Loading document...
Application No.: 24/91321/B Applicant: Mr Daniel Reid Proposal: Conversion of stable building to tourism unit Site Address: Peace Stables Peace House Lhoobs Road Eairy Isle Of Man IM4 3JA Senior Planning Officer: Jason Singleton Photo Taken: 13.02.2025 Site Visit: 13.02.2025 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 19.03.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The existing building is not of sufficient architectural, historic or social interest as to allow for the principle of conversion pursuant to the provisions of Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3, Housing Policies 4,11 and Environment Policy 16. Moreover, the proposed alterations and extension would not retain the current simple form and appearance. As a consequence, there would be a material adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, contrary to GP2. - R 2. The proposed conversion of the existing rural building to a tourist use is not of a nature which would not be supported in the countryside to the provisions set out under Business Policy 11, 12, and 14 which set out the exceptional forms of development which could be allowed. - R 3. It has not been demonstrated that there is an overriding national need for the proposal and a site for which there are no reasonable and acceptable alternatives. Therefore the proposed development would result in an inappropriate development in the countryside contrary to Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan. _________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DoI Highways - No Objection
_________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is a small parcel of land within field reference 334289 (2.36 Acres)
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks to convert the existing stables building and to extend its built form to the rear to create a tourism unit. Internally the accommodation would provide two double bedrooms, a bathroom and an open plan kitchen living area to the rear. The proposal also features a comprehensive planting and landscaping scheme with the parking for two vehicles off the highway. Proposals would incorporate a sewerage treatment plant to the rear and would drain into an existing drainage ditch. - 2.2 The applicants note in favour of the proposals that; - "A big reason behind this project is the applicant's extensive experience working with individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), which informs the design and function of this tourism unit. The aim is to create a space that is autism-friendly, providing an inclusive and welcoming environment for visitors with autism and their families. This is something that is not currently achieved on the IOM".
3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The application site is located within an area designated as 'white land' or land not zoned for development on the 1982 Development Plan. - 3.2 The site is not within a Conservation Area, there are no registered trees on site nor is it within an area of flood risk. - 3.3 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application: Strategic Policy;
Spatial Policy; 5 Building in defined settlements or GP3
General Policies;
Environmental Polices; 1 Protection of the countryside
Housing Policy;
Transport Policies;
3.4 Definition of Previously Developed Land from Appendix 1 of the Strategic Plan; "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: o Land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings. o Land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures. o Land in built-up areas such as parks, recreation grounds and allotments, which, although it may feature paths, pavilions and other buildings, has not been previously developed. o Land that was previously-developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time (to the extent that it can reasonably be considered as part of the natural surroundings). There is no presumption that land that is previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed". Other Material Considerations - 3.5 Residential Design Guide (2021) This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing
property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction.
Tourist policies;
3.6 IoM Visitor Economy Strategy 2022 which provides the strategic plan for growing the Island's Visitor Economy over the next 10 years through to 2032. - 3.7 IOM Govt Island economic strategy 2022, set out the direction on investment and economic security for the next 10 years and highlights the importance of year round tourism and growing part of our Island's proposition for both visitors and residents.
4.1 None. - 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS (in brief - full reps can be read online)
5.1 Patrick Commissioners have not commented at the time of writing.
5.2 Highways Services - Do not object (30/01/25) "Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as the existing access is acceptable for the proposals on this low flow relatively low speed rural nature of the adjacent road, providing the first 6m of the access from the Lhoobs Road carriageway is bound and consolidated material and not grass or soft surfacing (conditioned on permission or shown on a revised plan). The Applicant should consider an EV charging point to aid Net Zero ambitions. A S109 highway agreement will be required for the access connection improvements onto the adopted highway i.e. converted from grass to a surface acceptable to the DOI Highways Inspector".
