Loading document...
Application No.: 21/01258/B Applicant: Mr Carl & Mrs Tracy Underwood Proposal: Conversion and extension of existing mill building to form a single dwelling with associated landscaping, garaging and new vehicle entrance Site Address: Ballakindry Mill Ballagawne Road Ballabeg Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 4PD Senior Planning Officer: Mr Jason Singleton Site Visit: 29.03.2022 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 12.05.2022 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal - R 1. The site is not zoned for development and the building is not within a named settlement and in accordance with the settlement hierarchy, would encourage unsustainable development. Accordingly it is considered contrary to Strategic Policy 2 and 10 and also Spatial Policy 4, of the Strategic Plan. - R 2. Although an argument could be made that the existing building is of sufficient interest to warrant its retention and conversion, the extent of the structural works required with the intervention to the fabric of the building to make the structure sound coupled with the unacceptable upwards extension, the overbearing rear extension, the inappropriate modifications to the exiting apertures and spread of hard standing and domestic curtilage would have a significant and adverse impact on the original appearance, character, historic interest and materials of the original building contrary to General Policy 3 (b) and Housing Policy 4b and Housing Policy 11. - R 3. The proposed extension is much larger than 50% which results in a built form that would not be subordinate to the existing building and would be viewed as inappropriate development which would see a loss of its individual character which does not respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing Mill property and would be contrary to Housing Policy 15. - R 4. The application site is not zoned for development and is within an area of countryside. The proposed alterations and extensions and the subsequent introduction of large areas of - hard standing would result in an unacceptable visual impact on the wider rural landscape and countryside setting of the site contrary to Environment Policy 1 and paragraphs 8.10.1 and 8.10.2. - R 5. The design, size and scale of the proposed extension, and its finishes, are not sympathetic to the rural character of the area and is considered over development with an adverse visual impact that affects the character of the setting, contrary to Strategic Policy 5 and General Policy 2 (b & c) of the Strategic Plan. - R 6. The use of the proposed entrance in a safe and appropriate manner would create an adverse impact on the existing highway or upon those users entering and or exiting the site contrary to the principles of General Policy 2(h&I) and Transport Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan - (2016). - R 7. The proposed loss of trees would adversely affect the character and would detrimentally affect the public amenity value of this collection of trees where the proposals do not enhance or protect the landscape quality and nature conservation value to this site and hence the proposal is contrary Environment Policy 3 and Strategic Policy 4(b) of the Strategic Plan (2016). - R 8. There is insufficient information available to understand the impact of the development on the adjacent watercourse contrary to Environment Policy 7 and General Policy 2l. _______________________________________________________________
Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:
Manx National Heritage
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
Ballagawne Farm, Ballabeg;
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is the parcel of land located to the east of (B43) Ballagawne Road. The property sits within a former wooded area (a number of trees now removed) with a pond to the north of the site. - 1.2 Adjacent to the highway is a Manx stone building referred to as Ballakindry Mill which has been abandoned for a number of years. The building has a footprint of approx. when
measured externally 18m long and 7m wide (126sqm) on the ground floor and at first floor
1.3 The Mill is characterised by its Manx stone Construction where the stone is laid in horizontally format with prominent stone quoins and some bricks installed at later date. The building has a basic rectangle form a predominately two stories high with a lean to extension on the southern elevation. The building is clearly of historic and traditional character with only limited fenestration in the elevations to reflective the use as a former mill as opposed to a dwelling. - 1.4 There has been a number of works undertaken on site that currently do not benefit from valid planning approval that has altered the appearance of the building (roof removed and fenestrations altered, engineering works to remove the earth to the East of the building, a number of trees have been felled and two entrances have been created into the site. - 1.5 The previous case officer in describing the property under application ref; 17/00725/B (see planning history) before any works were undertaken as; "There is a prominent vehicular sized entrance situated centrally within the front elevation, which has a slightly curved head, also formed of vertically oriented brickwork. There are no other openings at the ground floor level besides a pedestrian access into the side elevation and a very small square aperture to the right of the vehicular entrance. On the first floor of the front elevation are five openings of differing sizes. One would appear to have formed some kind of delivery access as it is - at - 1.6m in height - just large enough for a person to stand within. The other four openings are more clearly windows, fitted with robust timber lights albeit that the glazing is no longer present and boards behind those openings are apparent. To the rear, there are five, similarly high-level, openings, albeit that these are (or would have been) all windows: they are identical in size".
