Loading document...
The site represents the farm holding of Ballahowin Farm, a holding situated on both sides of the A26 Braaid - Douglas Road between Stuggadhoo and St. Mark's. Access to the site is directly from the A26 past a dwelling known as Ballahowin House which is not in the ownership of the applicant, and also from the B37 Clanna Road. The site accommodates the farm house serving the farm, a courtyard of barns and various other agricultural buildings. To the south is Sulbrick Farm and "Tandem", a detached property, accessed via the same access past Ballahowin House to the proposed development.
The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as "white land", that is, land not designated for development and with a strip of designated Woodland running alongside the eastern side of the A26.
PA 00/2059 - approval in principle for conversion of farm buildings to tourist accommodation - permitted PA 01/2224 - conversion of farm buildings to 12 tourist units - permitted PA 01/2225 - erection of agricultural building - permitted PA 04/2558 - erection of agricultural activity building and farm shop, livestock pens, access track, landscaping and car parking - permitted on review PA 05/92151 - retrospective application for the installation of dormer windows to replace rooflights - permitted PA 06/0151 - installation of additional dormer windows - permitted and PA 06/1329 - erection of signage, refused and currently the subject of an appeal.
Proposed now is the conversion of almost two sides (southern and eastern) of the courtyard from tourist accommodation as was permitted and has been implemented under PA 01/2224, to residential use. There are to be no changes to the outside of the building. The smallest of the units each offer around 60 square metres of floorspace which would accommodate 3 persons under the Housing (Flats) Regulations 1982. There are two 3 bedroomed units, four 2 bedroomed units and a single bedroomed units. One of the two bedroomed units is to be used as manager's flat. There are seven units in all to be converted, leaving five to be used in accordance with the original condition which requires that "The buildings may be occupied by bona fide tourists only with no period of occupancy exceeding 4 weeks between the period of Easter and October 31st in any year."
Works are proposed outside the units including the installation of steps in the gardens behind block B (the eastern block). There are already fences separating the rear gardens which give a slightly urban appearance (it may have been more sympathetic to leave this open space as would have originally been round the barns). Also proposed is the relocation of oil tanks to the rear of Block B and the creation of parking spaces - 15 in all (one per bedroom) also behind Block B in place of a barn which is to be demolished. To the rear of the barn are to be planted whitebeam and rowan where the undergrowth is to be cleared.
The units were completed and have been operational for around six months. The Planning Office has received complaints since September that the units were being used for permanent occupation and not in accordance with the conditions of approval.
There are various objections to the application from neighbours, from those who have a right of way across or around the site and from the Department of Tourism and Leisure who object to the loss of tourist accommodation. There are two perspectives from which the application should be considered: a) firstly, considering the approval which has been granted for the use of the buildings to tourist accommodation, is the loss of this accommodation acceptable and is there sufficient justification to warrant this further change of use? b) Alternatively, if the previous permission had not been sought, would the use now proposed have been/be considered acceptable in terms of policy on the renovation and use of rural buildings (Planning Circular 3/89)? In both cases, what must also be considered is the impact of the ancillary works - the car parking, the removal of the adjacent building on the operation of the farm, the appearance of the building and on neighbouring land users. In all aspects the appearance of the building and the comings and goings should be considered.
a) Is the change of use warranted and the loss of tourist accommodation acceptable?
There is no supporting information supplied to justify the change of use and it could therefore be surmised that there is no justification for the proposed development. If there was a lack of demand for the tourist accommodation, the relatively short period which the premises have been available for such use is hardly sufficient time in which a reasonable conclusion could be reached to justify such a change of use. Also, it is understood that the units are being marketed as permanent accommodation for which it could be suggested that there may be a greater demand, particularly in winter months. The Department of Tourism and Leisure object to the application and they cite their Tourism Strategy 2004-2005 which includes reference to a target of increasing the total number of bedspaces across the board (hotels, guest house and self-catering) to 8,000 by 2008 from 6,900 in 2003. The Department also states that there continues to be a demand for quality rural accommodation which this undoubtedly is.
Planning Circular 3/89 requires that the redundancy of the building is established by the applicant who should address, and produce evidence to substantiate the last active use of the building and the reasons why the building is no longer suitable for such use. There is no such evidence.
On these bases, the application should be refused.
b) Is the proposal in accordance with planning policy?
The most relevant policy which relates to this proposal is Planning Circular 3/89 which deals with the Renovation of Buildings in the Countryside. This requires that buildings are structurally capable of renovation and are of sufficient interest to warrant retention and a change of use and where the building is redundant for its original purpose. These requirements have been met as is reflected in the previous decision to accept the renovation of the building for tourist accommodation (there are no additional provisions for tourist accommodation with respect to developments in the countryside: these are subject to the same constraints as other rural developments).
This Circular also requires that the proposed use is compatible with existing adjacent land uses (paragraph 6) and specifies that this is particularly important where residential or tourist uses are to be introduced to agricultural areas. In the case of the tourist use, the short-term nature of the use would not generally interfere with or adversely affect the running of the farm, the proposed development of the educational facilities (PA 04/2558) or the occupation or the adjoining dwelling on the basis that holiday-makers are generally more accepting of agricultural noise, traffic and smells as part of their holiday experience, and tend to generate less regimented patterns of traffic, lower levels of traffic and little in the way of deliveries, and visitors. The permanent use of some of the units is likely to result in more traffic, more traffic using the access (past Ballahowin House) in more concentrated patterns of travel and the more individuals who are resident the more likely it is that the proposed use will result in an adverse impact on the running of the farm. Evidence from the objectors seems to suggest that this is already the case with the keeping of dogs on the premises, the deposition of rubbish in the lane, people parking outside designated areas and in the lane blocking the passage of other vehicles.
This would all suggest that the proposed use would not be compatible with the other existing users of the land and the access and I would also doubt the compatibility of the proposed use with the running of the applicant's own farming enterprise and proposed future activities.
One may also ask whether those coming to the complex on holiday would expect to find the other half of the complex occupied permanently and whether one type of user would be truly compatible with the other? For example, would holiday-makers feel inhibited coming in late perhaps in a taxi and would the permanent residents be comfortable leaving early in the morning for work and possibly disturbing the holiday-makers and vice versa?
The ancillary development - the creation of the car park, the appearance of parked vehicles and the demolition of the barn are not in my view compatible with attempts and requirements under the Circular to try to retain the original character and appearance of the barn. These are undoubtedly essential facilities for those who would be living in the barn.
Finally, this is not a location which would be considered sustainable for permanent accommodation. It is not within walking distance of shops or other services and any occupant would be totally reliant upon the private motor car for all his or her needs.
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
The occupants of Ballahowin House, Sulbrick Farm, Tandem and 33, Manor Lane (who has a right of access through the site to land at Sulbrick Farm) are all directly affected by the development through proximity of their property or property they lease, and should be afforded party status in this instance.
Department of Tourism and Leisure represent a statutory authority, raise points related to the material considerations and should be afforded party status in this instance.
Fire Prevention Officer raise points related to the Building Regulations and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The occupant of Port Soderick and The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment are not directly affected by the proposal and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 29.01.2007
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. Whilst Planning Circular 3/89 makes provision for the renovation and conversion of redundant buildings in the countryside, there is no evidence to suggest that the building is redundant for its most recently approved use (that is, tourist accommodation under the provisions of PA 01/2224). As such, the proposal fails to comply with the provisions of Planning Circular 3/89.
R 2. Planning Circular 3/89 also requires that the use to which buildings which are to be considered suitable for renovation are to be put, must be compatible with other adjacent land uses. In this case the buildings are alongside existing residential property as well as agricultural buildings and activity and also tourist accommodation which is to be retained.
In the case of the adjacent residential accommodation, the introduction of permanent living accommodation is likely to result in an increase in traffic concentration of the movement of this traffic to particular times of the day, the keeping of domestic pets and an increase in noise all of which could adversely affect the amenities of those living close to the site and coming and going to those properties.
In the case of the agricultural activities, the introduction of permanent living accommodation in such quantities in the midst of a farm yard together with the traffic associated with those units, are not likely to be compatible with a working farm or the proposed future educational facilities permitted under PA 04/2558.
Finally, in the case of the remaining tourist units, the proximity of permanent units is likely to result in diminution of the enjoyment of the holiday accommodation through the potential for early morning pedestrian and vehicular movement (residents going to work), and disturbance of those in the permanent accommodation through the likes of the possible later arrivals home of the holiday-makers, possibly in taxis.
R 3.
The creation of more substantial car parking facilities and the appearance of so many parked vehicles associated with the occupation of the permanent accommodation is not considered to be sympathetic to the existing barn complex whose conversion has largely retained the original character and appearance of the barns as rural buildings.
R 4. The location of the proposed residential units is not one which would be generally considered as sustainable as the site is some distance from any village facilities or services and those living each property would be reliant upon the private motor vehicle for such amenities. This is of particular concern as there is a valid permission for a use (tourist accommodation) for which a sustainable location is less important.
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
