Officer Planning Report Recommendations

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:16286}}

Officer's Report

THIS PLANNING APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THERE ARE CONCURRENT RELATED PLANNING APPLICATIONS. FURTHERMORE, AS THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ALSO CONSIDERED THE RECENT PLANNING APPLICATION FOR RELATED EQUESTRIAN DEVELOPMENT ON LAND ADJACENT TO THE APPLICATION SITE IT IS CONSIDERED CONSISTENT FOR THEM TO ALSO CONSIDER THIS PLANNING APPLICATION.

The Application Site

1. The application site comprises a parcel of land located on the eastern side of Castletown Road in the Newtown area of Santon. The site comprises land containing a relatively modern steel framed concrete and cladding agricultural building and land providing a link to an access road to Castletown Road. It should be noted that the majority of the access road already has planning approval under previously approved planning application 10/01672/B.

The Proposal

1. The proposal comprises the conversion of the building contained within the application site into self catering tourist accommodation and creation of driveway link to approved vehicular access road.

1. The proposal would convert the building into two units of tourist accommodation (2 x 2 bed). Parking for the proposal would be opposite the barns on an area of hardstanding. The units have a modest garden area located to the rear.

Planning History

1. The application site and adjoining land has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:

1. Planning application 10/01658/B sought planning approval for the erection of a replacement dwelling with new vehicular access and road. This previous planning application was withdrawn before any decision was made.

1. Planning application 10/01660/B sought planning approval for the conversion of existing barns into four tourist accommodation units and creation of new vehicular access and road. This previous planning application was withdrawn before any decision was made.

1. Planning application 10/01672/B sought planning approval for the erection of new equestrian arena, stabling blocks, horse walker, storage sheds, external manège, horse exercise track and creation of new vehicular access to main road and new access road serving development. This previous planning application was approved on the 15th February 2011.

1. Planning application 10/01674/B sought planning approval for the conversion of existing stables to provide two self catering tourist accommodation units and creation of new vehicular access and road. This previous planning application was withdrawn before any decision was made.

1. The application site and adjoining land is also the subject of the two concurrent planning applications:

1. Planning application 12/00027/B seeks planning approval for the conversion of existing barns into self catering tourist accommodation and creation of driveway line to approved vehicular access (PA 10/01672/B). At the time of writing this planning application is pending decision.

1. Planning application 12/00030/B seeks planning approval for the demolition of existing dwelling and erection of replacement dwelling and creation of driveway link to approved vehicular access road (PA 10/01672/B). At the time of writing this planning application is pending decision.

Planning Policy

1. In terms of land use designation the application site is not specifically designated for development and is located within a wider area of land identified as being of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV) 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 two policies that are considered specifically 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."

1. 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. The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division do not oppose the planning application.
2. The Manx Electricity Authority comment on the planning application. The subject of their comments relate to non-planning material considerations.
3. The owner and/or occupant of Conister, which is located approximately 50m south of the application site access onto Castletown Road and approximately 400m north of the barns that are the subject of the planning application, objects to the proposed development. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as a belief that the previous planning application for equestrian development should not have been approved and concerns about the impact of development on the character of the area.

Assessment

1. The first issue to consider is the principle of development and it can be seen that the conversion of redundant rural buildings that are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest is a listed exception to the general presumption against development outside of areas zoned for development under General Policy 3. In this instance the building proposed to be converted is a modern agricultural building of modern construction that could not be reasonably concluded to be of either architectural, historic or social value and interest. Indeed, it is fair to say that it is not the type of building is normally considered appropriate for conversion. The exception to allow the conversion of redundant rural buildings it intended to preserve built heritage and make best use of buildings that are considered to be able to make a positive contribution to the character of the countryside. Modern rural buildings that no longer serve any useful purpose and are not of either architectural, historic or social value and interest are potentially detrimental to rural amenity and should be removed rather than converted. The proposal does not constitute a listed exception to the general presumption against development outside of areas zoned for development under General Policy 3 and therefore represents unwarranted development. This is grounds for refusal of the planning application.
2. Setting aside the above concern it is considered reasonable to the applicant to assess the proposal against Environment Policy 16, the policy that sets out the specific criteria for allowing the conversion of redundant rural buildings. Doing this does not automatically overcome the conflict with General Policy 3 but does allow further assessment of what is proposed and an examination of whether there is anything within the proposal that warrants setting aside the general presumption against development outside of areas zoned for development.
3. The first criterion requires a demonstration that the buildings proposed to be converted are no longer required for their original purpose and that the buildings are substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation. In this respect it is understood that the building was originally constructed for agricultural purposes to support the surrounding land when it was farmed. As that land is no longer farmed by the applicant the building is not used for its original purpose, rather it is understood to now be used for equestrian related purposes that are not agricultural in planning terms. The building is therefore technically redundant of its original use, although not wholly redundant of use. As stated within the submitted design statement the building has not be surveyed by a structural engineer as it is deemed to be sound and in good condition. Whilst this is somewhat weak evidence of structural capability of renovation it is accepted as a reasonable

assumption given the age and general condition of the building. On balance, it could be reasonably concluded that the proposal would satisfy the first criterion of Environment Policy 16.

1. The second criterion requires an assessment of whether the proposal would result in the preservation of fabric which is of historic, architectural, or social interest or is otherwise of visual attraction. This is basically an assessment of whether the buildings in question are of sufficient interest to warrant allowing their conversion as an exception to the presumption against development. In this instance, as stated earlier, the building is a modern agricultural building of modern construction that is not of a type normally considered worthy of renovation as it is has no historic, architectural and social interest. As part of the proposal it is proposed to clad the building in stone, reroof it with artificial slate interlocking tiles and introduce wooden doors and windows. The extent of work required to alter the appearance of the building from a modern agricultural building is significant and considered to demonstrate the inappropriateness of the proposal. It is concluded that the proposal does not satisfy the second criterion of Environment Policy 16.

1. The third criterion requires a demonstration that the building could accommodate the new use without requiring extension or adverse change to appearance or character. As previously highlighted the planning application proposes significant changes to the appearance of the existing building. As before the extent of work required to alter the appearance of the building from a modern agricultural building is significant and considered to demonstrate the inappropriateness of the proposal. It is concluded that the proposal does not satisfy the third criterion of Environment Policy 16.

1. The fourth criterion necessitates an assessment of whether the proposed development would have unacceptable implications in terms of traffic generation. Whilst the proposed use of the building as tourist accommodation will undoubtedly generate more traffic than the existing use of the building it is considered that such level can be readily accommodated within the surrounding highway network without undue harm. The proposed development will link into the new access road onto Castletown Road, which has appropriate visibility. It is concluded that the proposal accords with the fourth criterion of Environment Policy 16.

1. The fifth criterion requires an assessment of whether the conversion would lead to dispersal of activity on such a scale as to prejudice the vitality and viability of existing town and village services. It is understood that this criterion is primarily aimed at planning applications that propose small-scale industrial or commercial use of existing rural buildings rather than tourist use. Nevertheless, in terms of this proposal it is considered that the extent of development is relatively modest and not something that would cause noticeable harm to the vitality and viability of existing town and village services. The proposal is concluded to accord with the fifth criterion of Environment Policy 16.

1. The sixth, and final, criterion requires an assessment of whether any harm arising from the proposal on environment and rural economy outweigh the continued impact of the existing buildings on site. In this regard the impact of the proposal outside of the application site is low as the building has limited visibility from public viewpoints. It is concluded that the proposal accords with the sixth criterion of Environment Policy 16.

1. It can be seen that the proposal fails to satisfy key criteria of Environment Policy 16. As such, it is concluded that there is nothing within the proposal that warrants setting aside the general presumption against development outside of areas zoned for development.

Recommendation

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

Party Status

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

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 21.02.2012

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

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

R 1.

Whilst the conversion of redundant rural buildings is a listed exception to presumption against development outside areas zoned for development such exception is subject to the building in question being of architectural, historic, or social value and interest. In this instance the building proposed to be converted is a modern agricultural building of modern construction that does not have architectural, historic, or social value and interest. The proposal therefore does not constitute a listed exception to the presumption against development outside areas zoned for development such and constitutes unwarranted development within the countryside, contrary to the provisions of General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 16 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.

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 : DEFERRED Committee Meeting Date : 5/3/12

Signed : [Handwritten signature] Presenting Officer

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

• PLANNING COMMITTEE RESOLVED TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING APPLICATION IN LIGHT OF THE LETTER FROM THE APPLICANT’S ABOUT RECEIVED EXERCISE THAT DAY.