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application proposes the conversion of the existing mill building to form a single residential dwellinghouse with a three storey extension to the east elevation with integrated garaging and the creation of new vehicle entrances. - 2.2 The built form would see a contemporary extension being constructed perpendicular off the east elevation to provide garaging and additional living accommodation. This extension would approx. measure a footprint of 9.7m wide x 11m long with a link extension measuring a footprint of 3.5m x 8.0m. The ground floor would be utilised for garaging with a utility room and entrance hall with staircases, the first floor an open plan lounge kitchen and dining room and the second floor a master bedroom, walk in wardrobe and separate en-suite bathroom with a 2.3m x 10m balcony off the north elevation with glazed screening. The extension would utilise contemporary materials and design features with a glazed entrance hall and stairwell providing a 'natural link and visual separation'. The extension would be finished with stone cladding to the ground floor and painted render and aluminium framed glazing throughout the extension and a zinc standing seam roof. It is noted the roof would be no higher than the existing (raised) ridge height. - 2.3 The proposals also include as annotated on the drawings;
2.4 The agent notes the following measurements in relation to the increase in footprint; "The Ballakindry Mill design proposal, the ratio of new extension gross footprint to
original mill gross footprint is as follows: Existing mill gross footprint: 122.9 sq.m Proposed Extension gross footprint: 135.6 sq.m Ratio of new footprint to existing footprint: 110% If the gross footprint of the living accommodation if implemented (117.2 sq.m) this ratio becomes 95%".
2.5 The agent further notes the rational for the size increase for the extension is; "The total floor area of the new dwelling as proposed is 559.5 sq.m. Of this the lower ground floor which is primarily garage, storage and utility space, accounts for over 24% of the total area. This lower ground floor area is an integral part of the design as the Applicants own and run a popular outdoor activity centre nearby and may need the space to store and maintain equipment. It is also important to the way the two parts of the new accommodation fit together and sit comfortably into the existing slope of the site, as the garage is below ground on the northern side, allowing the living area on the first floor (entry level) to connect on the level with the garden space". - 2.6 The application is accompanied with a Structural Survey dated 29 July 2020, that provides a comprehensive description of the built form and materials used, its general appearance through observations, with comments on the integrity of the walls, floor and roof and details how the renovation works can be sympathetically and safely undertaken. The report concludes; "The sequence of works noted in 3.1.1 (of their report) should be followed to ensure the structural integrity of the building is maintained and further ongoing inspections of the existing structure may require an alteration to the sequencing however, we feel confident solutions can be found to resolve any issues encountered". - 2.7 The applicant also notes in their correspondance dated 14.12.21 - "Remedial and Emergency Works Following Purchase: Following our purchase the building was deemed unsafe due to the rotten and decayed first floor beams, the rotten remains of the roof trusses, rotten A-frames and the few remaining small patches of loose slates therefore, emergency works had to be carried out to save the building from total collapse. All rotten roof timbers were removed and the rotten beams spanning and supporting the width of the building were replaced with steel, the gable end peaks were leaning dangerously inward and therefore were removed and the inside of the building has since been cleaned, stonework treated and rendered and made good with fresh lime and mortar. This emergency work has since been inspected by building control who were content with the work carried out and it was agreed that the external stonework could also be made good". - 2.8 There is no indication what would be the residential curtilage and what would be land associated with the newly formatted dwellinghouse.
