Planning Officer Report

Planning Officer Report And Recommendations {{table:378544}} {{table:378543}}

Officer's Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL IS CONTRARY TO THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE APPLICATION SITE.

The Application Site

1. The application site accommodates the curtilage of Brightlife spa and conference facility, which is located approximately one mile south east of Andreas Village. The facility consists of a number of converted outbuildings and dwellings.

The Proposal

1. The proposal seeks approval for the alteration and extension of the existing spa and conference facilities. It is proposed to extend each end of an existing converted building contained within the application site. The extension at the northern end of the building consists of a modest extension onto the rear elevation of the building to provide additional space. The extension at the southern end of the building is much more significant, consisting of substantial extension that is linked to an existing adjacent building to provide treatment rooms and spa facility.

Planning History

1. The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications which have resulted in the recreational, educational and conference facilities currently contained within the application site.

Planning Policy

1. In terms of land use designation the application site is not designated for any site specific purpose under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982.

1. In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains the following policies that are potentially material to the assessment of this current planning application:

1. 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);
• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11);
• (c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment;
• (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14);
• (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services;
• (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry;
• (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and
• (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage." 7. 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 overriding 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." 8. Environment Policy 16 states: "The use of existing rural buildings for new purposes such as tourist, or small-scale industrial/commercial use may be permitted where:
• (a) it is demonstrated that the building is no longer required for its original purpose and where the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation;
• (b) the reuse of the building will result in the preservation of fabric which is of historic, architectural, or social interest or is otherwise of visual attraction;
• (c) it is demonstrated that the building could accommodate the new use without requiring extension or adverse change to appearance or character;
• (d) there would not be unacceptable implications in terms of traffic generation;
• (e) conversion does not lead to dispersal of activity on such a scale as to prejudice the vitality and viability of existing town and village services; and
• (f) the use of existing buildings involves significant levels of redevelopment to accommodate the new use, the benefits secured by the proposal in terms of impact on the environment and the rural economy shall outweigh the continued impact of retaining the existing buildings on site.

Proposals to convert rural buildings to residential accommodation will be considered along with the advice given at Section 8.10 of this document."

Representations

1. Andreas Parish Commissioners have no objections to the planning application.
2. The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division does not oppose the planning application.

1. The Department of Economic Development's Tourism Division support the planning application. They highlight that the existing facilities make a unique contribution to the Island's visitor economy and that such makes a significant contribution to the Island economy.

Assessment

1. The starting point for the assessment of the planning application is the land use designation. As stated earlier in this report the application site is located within a wider area of land that is not designated for any site specific purpose, it is effectively a site within the wider countryside. Having said that it is necessary to have regard to the fact that the site has been developed into the spa and conference facility that now exists on site. The site is recognised as providing a high quality facility for the Island. As the site, and the existing use thereof, is potentially unique to the Island there is no planning policy that is considered directly applicable to the proposed development. However, it is appropriate to have regard to the provisions of Environment Policy 1 and 16 in so far as they are applicable. The key issues to consider are the protection of the countryside and rural environment from harmful development and the acceptability of the appearance of the proposed extension.
2. When assessing the protection of the countryside and rural environment the site the primary consideration is the impact of the proposed development on public views of the application site and the effect that would have on the overall character of the countryside in this area. In terms of this the nearest public place to view the site from is the main road between Andreas and Ramsey. From that road it is possible to see the site, however the building proposed to be extended to largely screened from view by the existing development between it and the main road. Taking that into account and based on site visit it is considered that little, if any, of the proposed extension would be publicly visible. Due to topography the only other obvious public views of the application site would be from considerable distance, at which distance the impact of the existing and proposed development would be unlikely to be distinguishable. Overall, it is concluded that the proposed development does not unduly harm the character and quality of the countryside and surrounding area. It is considered material to have regard to the economic benefit that the facility provides to the Island, proposals to building on that benefit should be supported provided they do not cause unacceptable harm.
3. In respect of other material planning considerations the site of the proposed development is significant distance from other property so as not adversely affect private amenity. As there are no changes to vehicular access and appropriate car parking exists for the overall development it is also considered that there is no adverse impact on highway safety. No other obvious material planning considerations are affected by the proposed development.

Recommendation

1. It is recommended that the planning application be approved.

Party Status

1. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should be afforded interested party status:

Andreas Parish Commissioners; and The Department of Economic Development's Tourism Division.

1. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should not be afforded interested party status:

The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted

Date of 23.04.2013 Recommendation:

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval

N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal

• : Notes attached to refusals

C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

C 2. This approval relates to drawing nos 1108/01A, 1108/02, 1108/03, 1108/04 and 1108/05 date stamped the 11th March 2013.

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 : 13 / 5 / 15

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