is open space not designated for development. The site is part residential curtilage and part open space (paddock). As such, there is a presumption against development other than where it is in accordance with General Policy 2. As the proposal is for a partly residential partly agricultural building it should also be borne in mind that the land associated with the house will require maintenance although there are no policies in the Strategic Plan which provide for such development or the development of domestic structures such as garages and other ancillary buildings.

Planning History

1. The site has most recently been the subject of applications for replacement of the dwelling. PA 09/01011 was permitted which provided for a dwelling which replaced a dwelling with a footprint of approximately , and the proposed dwelling had a total footprint of approximately , which was a increase over the original building, PA 10/00216 proposed an amendment to this with driveway alterations and minor alterations to parts of the fenestration of the dwelling.

Representations

1. Andreas Parish Commissioners express concern that the building will be difficult to remove as it is a permanent building. They also consider that the height of the building is likely to be detrimental to the amenities of the countryside.

1. Highways Division recommend approval as the proposal has no adverse highway impacts

1. The owner of Ballachurry Farm Cottage which lies to the north west of the site, away and separated from the site by Balachurry Farm house and associated buildings, objects to the application. Her concerns are that the dwelling as permitted was considerably more than is normally permitted under Housing Policy 14 and that the dwelling changed hands shortly after being completed. The calculations of the floor area, at included the floor areas of all the existing outbuildings and as such, she recommends that this floor area has already been taken up by the new dwelling. She also points out that a number of trees have been removed despite being shown as being retained on the original approval.

1. She considers that the proposed building looks like an industrial building and its size is not justified by the relatively small land holding which it will serve. Whilst the use of the proposed building includes "leisure vehicles" there is no policy provision for this and the approved accommodation includes what she considers a generous double garage.

1. She notes the provision for the removal of only four trees and the planting of more but is concerned at the lack of detail and the fact that no planting is to be introduced to screen the building from the Regaby Road.

1. She expresses concern that no information is provided in respect of the number of helicopter movements in and out per day and notes that there is already a neighbour 5 fields away who uses a helicopter and the noise impact from this is noticeable: the proposed helicopter activity would be even closer and may disturb livestock. She suggests that Andreas and Jurby airfields are relatively close and surely would be a more appropriate location.

1. If the application is permitted she would seek assurance that the building is finished in the green colour indicated in the application and that the building and track are removed after the five year period. She also suggests that no further areas of hardstanding should be allowed, including a helicopter landing pad and that there should be a clear distinction between where the residential curtilage finishes and the agricultural open space finishes.

1. The owner of the "fields abounding the named property" who does not provide an address, registers an interest in the application.

Assessment

1. The building is lower than the existing dwelling and as such will have a very limited visual impact as viewed from the B7 and B14 highways, bearing in mind the visibility of the existing dwelling. Similarly the access track will not be seen due to an existing hawthorn hedge running between the road and the new track.

1. The site is of a size as to warrant a building for the storage of equipment and possibly vehicles associated with the maintenance of the grounds/paddock. However, the applicant has made it clear that the use of the new building is not contained solely to such purposes but will include storage for his domestic vehicles including his helicopter and recreational vehicle. The building is however, within the residential part of the curtilage and does not encroach into the agricultural open space. The applicant explains that whilst there is an existing garage, it is only a double garage and is not sufficient for his purposes. He clarifies that the expected level of helicopter activity is around three or four flights per week and it is not used as a daily commute and notes that no objections have been received from the owners of adjoining fields regarding potential nuisance to agricultural stock. Indeed the owner of the adjacent fields has written in but does not object to the application.

1. The building is of a size, shape and style as to be suitable to a range of storage uses but unlikely to lend itself to any form of living accommodation. It is unlikely to be widely seen and is not considered to have any adverse visual impact on the surrounding area. Due to the size of the site, it is accepted that there is a need for some storage space for vehicles and equipment associated with the maintenance of the site and whilst the building is perhaps larger than would be justified by just this, the additional size does not bring with it any adverse visual or other impact. It is also relevant that the applicant seeks only temporary permission for the building, pending him finding a permanent alternative home which would accommodate most of the items to be stored here. The building would then be removed and the access track restored to agricultural field.

1. Planning permission is not required to store a helicopter within a residential curtilage nor for the landing nor taking off of such aircraft provided that the activity is not so frequent as to be the permanent function of the site. Whilst the storage facilities are likely to contribute to the convenience of having such aircraft on site, it is not considered that this would contribute sufficiently to make a material difference in how the helicopter would be used if there were no such storage facilities on site.

1. As such, whilst the approved dwelling was larger than would generally be provided for within the policy, the erection of this building will not add to the floor space of the dwelling nor its massing or visual impact. The building itself would be generally hidden from view and would not have any longer term implications as the applicant intends the building and track to be on site for a five year term at maximum. As such, the application is recommended for approval.

Party Status

1. The local authority, Andreas Parish Commissioners are, 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.

1. Whilst the owner of Ballachurry Farm Cottage was not permitted to have interested party status in the last application, part of her objection relates to the impact of the helicopter coming and going. On this basis it is considered that this party is close enough to warrant affording her party status in this case.

1. 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.

1. The owner of the adjacent fields should be afforded party status in accordance with paragraph 2.(a) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2006 (Government Circular 1/06).

Supplementary Report

The Planning Committee did not accept the Planning Officer's report and refused the application at its meeting of 11th June, 2012:

It is not considered that there is sufficient justification for a building of the size and massing proposed within a residential curtilage in an area not designated for development and where the built development on site already represents a significantly larger development than what it replaced. The building is considered to represent over-development of the site and would be contrary to the provisions of Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 2. Whilst the building is stated to be on site for a temporary period, the building and track are by their nature permanent features and the five year period in which the building and track are to be in situ are not considered to be a short term period.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted

Date of Recommendation: 01.06.2012

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal

• : Notes attached to refusals

R 1.

It is not considered that there is sufficient justification for a building of the size and massing proposed within a residential curtilage in an area not designated for development and where the built development on site already represents a significantly larger development than what it replaced. The building is considered to represent over-development of the site and would be contrary to the provisions of Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 2. Whilst the building is stated to be on site for a temporary period, the building and track are by their nature permanent features and the five year period in which the building and track are to be in situ are not considered to be a short term period.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005

Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...

Signed : ... Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate YES/NO