3.1 The land as designated, is not zoned for development and sits within a rural part of the open countryside on Map 6 (Colby & Ballabeg) of the Area Plan for the South. The site is not within a Conservation Area. - 3.2 The land is also linked to Map 2 Landscape Assessment Areas; that identifies site is within an area that is broadly classified as D14 or 'Incised Slopes' - 3.3 Within the written statement under section 3.0 Landscape Character Area (LCA), page 16, para. D14 is broadly referred to; Ballamodha, Earystane and St Marks (D14) notes that the; "The overall strategy is to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area, with its wooded valley bottoms, its strong geometric field pattern delineated by Manx hedges, its numerous traditional buildings and its network of small roads and lanes. The strategy should also include the restoration of landscapes disturbed by former mining activities…. Distant views prevented at times by dense woodland in river valleys and by the cumulative screening effect of hedgerow trees, which tend to create wooded horizons… Open and panoramic views out to sea from the higher areas on the upper western parts of the area where there are few trees to interrupt views." - 3.4 Part of the site (body of water to the north of the site) is identified as being at a High flood risk from Surface water and the adjacent highway is at a low risk of surface water flooding. It is noted the building and its footprint is not identified as being at flood risk. - 3.5 The site sits within a Registered Tree area RA0270 (10,459 sq m) that encompasses the site and also that to the south of the site outside of the application site. - 3.6 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application; Strategic Policy
Environment Policy 1 Protection of the countryside 3 Protection of trees and woodland 4 Wildlife and Nature Conservation 7 Protection of existing watercourses
Housing Policy
Transport Policy 4 Highway safety
3.7 Paragraph 8.10 - Conversion of Rural Buildings to Dwellings - 3.8 Paragraph 8.11.1 - Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside - 3.9 Planning Circular 3/91 - Guide to the residential development in the countryside. - 3.10 Residential Design Guide (2021) This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing
property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 17/00725/B - Conversion of existing redundant mill to single dwelling with associated parking. APPROVED - with Conditions;
to the north of the site to improve visibility, as shown in drawing 1758-04C, must be undertaken and the hedge maintained as such thereafter. Reason: in the interests of highway safety.
above, no further work may commence until such times as the protective fencing has been erected as shown in drawing 1758-02A and agreed on site with the Department as being in accordance with the drawings, and such fencing must remain in situ for the duration of the construction and engineering works. No trees other than those shown for removal on this drawing may be removed under the terms of this approval. Reason: to protect the trees to be retained in the interests of the character of the area.
Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling, including the installation or replacement of any windows or doors, hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department. Reason: to control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no garages or other free standing buildings shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, without the prior written approval of the Department. Reason: to control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no solar panels shall be attached to any building or erected within the site, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, without the prior written approval of the Department. Reason: To safeguard the residential character and amenities of the area.
scale elevations showing the sections of the elements and their position within the apertures, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The works shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details. Reason: to ensure the satisfactory preservation of this building of interest.
Shoots Landscape Proposal and in the first planting season (November to March) following the completion of the development. Any trees which, within a period of 5 years from their planting die, are removed or in the opinion of the Department, become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable or in the next planting season, with others of similar size and species and number as originally approved, unless otherwise approved by the Department. Reason; to provide an appropriate visual and environmental setting for the development.
4.2 16/01283/B - Conversion of existing mill building to single dwelling with associated parking. REFUSED for the following reasons;
4.3 05/01102/B - Conversion of mill to single dwelling. APPROVED.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS (in brief - full reps can be read online)
5.1 Arbory and Rushen Commissioners commented at length to OBJECT to the application on account of;
(24.11.21); negative impact on the ecology of the area; works already undertaken are detrimental; impact upon bats; diversion of the ponds 'over flow' into the highway ditch leading to problems downstream and flooding; impact on the yellow flag iris bed on the opposite side of the road; road is de-restricted, narrow and rural and poor condition and safety impacts for vehicle users on blind corners; Commissioners disagree that there were two existing entrances to the site; the layby in front of the building is a passing place and would be obstructed by the proposed boundary wall; the building is much larger than 50% and its size and massing is unacceptable for the area; the use of the site for commercial storage for their business is at odds with the proposed residential use. Breach of condition 5 by installing a caravan and container and insensitive approach to the proposals.
(29.04.22) "The Commissioners still OBJECT and remain concerned about this application and wish to reiterate their previous comments. The Commissioners were particularly concerned that the revised plans exacerbate their concern that a significant part of the original highway would
be removed if this application succeeds. They share concerns expressed by the Department of Infrastructure, about access to the site."
5.2 DoI Highways Services (11.11.21) commented to OBJECT on account of being unacceptable to Highways and
comments on inadequate visibility splays, drainage, comparisons to the previous approval
(2017) and creation of two accesses that is contrary to Departmental Policy.