6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are; Principle
Tourist Development and use Exceptional Circumstances Visual Impact Neighbouring Amenities Highway Safety
PRINCIPLE
6.1 The starting point here is the land designation, it is clear from the 1982 Development Plan, the application site is within a rural and protected part of the countryside where any development is strictly controlled and the site is not allocated for development. - 6.2 In considering the location of this application, the nearest defined villages would be Foxdale or St.Johns. Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policy 3 identify areas where development is to be located to be supported, that is generally within existing towns and villages, it cannot be said that this site sits within a defined village areas and sits outside of the defined local plan area of Foxdale. The site is there for assessed as being part of the rural countryside as previously identified and new development here would be contrary to those policies. - 6.3 The site does sit on a service road where there are some residential dwellings along its length and easily accessible from the highway. Given the broad location of the site and its location, as sits within a remote part of the countryside where there are no provisions for accessible public transport, this aspect would be contrary to Strategic Policy 10 (a)-(d). - 6.4 When considering Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policy 5 that directs development to designated towns or villages, development in the countryside is only permitted in exceptional circumstances, which is detailed in General Policy 3 and cross referenced in Spatial Policy 5 and examined at length below. TOURIST DEVELOPMENT AND USE - 6.5 As General Policy 3 could be referenced in this instance, the proposal is for conversion of an existing stables with an additional extension and to be used for tourism (with a special focus on those with Autism), which could broadly fit within section (b) "for the conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest." Therefore regard must be given to the reasonableness as to whether the existing stables are of historic, or social value and interest and redundant. - 6.6 Further to the above land use designation and in relation to tourism use, there is an underlying element to the Strategic Plan Policies which are relevant to the conversion of rural buildings to tourist use which must be taken into account. - 6.7 This proposal would be introducing a new element of use to the building merely for repurpose of an existing stables and extending the building in size at the rear to create a single unit of habitable accommodation for tourist use. As such, General Policy 3b allows for conversion of redundant rural buildings in the countryside, taking note of their aesthetic value and Business Policy 11 allows for "development" in the countryside for tourism subject to meeting the conversion tests of Environmental Policy 16. - 6.8 There is the expectation that the buildings should be redundant. At present the building is in an almost ruinous condition in parts and not being used as a stables for the shelter and care of animals.
6.9 The planning policy narrative goes further and Business Policy 12 provides that permission will generally be given for the conversion of "redundant buildings" in the countryside to tourist use, subject to compliance with paragraph 8.10, Housing Policy 11 and Environment Policy 16 of the Strategic Plan. Business Policy 14 provides that tourism development may be permitted in rural areas, but requires compliance with other Strategic Plan policies, including specific crossreferences to Business Policy 12, and through that policy to Housing Policy 11. - 6.10 As a result, whilst Housing Policy 11 relates to conversions into dwellings, by virtue of Business Policy 12 it also applies to conversions to tourist uses, as is this case. Amongst the requirement of Housing Policy 11 is that redundancy for the original use can be established, as echoed in Environmental Policy 16. Whilst that is not what the applicant has applied for, it would by default be assessed for the creation of a new dwelling in the countryside on land that is not zoned for development. - 6.11 To go further with the planning policy narrative, the supporting information with Housing Policy 11 states, "8.10.1 Throughout the countryside, there are examples of buildings which are no longer suitable or needed for their originally intended use, but which are of sufficient quality or interest to warrant retention and re-use." - 6.12 This gives some guidance on the proposal and the existing structure. The existing structure is a relatively modern build, constructed out of modern materials. With there being no parts of the proposed structure which would be of "sufficient quality or interest to warrant retention and reuse, it would not seek to continue to positively contribute to the Islands built heritage through any conversion or extension. - 6.13 Turning to the scope of works that are proposed on the submitted plans. These would alter every part of the existing building, and would then appear, when completed as a newly built unit of accommodation outright. The structure could not in itself be proposed to be "architectural, historic or social value and interest," as such, the proposal does not comply with any part of GP3(b) and is deemed not to be acceptable. - 6.14 Further consideration was given to whether an exception could be found under GP3(c) where consideration could be given for previously developed land (as noted in para 3.4 above) and also referred to in Strategic Policy 1(a) to optimise the use of such land. For an exception to be made through GP3c there needs to be a significant amount of buildings; and; their continued use is redundant; and; where development would reduce the impact of the current situation of the landscape or wider environment; and where development would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment. - 6.15 In this instance, the former stables building in an isolated location would not constitute a significant amount of buildings on site to be replaced and it would not necessarily be compliant in these terms with the definition or would adhere to that of GP3(c) for previous developed land. As such the proposal cannot be considered to comply with GP3c. - 6.16 To summarise the policy narrative and assessment of the proposals against those aforementioned planning policies, as identified earlier within the planning policy section of this report, this presumption against is set out in four different ways; the application site is not zoned for residential development under the 1982 Development Plan; Secondly, General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic plan, states that in such areas new dwellings (albeit tourist use is applied for
basis in contravention of the established policy presumption against development in the countryside.
