Loading document...
The site is the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling, Ballakewin Farm, which sits to the south of the Grenaby Road (B22) and on the western side of the A3 Foxdale Road, to the north west of Ballahott Farm.
The site accommodates a dwelling and a detached garage, both of which back right onto the pavement of the western side of the A3 and there is also a small outbuilding to the west of the other buildings. There is a hard surfaced access and parking areas behind the roadside buildings, sufficient to accommodate at least six vehicles.
The main house is a mixture of heights, window styles and roof orientation, all with rendered walling and slated roofing. The garage which is the subject of this application is similarly finished - a simple building which has a 30 degree pitched roof and has dimensions of 10.5m by 5.8m (internally there is approximately 48 sq m of floor space). It presently has three single garage doors in the west-facing elevation and no windows or rooflights in the roadward facing elevation.
The site lies within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982. On the draft Southern Area Plan the site is not within one which is designated for development and on the draft Landscape Character Assessment the site is within an area of Incised Inland Slopes.
Ballamodha, Earystane and St. Mark's
"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." Key views include "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 and open and panoramic views out to sea from the higher area on the upper western parts of the area where there are few trees to interrupt views."
The draft Planning Policy Statement 2/09 - The Role of Landscape Character in Development states:
The overall strategy for the protection and enhancement of the Incised Slopes Landscape Character Type is to conserve and enhance: the remote and rural character; the relatively sparse settlement pattern of traditional hamlets and scattered farm buildings; the network of sunken and enclosed rural roads; and the substantial hedgerows and sod banks dividing irregularly-shaped pastoral fields. Key landscape planning considerations in relation to the protection and enhancement of this Landscape Character Type are as follows:
Proposed is the conversion of the garage into a self-contained living unit which will be occupied in association with the accommodation available in the main dwelling. The applicant wishes for her daughter to be able to live within the site so that she can look after her in later years. The applicant states that the garage is no longer used for accommodating vehicles and is used for the storage of domestic materials. The applicant states that there is sufficient space for a garage to be built at some time in the future if one were desired, and one could be built under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005.
The applicant states that the building is large enough as it stands to provide a modest sized dwelling, the opportunity is being taken to extend the building to provide bedroom accommodation for the applicant's other daughter.
The external changes proposed to the building are the installation of patio doors in place of the two outer garage doors and the provision of a porch in the central garage door aperture. An extension is proposed - 3.4m long and set back from the front of the building by 200mm. Two rooflights will be inserted into the roadward facing roof pitch and a window in the northern gable along with a soil vent pipe on each gable.
General Policy 3: 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, historical, or social value and interest (Housing Policy 11) c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of buildings where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environmental 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-dependant 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".
Housing Policy 11 states "Conversion of existing rural buildings into dwellings may be permitted but only where,
a) redundancy for the original use can be established; b) the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation; c) the building is of architectural, historic or social interest; d) the building is large enough to form a satisfactory dwelling, either as it stands or with modest, subordinate extension which does not affect adversely the character or interest of the building; e) residential use would not be incompatible with adjoining established uses or, where appropriate land use zonings on the area plans; and f) the building is or can be provided with satisfactory services without unreasonable public expenditure.
Such conversion must:
a) where practicable and desirable, re-establish the original appearance of the building; and b) use the same materials as those in the existing building.
Permission will not be given for the rebuilding of ruins or the erection of replacement building of similar, or even identical form.
Further extension of converted buildings will not usually be permitted, since this would lead to loss or reduction of the original interest and character."
Planning permission was granted for the erection of two poultry breeding units under PA 86/0528 and for the conversion of these to a slaughter house under PA 87/1336.
Approval was granted for the conversion to holiday/guest accommodation of the application building under PA 89/1849 although this does not appear to have been implemented, and the building which is now the garage - the application building - was converted form a barn and extended slightly at the front to create the garage under PA 92/1349.
Replacement windows were approved in the main house under PA 11/499.
Malew Parish Commissioners indicate that they do not object to this application
Highways and Traffic Division raises concerns as the drawings do not illustrate the 4 parking spaces which are required for the development. Also they are concerned that the access will become a shared access which is not wide enough – it should be 4.1m and finally, visibility splays are not adequate and as such increased usage of the entrance is not recommended.
The applicant has previously, in pre-application discussions, addressed Housing Policy 11 and suggested that the building is no longer required for garaging, it is intact and the extensions are modest. She has suggested that the part relating to the architectural, social or historical building is not relevant.
There are a number of issues in respect of this proposal: firstly, is the building redundant_ The applicant indicates that it is being used albeit not for the storage of motor cars and that if there was a need for a garage in the future, this could be accommodated by the erection of a new garage, perhaps under the provisions of the Permitted Development Order. As such it is considered that it has not been demonstrated that the building is redundant and that in the future, particularly after the creation of additional living accommodation, that it would not be required in the future, leading to the possibility of the erection of further garage facilities.
If it is accepted that the building is redundant, whilst the building is not of particular social or historic interest, it is a prominent and relatively old building in the streets cene and less altered than the main dwelling. The main alterations which have been undertaken to the building are not apparent from the public view.
The building is large enough to accommodate a dwelling without extension: under the Housing (Flats) Regulations 1982 the unit would be large enough to accommodate two persons on a permanent basis without any extension. The extension proposed is therefore not essential.
The use as a dwelling would complement the use of the main dwelling for residential accommodation and despite the concerns of Highways and Traffic Division, there would appear to be sufficient space for car parking within the site without any changes. The access appears to provide for the 4.1m required by Highways and Traffic Division, however, visibility splays are limited by the existing buildings which are built on the side of the footway and the round gate pillar which intrudes into the footway. As such the provisions for access would not appear to be appropriate for increased usage of this access.
The proposed changes do not restore the original appearance of the building: the proposed porch adds a domestic element which would not have been found on the original barn and the extension does not appear as something which would have originally been in place.
The local authority, Malew Parish Commissioners is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.
The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 25.08.2011
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
Housing Policy 11 requires that in order for an application for conversion of a non-residential building to residential use to be considered acceptable, the building must be redundant for its original purpose. Its original purpose has been replaced by garaging, approved under PA 92/01349. It has been indicated in the application that the building is being used albeit not for the storage of motor cars and that if there was a need for a garage in the future, this could be accommodated by the erection of a new garage, perhaps under the provisions of the Permitted Development Order. This would suggest that the building is not presently redundant and/or that there may be a need for garaging in the future, particularly as there would be an additional residential unit within the curtilage as a result of the proposed conversion. As such it is considered that it has not been demonstrated that the building is redundant and that in the future, particularly after the creation of additional living accommodation, it would not be required in the future, leading to the possibility of the erection of further garage facilities and thus the proposal does not comply with the first requirement of Housing Policy 11.
R 2.
Housing Policy 11 requires that the building is large enough to accommodate a dwelling without extension: under the Housing (Flats) Regulations 1982 the unit would be large enough to accommodate two persons on a permanent basis without any extension. The extension proposed is therefore not essential. Furthermore, the proposed changes do not restore the original appearance of the building: the proposed porch adds a domestic element which would not have been found on the original barn and the extension does not appear as something which would have originally been in place.
R 3.
The visibility afforded to drivers of vehicles emerging from the site is impeded by the existing roadside buildings. As such, it is considered that the additional use of this access which would be generated by the conversion of the building to additional living accommodation, is unacceptable.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 30 August 2011
Signed : _________________________ Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Delete as appropriate
Signed : _________________________ Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown