Loading document...
Application No.: 19/01409/B Applicant: Mr James & Mrs Linda Cryer Proposal: Conversion and erection of extension of barn to provide ancillary living accommodation Site Address: Briarfield Grenaby Road Ballasalla Isle Of Man IM9 3DP Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 29.07.2020 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. Not only would what is proposed not comply with HP 11d and sub paragraph a (it would not re-establish the original appearance of the dwelling which is considered desirable in this case as if it were not, then the proposal would fail paragraph c), what is proposed would have a harmful impact on the character of the area due to the unsympathetic alterations to the building which are not in keeping with its current simple form in terms of the new dormers, modern extension with inappropriate doors and canopy and the modern form of glazing in the roadside gable. The proposal therefore also contravenes Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan. - R 2. The proposal would result in an intensification of substandard existing accesses and would result in a detrimental impact on highway safety, contrary to General Policy 2h and i of the Strategic Plan. _______________________________________________________________
Additional Persons None _____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report THE SITE
1.1 The site is an existing residential curtilage situated on the western side of the Grenaby Road, at its southern end near to its junction with the A3 Foxdale Road. The site
accommodates a dwelling, Briarfield, and its car port together with, to the south, a stone outbuilding and to the north another stone outbuilding with more recent outbuilding and a stable immediately to the north of the house. The barn which is the subject of the application which lies to the south of the house, is a simple, stone building which has its front gable on the roadside and which is rendered with a door at first floor level and garage door beneath underneath a red asbestos tiled roof. Three of the building's elevations are clearly visible from the highway.
2.1 Proposed is the conversion of the outbuilding to a dwelling. Whilst the application describes the accommodation as ancillary, the three bedroomed dwelling would appear to be self sufficient with easily severable parking and amenity space although sharing the existing access into the site. This is not necessarily an issue in itself (see Planning Policy and Assessment later in the report).
2.2 The conversion involves the alteration in some way of almost all of the existing apertures and the introduction of significantly more new openings, particularly in the upper floor as well as an extension on the southern elevation and the upward extension of the building by 1.5m. - 2.3 A Structural Report is provided which highlights a number of constraints: the condition of the roof, a lean in the rear gable wall, the condition of the roof purlins supported on the west gable, the timber inner lintels, cracking to the external walls and the timber wall plate at first floor level together with limited head height at first floor level. The suggested remedial work to address the structural issues include the replacement of the timber lintels, the application of concrete stitches to tie the walls together and the remaining voids filled with cementitious grout, the replacement of the wall plate in short lengths and the resulting void filled with slate bedded in sand lime mortar. It also comments on the proposal in architectural terms, suggesting that the scheme "re-using the existing door and window openings" and recommend that the peak of the eastern gable should be demolished given the magnitude of the out of plumbness this wall currently exhibits and they also recommend the demolition of the three existing openings on the southern elevation and the construction of new masonry sections to infill between the openings which is not shown on the plans. They are confident that whilst the scheme increases the height of the building, this additional load can be accommodated by the existing walls and ground beneath. They also recommend the installation of a concrete ring beam to wrap around the outer walls resulting in the demolition of both gable peaks despite the eastern gable being structurally sound and which is also not shown on the plans. The photographs provided in the Structural Report show the building being empty. - 2.4 The application also includes a Planning Statement which suggests that as the site is an established residential and the proposed accommodation is ancillary to that of the main house on the site, Housing Policy 11 is not applicable although they note that in the pre-application discussions, the planning officer indicated that the principle of conversion was acceptable subject to the application of HP11. - 2.5 The plans show the removal of "various apple trees replanted/replaced" the removal of a Manx palm and the removal of a large unspecified tree on the roadside with the annotation "canopy thinned".
3.1 The site lies within an area not designated for development on the Area Plan for the South.
3.2 There is a general presumption against development as set out in General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 which protects the countryside for its own sake. On the 1982 Development Plan Order the site is on the other side of the road from the Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance and as such, Environment Policy 2 is not applicable.
3.3 There is provision within General Policy 3 and later in Housing Policy 11 for the conversion of redundant rural buildings to residential with the following constraints:
Housing Policy 11: Conversion of existing rural buildings into dwellings may be permitted, but only where:
Permission will not be given for the rebuilding of ruins or the erection of replacement buildings of similar, or even identical, form.
Further extension of converted rural buildings will not usually be permitted, since this would lead to loss or reduction of the original interest and character.
3.4 Environment Policy 4 protects ecology. - 3.5 General Policy 2 sets out general standards of development to which every development should aspire regardless of whether it is within an area designated for development, despite this policy stating that it will be applied to development which is consistent with the land use designation of the site.
4.1 There have been a number of applications for the alterations to and extensions of the dwelling, which are not considered relevant to the current application. REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 DEFA's Ecosystems Policy Office report that the building has potential to be used by bats and nesting birds and require that an assessment for this is carried out prior to the determination of the application. They refer to the provisions of the Wildlife Act 1990 (14.01.20).
5.2 Malew Parish Commissioners have no objection to the application (08.01.20). - 5.3 DEFA's Arboricultural Officer has no objection to the removal of three trees on the south side of the barn but identifies the large Category A sycamore as a material constraint: this sits to the south west of the barn. He suggests that the rooting area of this tree should be just outside the proposed extension to the barn but recommends protective measures and provides suggested wording for this (22.01.20). - 5.4 DoI's Highway Services indicate that the existing entrance is substandard and what is proposed would intensify this and they also add that there is a lack of adequate car parking (03.01.20).
6.1 Despite what the applicant suggests, the site is not designated for development and simply because there is an existing dwelling within the site, this does not bring with it a presumption in favour of additional development. The pre-application advice that the appropriate policy to be applied is HP11 is correct. Unfortunately as the applicant does not believe this to be relevant, the supporting statement does not demonstrate how the proposal complies with this policy and indeed it would appear from the design of the scheme, that this policy has not been considered at all in the preparation of the drawings.
6.2 The scheme raises the height of the building, adds to it without any demonstration that the building is large enough to accommodate the ancillary accommodation that is proposed (ancillary accommodation relies for some of its amenities on the principal dwelling within the site: what is proposed does not rely upon any other dwelling for any of its amenities and should be considered as a stand alone, self-contained dwelling). Whilst the principle of this is not at odds with Housing Policy 11 the fact that it is a self-contained unit as designed has very likely played a part in how much accommodation is proposed. For example, if the accommodation were truly ancillary and contained no kitchen and one bedroom, it is possible that the building would not need to be extended at all. - 6.3 What is proposed also alters almost every opening and adds significantly more, and dormers which all result in a building which bears little or no resemblance to the original which goes to the core of the policy which allows the principle of the conversion of the building in the first instance. If the proposal cannot comply with HP11 then there is no justification in planning terms for the creation of a dwelling on this site. - 6.4 There is no information provided within the application which explains that the building is of historical or social interest and as such, it is assumed and accepted that the building is of architectural merit as it is a relatively unspoiled example of a Manx outbuilding. It is also accepted that it is redundant for its original purpose, a stable having been approved in 1998 and further agricultural building in 2019. Bearing this in mind, it is considered that not only would what is proposed not comply with HP 11d and sub paragraph a (it would not re-establish the original appearance of the dwelling which is considered desirable in this case as if it were not, then the proposal would fail paragraph c), what is proposed would have a harmful impact on the character of the area due to the unsympathetic alterations to the building which are not in keeping with its current simple form in terms of the new dormers, modern extension with inappropriate doors and canopy and the modern form of glazing in the roadside gable. The proposal therefore contravenes Environment Policy 1. - 6.5 Highway Services have advised that the existing access which is to be used is substandard and what is proposed would intensify this. This is factually correct and whilst the applicant has indicated that as the existing access is to be used, they did not consult Highway Services and have not addressed this potential issue, in the submission. The proposal creates a new three bedroomed dwelling on the site and it is difficult to see how this cannot fail to generate additional accommodation. If those who would occupy the property could already be accommodated within the existing house on the site, one wonders why the additional "ancillary" accommodation is required. It is assumed that there is not the spare capacity for three additional bedrooms, a separate lounge and kitchen space within the existing dwelling which is why this is now proposed in the form that the application takes. As such the proposal will generate additional use. There are two means of access into the residential curtilage, both flanked by stone barns which sit almost on the carriageway and which block visibility of and from on-coming traffic. It is considered that the additional use of the existing accesses would result in a detrimental impact on highway safety, contrary to General Policy 2h and i. - 6.6 Whilst there is an objection to the application from Highway Services on the basis of inadequate parking, the site plan indicates that there is sufficient space for four vehicles to
park on the site, in accordance with the Strategic Plan standards for two parking spaces per dwelling.
7.1 The proposal is considered to be in conflict with Environment Policy 1, Housing Policy 11 and General Policy 2h and i of the Strategic Plan. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The Planning Committee 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 can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 30.07.2020 Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management
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
View as Markdown