6.17 The test is whether the proposal for a new dwelling here would be an improvement on the landscape and wider environment and whether an overriding exception can be found under Ep1 to offset development in the countryside as an over -riding national need in land use terms where there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative. This concludes the application is to be assessed for the creation of a new residential/ tourist building in the countryside. - 6.18 As the proposal fails to meet the exception for development in the countryside at GP3b, Gp3c it would intern also be considered contrary to Housing Policy 11, Environmental Policy 16, Business Policy 11, 12 and 14, Strategic Policy 1a. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES - 6.19 In terms of planning policy there is a long established presumption against new habitable accommodation in the countryside as noted above. General Policy 3, and Housing Policy 4 both identify potential exceptions for development within such areas. More specifically, both General Policy 3 (paragraphs a & d) and Housing Policy 4 identifies three potential circumstances where residential (tourist use would be applicable in this instance) development may be allowed. Firstly, if there is an essential need for an agricultural workers dwelling (agricultural condition attached requiring the property to be used only by full time agricultural workers only, which is proven to be justified); second, conversion of existing rural properties (i.e. traditional Manx stone barn); and thirdly the replacement of an existing dwelling with a new dwelling. Nevertheless, turning to the suitability of the site and the land use designation, on balance, it is not considered for there to be an exception to be made in this application to create a new unit of accommodation in the countryside and would be contrary to Gp3a,d and HP4. VISUAL IMPACT - 6.20 The proposal would be introducing an element of built development on site where at present there is only a small stable structure. Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan provides that, in the absence of an over-riding national need, development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted. There is no avoiding the fact that the proposal in terms of its siting, scale, massing, height and finishes could be visible from the highway but could also be read as a residential feature on the landscape. - 6.21 In this case, the proposal would not be supported and would be contrary to aims of STP5 and GP2b&C where the proposal would be overdevelopment for the site and have a detrimental visual impact through its design and domestication of the site. The proposal would further be considered to have an adverse visual impact upon the rural aspect of the countryside for which EP1 seeks to protect. NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES - 6.22 Turning to whether there would be any adverse impact (overlooking, loss of light; over bearing impact, and loss of privacy) upon those nearest neighbouring properties. Given the isolated location and the nearest residential dwelling is that of the applicants (opposite) and the intervening distances and landscaping between the two properties, it is considered there to be no detrimental impact on either the application site or that of the dwelling opposite and these aspects could be considered to be in accordance with GP2(g). HIGHWAY SAFETY - 6.23 The application site already features an existing accesses that already serves the site. Highway Services have considered the merits of the proposal, access to and from the site from the highway noting the proposed visibility splays, as well as parking and highway safety. As the transport professionals their comments are heavily relied upon and as they do not object but only seek some conditions if approval is forthcoming. The proposal would be considered to align with the principles of Transport Policy 4 and 7 in terms of highways safety.
7.1 On balance it is judged, the proposal is contrary to those aforementioned Policies of the Strategic Plan and does not meet the tests for exceptional development within the countryside, furthermore the proposals would have an adverse impact upon the countryside. - 7.2 It is therefore concluded that the planning application is recommended for refusal. 8.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 8.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).
8.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:
8.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10. - 8.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):
8.5 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 the Right to Appeal.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status, and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 19.03.2025 Determining Officer
Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management
Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown