Fire-damaged shed denied revamp over ‘accommodation’ concerns

Sunday 29 August 2021

Plans to rebuild a St. Mary shed damaged in a fire in 2005 have been thrown out by the Environment Minister over concerns the "agricultural storage" could be "readily converted" into accommodation.

The Planning Committee had previously refused planning permission for the St. Mary development in November - a decision the owner appealed earlier this year.

He had hoped to rebuild a granite-walled agricultural storage shed, which was badly damaged in a fire in 2005, and is located in a côtil on Mont de St. Marie to the west of Crabbé.

While the exact age of the shed was unknown, it is believed it was built before planning controls came into force.

Pictured: The development site is located in a côtil on Mont de St. Marie to the west of Crabbé.

The first planning application related to the shed was submitted in 2013. It suggested reconstructing it as an artist’s workshop, but the idea was refused as it was deemed harmful to the character and amenities of the area, and there were concerns about it causing the loss of agricultural land to create access.

Another application was made the following year and approved, under the condition that development would start by the end of May 2019 and that it would respect the approved plans and that the shed would be used only for agricultural purposes.

The plans submitted last year were different to those approved in 2014 as they included the creation of a yard and an attic, as well as a larger ground-floor area and several “openings” that didn’t previously exist and were “characteristic of a residential building”.

In ruling against the development, the Planning Committee explained that the site forms part of the Coastal National Park, which has the “highest level of protection from development”.

They also said a new building shouldn’t be larger than the one it replaces, noting that the planning proposals for the shed involved increasing its overall size, relocating part of its footprint, and creating an additional yard area.

The Committee also noted that the building’s design, especially its windows, would make it “overtly residential or domestic in character”, which would be “inappropriate” as it would result in a development which causes harm to the “natural and agricultural character of the area”.

Pictured: The owner said that while he no longer farms, the shed would be used for agricultural purposes in association with land that he owns and maintains.

Appealing the decision, the owner said the development would retain some walls that had not been damaged by the fire and would be similar in size, scale, style and impact to the shed that existed before the fire. 

He said that, while he no longer farms, the shed would be used for agricultural purposes in association with land that he owns and maintains. 

Although the new build would be slightly bigger in footprint and floor area, the owner said its visual impact would be smaller than the original shed because its height would be lower, and the planting scheme would introduce “natural landscape features”.

The Planning Department said the proposed development didn’t comply with its policies because the size of the shed would be increased and its footprint relocated with the creation of a yard, increasing the overall impact on the landscape. 

They also said the design of the shed would be “out of character" with the area and cause harm to its natural and agricultural character. 

Planning Inspector David Hainsworth said the description of the development as the reconstruction of a shed destroyed by fire was “inaccurate”, suggesting it was in “the construction of a larger, entirely new, shed”.

He added its size, design and layout were suggestive of a building that could be “readily converted to residential use”, rather than one that would be of practical use to any agricultural enterprise, noting there was no evidence it was required for the latter.

He concluded the shed would not conform to planning policies, as none of the exceptions to the presumption against development in the Coastal National Park would be applicable, and that the appeal should be dismissed, a decision with the Environment Minister, Deputy John Young, agreed with.