(15.12.21) commented to OBJECT following correspondence with the applicant, on account of, "it should be noted that it appears an additional field access to the south of the site has been created without apparent planning permission or application. Additionally, a temporary site access has been created at the location of the southernmost access to this site without permission or application, surfaced with loose material and has the potential for surface water run-off onto the highway due to the clearance of vegetation." Again reiterates the issues over adequate visibility splays for the proposed 2 entrances, the contrary to policy, issues over road safety risk, "Highway Services retain the original opposition to the proposal on the grounds that access arrangements pose a road safety risk. The southernmost access achieves substandard visibility of the road. Additionally, the proposal would see the creation of two accesses to a single dwelling, contrary to Department policy, increasing the potential for conflicting vehicular movements".
(26.04.22) commented again, on amended plans (which now propose only one access), to OBJECT the proposed access as it is not existing and is the creation of a new access, and not alteration of an existing. "This view is supported by the applicants 'Site Plan As Existing' in which no access at the proposed location is shown"; One access point to the site is acceptable, however, the proposed access would not be able to achieve a safe visibility splay to the right of exit (north) an acceptable distance; Highway Services do not support the use of traffic mirrors in replacement of an acceptable level of visibility; the proposed boundary wall is to be constructed on Highways land which is not acceptable.
5.3 DoI Drainage commented (03.12.21 & 22.03.22) have concerns with regard to run-off water entering the highway and seek updated information. - 5.4 Manx National Heritage (ecology) commented (10.11.21) regarding roosting Bats and records of pipistrelle bats are present in the area, comments on the Wildlife Act and recommend a bat survey. (19/11.21) to retract their comments as there is no roof, windows or opportunities for roosting bats to shelter. - 5.5 Manx National Heritage (buildings) commented (22.11.21) comprehensively to OBJECT to the conversion proposals on the former Mill namely;
5.6 DEFA Fisheries commented (7/12/21) do not object provided there is no adverse effect on the water course. - 5.7 DEFA Inland Fisheries commented (13/04/22) to confirm they have visited the site and do not object to the retrospective development at the site. - 5.8 DEFA Arboricultural Officer commented (30.11.21) at length to OBJECT on the significant loss of tree cover from the site in recent years, reflects on the previous comments on former applications and their significance on the landscape and character of the local area; raises issue with the lack of protective fencing on site; "through the combination of a planning approval and a licence under the TPA, 38 trees have been approved for removal at this site. To comply with the TPA licence 29 trees need to be replanted on the site", "There are now very few good quality trees left on this site, especially ones that have been unaffected by recent grade changes. I estimate that tree canopy cover within the site boundary (red line) has reduced from approximately 75% in 2015 to 25% in 2021. The understorey and ground vegetation has been stripped, so other than the trees that are due to be planted, there is unlikely to be a new generation of trees developing on this site. In this context the removal of additional trees is unacceptable and the directorate must therefore object to this application." - 5.9 The applicants have provided commentary, photos and images, specifically to address those comments as noted above from the statutory consultees (available online) that has also copied in the planning department for their record; Information was received on 03.02.22; 15.12.21(1), 15.12.21(2); 15.12.21(3); 31.03.22; 06.04.22; 31.03.22. - 5.10 Ballagawne Farm, Ballabeg (14/04/22) broadly supports the planning applicaiton, gives consent for the installtion of a pole mounted traffic mirror on the oppiste hedge from the site; comments on the low traffic volumes on the road and given their years of farming in the area and doesnt see any highway issues.
6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;
6.1 The starting point here is the land designation, it is clear from the Area Plan for the South, the application site is within a rural and protected part of the countryside where any development is strictly controlled and the site is not allocated for development. - 6.2 In considering this application, Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policy 1-4 identify areas of development to be located, generally within existing towns and villages and development in the countryside is only permitted in exceptional circumstances, which is detailed in Spatial Policy 5 and cross referenced to General Policy 3. The site sits outside of the 'main settlement boundary' for Ballabeg and Colby as noted in SP4 and is very much part of the open countryside as previously identified and development would be contrary to those policies in principle. - 6.3 The site does sit on a service road where there are some residential dwellings along its length and is easily accessible from the highway given its immediate location abutting the highway. Given the broad location of the site and its location, it does sit within a remote part of the countryside where there are no provisions for accessible public transport. As such occupants here would be very dependent on private vehicle usage and this aspect would be contrary to Strategic Policy 10 (a)-(d). - 6.4 The existing structure has been abandoned for many years; its physical remains being a reflection of agricultural / industrial heritage and social change across the Island, often such features in the rural landscape are not unacceptable in their present and ruinous state and are attractive as is. In the case of this application, the building is of historic interest to warrant its retention and would require sensitive development in order to convert it to a habitable dwelling (which has been demonstrated in the 2017 approval) and in seeking to continue to visually positively contribute to the Islands built heritage. However, the building is not within a named settlement and in accordance with the settlement hierarchy, would encourage unsustainable development. Accordingly it is considered contrary to Strategic Policy 2 and 10 and also Spatial Policy 4, of the Strategic Plan.
6.5 In terms of planning policy there is a long established presumption against new residential development in the countryside. General Policy 3(b), and Housing Policy 4b both allow for exceptions for the conversion of redundant rural buildings and the sequential test through HP11 subject to various caveats, including that the building is redundant and of architectural, historic or social value. In this instance, it would be prevalent to focus on HP11 for the conversion of the building to residential and the proposed extension (visual impact) against HP15 given the traditional appearance. - 6.6 When considering HP11 and the conversion of the remaining fabric of the building, which precludes the rebuilding of ruins or the erection of a replacement dwelling of similar or even identical form. In this case, there is an existing structure on site that has been assessed by a competent structural engineer whom are of the professional opinion (as noted in para 2.6) that a solution can be found for its conversion. - 6.7 When cross referencing the proposal with HP11 and the sequential test the following is summarised, as noted below;
6.8 Such conversion must;
6.9 On the whole it is considered the proposed interference with the fabric of the building to convert to a dwelling and the proposed extension works with hard and soft landscaping would lead to a loss of the original character and does not satisfy the main test under HP11 (d,e,f (a-b)) for conversion of existing rural building into a dwelling. - 6.10 For reference, in the 2017 application the case officer noted that proposal was acceptable because; "The design proposed here is judged appropriate and overcomes the previous reasons for refusal through a greater respect for existing window and door openings and the omission of more fussy and modern annexes and detailing. The building has a clear character and what is proposed will alter without affecting that character: the new window openings are subtle and reflect the scale and positioning/arrangement of the existing openings. The interventions are limited in number and form and would not affect the historic character of
the mill. As such, it is concluded that the conversion would meet the requirements of Housing Policy 11 with regards a design approach for such conversions."
6.11 In terms of the proposed extension to the Mill building we turn to HP15 where extensions to traditional rural properties is generally only permissible whether these respect the proportion and form of the existing property and only exceptionally will an increase over 50% being acceptable. However this is not absolute and more of a guide figure but the key is that it should appear subordinate to the original building (in terms of floor space of no more than 50% of the original) with minimal visual impact to the wider countryside. - 6.12 The proposal has been designed to be larger than the existing mill as demonstrated in the architects own numerical analysis of internal floor area calculations even though in planning the reference is to "external floor area", (Definition of Floor area in the Strategic Plan) for the assessment. As such this results in a design that rather than being subordinate would be superior in appearance and this concern is echoed in the detailed comments from MNH and that of the Local Authority. - 6.13 In terms of the visual impact, the main part of the proposed three storey extension is made up of one built form which effectively increases the massing of the building and finished in a contrasting materials of large areas of glazing, painted render and zinc profiled roof, which would further exacerbate the visual impact. The matching ridge height and its overall massing and scale will give the appearance of larger built form that would be prominent when read in contrast to the smaller Manx stone building that it is attached too and contrary to what HP15 seeks. In this case the proposed extension would appear to be the dominant feature leading to inappropriate development on the existing property. The design should take account of the particular character and identity to strike a balance to what the planning policies try to achieve. - 6.14 Whilst the application would strive to re-establish the character of the building, there are a number of changes proposed which would irretrievably remove the building's mill character, as noted by MNH, and would alter historic fabric for no demonstrable good reason, which would result in a building that would have the appearance of a new-build residential dwelling, in the countryside. The proposed conversion would wholly fail to respect what is an attractive and characterful building that should be protected. - 6.15 Those comments raised from MNH regarding the intervention into the fabric of the building would have limited success in creating additional openings, or, enlarging the existing fenestration. They consider those works will lose the character and its appearance of the elevation, also the increase in eaves and ridge height make this disproportionate to the existing character. Where traditionally (PC.3/91) the tops of the windows would have met with the eaves height, as the existing would have been before the intervention to raise the eaves to provide a full two storey but equally the proposal is not seen to preserve the historic character and its appearance within the rural landscape. - 6.16 There is no avoiding the fact that the proposed extension in terms of its siting, scale, massing, height and finishes would be clearly visible from the public views from the highway and given the general topography of the area, would be visible when travelling in either direction on the adjacent highway, more so given the openness of the site following the significant loss of trees and vegetation. - 6.17 Nevertheless, whilst most of the massing is contained to the rear (East), and through boundary treatment and planting may screen some of the built form in years to come, just because it is not in full view of a public vantage point does not automatically give a reason for the proposal to be mitigated. The application site is in a highly visible location, (being adjacent to a main road) and the proposed extension and the proposed boundary wall abutting the
6.21 The site sits remote on the landscape with considerable distance to the nearest neighbours, as such there are no immediate neighbours that are considered to be impacted by the proposed development. As such, these aspects would be considered to be compliant with those sections of General Policy 2(g) and the Residential Design Guide 2021.
6.22 The application site already features an existing access that already serves the site, opposite the entrance to the mill building. It is noted highways do not accept the proposed access is 'as existing' (as too do the Commissioners) and do not consider the visibility splays appropriate for highways safety. It is noted in their comments they conclude; "Highway Services Development Control opposes the proposal as it is contrary to Isle of Man Strategic Plan General Policy 2 (i). The achievable visibility from the proposed access is not sufficient enough for the expected vehicle speeds at this location, creating an unacceptable risk to road users. The encroachment of the retaining feature into/on the public highway creates further road safety risk and is unacceptable to Highways". As the transport professionals their comments are noted and as they object specifically on highway safety, this aspect of the proposal would be contrary to GP2h&i, and Transport Policy 4.
6.23 The comments from the Arboricultural officer are damning on the level of trees that have been removed on site, with or without consent, especially as the site sits within a designated registered tree area; RA0270. Nevertheless, they are gone and irreparable damage has been done and what remains is a cleared site of any trees and vegetation. It is noted on the drawings most of the land that is not to be built on or used as hard landscaping (paths and driveway) is to be grass or lawn areas. There are proposed replacement trees on site but this is more akin to what was sought from the felling license. There is no additional landscaping plan submitted or a management plan. On balance the nature of the works on site and the
proposals would be seen to be contrary to what EP3,SP4b and are seeking to achieve in protecting the natural environment.
6.24 In relation to the issue of the comments of the Flood Risk Management Team who have considered the application in detail and run off after entering the highway, the presence of the ditch adjacent to the highway could accommodate any run off water and the application form notes that any rainwater will be discharged into an existing water course and referenced a license No.WPA/08/2005. - 6.25 However there lies the concerns as the amount of hard surfaces being created through roofs and hard landscaping, ie non permeable surfaces, and the lack of any surface water drainage mitigation measures, means this could put additional pressure on the existing ditch and as the Commissioners have already identified by the over flow from the pond being diverted and would exacerbate any flood risk to those lower down the stream which has not been taken into consideration at this stage. As such it has not been demonstrated there would be no unreasonable risk of flooding or flood risk resulting from the proposed development and could be considered contrary with GP2l, Ep7.
2.26 Part of the proposals note a degree of engineering works (retrospective) to the east of the building, essentially removing a quantity of soil / earth that has been deposited and spread to the north of the building around the south of the pond. This aspect is retrospective and no such details have been provided on quantities, how the embankment has been created and whether this was an engineered design was followed to address a "leak" to the pond. The pond on site is more akin to a hobby or private pond that has no real formalisation in its use or any planning permission for a commercial use.
7.1 On balance it is judged, the proposal is contrary to those aforementioned Policies of the Strategic Plan and does not meet the tests for exceptional development within the countryside. It is therefore concluded that the planning application is recommended for eight reasons for refusal. - 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:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 23.05.2022
Signed : J SINGLETON Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
