Loading document...
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE OBJECTION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND DUE TO THE APPLICATION SITE NOT BEING DESIGNATED FOR DEVELOPMENT.
1.1 The application site comprises a parcel of land located close to the 400ft contour on the north western slopes of Sky Hill in Lezayre, approximately 600m south east of Churchtown and 3km west of Ramsey. The site, which is steeply sloping, is bounded to the north by woodland descending steeply toward the A3 and to the south by gorse clad slopes ascending towards the Millennium Way. The site currently contains two interconnected single storey buildings, both of which are in a poor state of repair.
2.1 The proposal comprises the erection of a general storage building within the application site. As a result of being set into the hillside the proposed building is split level, with the southern elevation being single storey in height and the northern elevation being two-storey in height. The proposed building is shown as providing equipment storage and changing facilities.
3.1 The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, the following of which are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:
3.2 Planning application 89/01701/C sought planning approval for the change of use of land from agricultural to leisure activities, Sky Hill, Lezayre. This previous planning application was initially refused on the 27th February 1990. That decision was subsequently reversed at review, with the review approval issued on the 21st June 1990.
3.3 Planning application 90/00234/B sought planning approval to enlarge portion of existing vehicular track to form safe turning area, and improve entrance to field. Fields 2166 & 2205, Sky Hill, Lezayre. This previous planning application was initially approved on the 26th July 1990. That decision was subsequently upheld at review, with the review approval issued on the 20th September 1990.
3.4 Planning application 02/02411/A sought planning approval in principle for the demolition of garages and storage buildings and erection of dwelling. This previous planning application was initially refused on the 20th May 2003. That decision was upheld at review, with the review refusal issued on the 22nd July 2003.
3.5 Planning application 04/00660/B sought planning approval for the erection of a two storey general purpose storage building to replace existing on the same site as the current planning
application. This previous planning application was initially approved on the 13th July 2004. That decision was subsequently upheld at review, with the review approval decision issued on the 9th September 2004. A subsequent appeal against the approval was dismissed, with the appeal approval decision issued on the 3rd March 2005. 3.6 Planning application 10/01100/B sought planning approval for the erection of changing facility and storage building and landscaping. This previous planning application was withdrawn by the applicant before any decision was made.
4.1 In terms of land use designation the application site is not designated for any site specific purpose but is within a wider area of land designated as being of high landscape or coastal value and scenic significance under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1982. 4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application: 4.3 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." 4.4 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." 4.5 Environment Policy 2 states: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that: (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential." 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Lezayre Parish Commissioners object to the planning application. They wanted to have a greater understanding of the activities taking place on site and state that if approval is granted they would want the building to be well screened so as not to visible from as far away as Jurby Road. 5.2 The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division do not oppose the planning application. 5.3 The owners and/or occupants of Glebe Cottage, which is located in Maughold, express an interest in the planning application.
6.1 The application site and surrounding land has valid planning approval for use for leisure activities under previous planning application 89/01701/C. As this previous planning approval did not list or otherwise control what leisure activities can occur on site either through the description of development or condition of planning approval the type of permissible leisure activity is unrestricted. It is understood that leisure activities that have occurred on site have included paintballing, archery, pistol shooting, scramble riding, quad biking and 4 -wheel driving. 6.2 The proposed building is identical to that proposed and approved under previous planning application 04/00660/B. That previous planning approval was not implemented. It is understood that ownership of the site has changed and the current owners want a building for the storage of equipment and provision of suitable facilities for the users of the surrounding site. The application site currently contains an existing, somewhat ramshackle, building of poor form and appearance. No record of planning approval for this existing building can be found, but as it has been in situ for over four years (most likely over fifteen years) the building is exempt from enforcement action. Whilst this existing building is not readily visible from outside of the application site it is still considered that there are amenity benefits to its replacement with a new purpose built building. 6.3 Whilst the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 has been published since the granting of planning application 04/00660/B it is still appropriate have regard to that previous planning application as the development now proposed is essentially the same. Given the approved leisure use of the application site and surrounding land it would be unreasonable not to expect some form of storage building and associated facilities on site. The appointed Planning Inspector for the appeal against the approval of previous planning application 04/00660/B also reached that conclusion stating that "given the nature and frequency of the leisure activities and isolation of the site, a permanent building providing secure storage, toilets and facilities for changing/showering is a reasonable requirement.". As such, there is no obvious reason reach a different conclusion in terms of need. 6.4 With need accepted the key issue in the assessing the acceptability of the proposed development is the visual impact on the character and quality of the surrounding landscape. The appointed Planning Inspector for the appeal against the approval of previous planning application 04/00660/B specifically commented on this issue. Cognisant of the location of the application site within an area of high landscape or coastal value and scenic significance the appointed Planning Inspector concluded that "provided the building is set into the hillside in the position indicated on the submitted 1:2500 scale location plan, the proposed 2-storey structure will be screened all year round by the intervening woodland from the A3, Churchtown and other potential viewpoints to the north. The rising landform shields the site from the Millennium Way, which at its nearest point is some 200 m to the south.". There is no reason to reach a different view. It is therefore concluded that the visual impact of the proposed development on the character and quality of the surrounding landscape is acceptable. 6.5 Given its isolated position and the nature of the proposal the proposed development does not affect private amenity, highway safety or any other obvious material planning consideration.
7.1 It is recommended that the planning application be approved subject to a condition restricting the use of the building to uses associated to the overall operation of the associated leisure use,
a condition prohibiting external storage on site outside of the hours of operation of the leisure use, and a condition controlling the external colour of the building.
8.1 It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should be afforded interested party status:
8.2 It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should not be afforded interested party status:
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 30.04.2013
C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: 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 no.s SM13/306/1, SM13/306/2, SM13/306/3 and SM13/306/4 date stamped the 22nd March 2013.
C 3. The building hereby approved must only be used for storage and operational purposes associated to the leisure activity use of the adjacent land.
C 4. Outside of the hours of operation of any leisure activity event associated with the adjacent land there must be no external storage of items of equipment and vehicles on the site.
C 5. The building shall be externally coloured dark green or dark grey and maintained as such at all times.
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: APPROVED Committed Meeting Date: 13/5/13 Signed: [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
2 May 2013 13/00358/B Page 4 of 4 Prior to commencement of development.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
