DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 21/00633/B Applicant: Mr Ian & Mrs Robin Birdsall Proposal: Erection of a detached garage Site Address: No.5 Balnahow Farm Cottage Balnahow Farm Balnahowe Santon Isle Of Man IM4 1HN Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 04.08.2021 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The application site is not zoned for development. Given the position of the development which is detached from the existing residential curtilages within the broader site area, where it would be visible from the surrounding fields over long distances, and the location for the development which is not essential, the scheme would result in an inappropriate development in the countryside contrary to General Policy 3, and Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. - R 2. The proposed erection of detached garage represents an unwarranted domestic intrusion into the open countryside beyond the existing residential curtilage of the existing dwellings on the site. As such, the proposal is contrary to both General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is situated within Balnahow Farm - a complex of a dwelling and agricultural outbuildings which were up until relatively recently, a working farm. The farm has been sold and the land around it sold separately and is now being farmed in association with Southampton Farm whose farm buildings are based in Port Soderick.

1.2 The site sits on both sides of a private road which joins the public road some way to the west. This public road provides access to the Meary Veg sewage treatment plant, as well as a number of dwellings. To the northeast end of this site is a parcel of land forming Field 514114 which was the site of an old spoil heap of the farm, which is the proposed site for the garage. This section of land which sits to the northeast of the residential curtilages on the broader site area is enclosed by land being paddock land within the ownership of the applicant.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a detached garage. The garage would measure 10m long x 6m wide and 5.4m high (4m to eaves), giving a total 60sqm which is to be located to the northeast of the application site. Access to the garage would be via the existing private road which cuts through the site and joins the public road some way to the west. - 2.2 The proposed building which is a pre-fabricated treated wood shed would serve as garage and store for small boat (in winter). This building would feature a large timber double door 4m by 3m on the south (front) elevation; two windows and a pedestrian access door on the west elevation and two high level windows on the north (rear) elevation. There would be no fenestrations on the east elevation.

- 3.0 PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The site lies within an area designated as not for a particular purpose on the Area Plan for the East. On the Landscape Character Assessment, the area is recognised as Incised Slopes

• the most common of the land use character types. The site is not within a Conservation Area or prone to flood risks.

3.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application: - 3.3 General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 stated, "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:

• (c) previously developed land(1) 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;

• 3.3.1 "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:

• 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."

3.4 Strategic Policy 1: Development should make the best use of resources by:

• (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and underused land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials;
• (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space(1) and amenity standards; and
• (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services.

3.5 Environment Policy 1: 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.

- 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 Planning permission was granted for the conversion of the buildings to residential along with other alterations and amendments to create a residential complex - 17/00563/B,

• 16/01408/B, 16/01190/B, 19/00682/B and 19/00890/B.

4.2 Approval was granted under PA 19/01049/B for erection of porch extension, detached stables, and alterations to access lane through site on 13 November 2019. This scheme showed the most recent delineation of the various residential curtilages on the site, which excludes the proposed site. - 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.

5.1 The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division have indicated that they 'Do not oppose' in a letter dated 14 June 2021. - 5.2 Santon Commissioners have not made any representations on the application although they were consulted on 2 June 2021.

5.3 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties. - 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 In considering this application, the strategic plan falls silent on new development in the form of detached garages to residential properties in the countryside, although it is now commonly accepted that garages could be erected to serve properties in the countryside, particularly where they are of a form that they would not impact of the surrounding countryside and where they are erected within the residential curtilages of the dwellinghouse they are to serve. As well, Class 17 of the Permitted Development Order 2012 provides for the erection of a private garage or car port within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. - 6.2 As identified within section 3 of this report the proposed garage would be on land not designated for development within the countryside and on land that would not pass for the exemptions allowable under General Policy 3 for previously developed land (given its previous agricultural status). Accordingly, there are two main issues to consider in the assessment of the proposed scheme;

• i. whether the principle of such development is acceptable on the site, and
• ii. whether the proposal would represent unwarranted encroachment into the countryside to the detriment of the character of the landscape.

6.3 Principle (GP3)

• 6.3.1 Perhaps at this stage the Planning Authority would also draw attention to the applicants' claim on the application form that Field 514114 forms part of the residential curtilage of No.5 Balnahow Farm Cottage. The Planning Authority would not agree and consider that Field 514114 does not form part of the residential curtilage for the following reasons. Firstly, no planning permission has ever been applied or approved for a change of use of the land. Second, when the application for the conversion of redundant farm outbuildings into 5 residential units with associated garages and site works under PA

17/00563/B was approved, Field 514114 was not included. Thirdly, the most recent applications for the broader site area PA 19/00682/B for the erection of a building to provide two garages and alteration to garden curtilage boundary lines, as well as PA 19/01049/B for erection of porch extension, detached stables, and alterations to access lane; clearly shows the site to be outside the defined residential curtilages, with the proposed block plan marking this site as a field separated by the paddock areas from the residential curtilages.

• 6.3.2 It is also considered that all the residential curtilages marked out on the broader site were approved with designated garages, with room to extend the garages to accommodate additional storage space within each curtilage. Moreover, Condition 2 of PA 19/01049/B clearly states that the residential curtilage shall not extend into the area annotated as "proposed paddock" on drawing 12; as the paddock remains not designated for any particular purpose.
• 6.3.3 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the proposed development would be within an area of the countryside not designated for development and detached from the existing residential curtilages which have been marked out on the broader site area. As such, it is considered that the principle of erecting the proposed garage on the field would be unacceptable (and contrary to General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1) given the extant arrangement of the site, and there is no over-riding national need in land use planning terms for the scheme which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative.

6.3 Visual Impact (EP1 and EP2)

• 6.3.1 With regard to visual impacts, an argument could be made that in terms of the visual appearance of the proposed garage, the impact could be reduced given the proposed timber finish which is not uncommon in the countryside. However, whilst the visual appearance of the barn may be softened by the external finish; the fact remains that a building measuring 10 metres in length, 6 metres in depth and 5.4meters in height, will still be apparent, especially to the north, east and south of the site of the site, given the separating distance between the garage and the nearest dwelling which is over 50meters; and on land which is not designated for such development or use.
• 6.3.2 It is also noted that the garage would sit within an area that was an old spoil heap of the farm (now defunct) and currently being cleared and as such the erection of the garage within this area would be in the interest of the visual amenity of the site. Albeit, as has been previously noted, the building would be approximately 51m from the nearest dwellinghouse at Unit 5, and completely enclosed by the paddocks (as depicted on the approved block plan for PA 19/01049/B) and as such would stand isolated in an area not designated for such development. Consequently, it is considered that this aspect of the overall scheme would also appear as an encroachment into the countryside.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 For the above reasons, it is not considered that the application can be reasonably regarded as complying with the intentions of General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan of protecting the countryside for its own sake, including by strict control of the types of development that may be permitted there. Overall, it is considered the proposal would represent unwarranted encroachment into the countryside to the detriment of the character of the landscape; cause harm to the visual amenity of the area and encourage further inappropriate development in the countryside.

- 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material. 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 4(2) who should be given Interested Person Status.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner 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.

Decision Made : Refused Date: 04.08.2021 Determining officer

Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.