Officer Planning Report Continuation

• (e) location-dependent 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: 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 plan; 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 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." ### "Environment Policy 2: The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that: (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential." ### Planning History There are no previous planning applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application. ### Representations Bride Parish Commissioners: "No concerns" Highways Division:- "Do not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications". The Manx Electricity Authority makes not comment on the application but ask a informative note be attached to any approval. The owners/occupiers of Crosby Farm, Bride Road, Bride have objected to the proposal which can be summarised as; civil matters regarding ownership and rights of use of the access track which indicates their right to recover a proportion of all costs form all users; highway safety concerns due to blind bends along the lane and requiring to reverse out of the access road onto the Bride Road; proposal would result in a unacceptable level of traffic impacting upon our amenities. The owners/occupiers of Glebe Cottage, Maughold have objected to the proposal which can be summarised as; no justification for an additional dwelling in the countryside and should be resisted on planning policy grounds. The owner/occupier of 33 Ballaquark, Douglas has objected to the proposal which can be summarised as; buildings has no architectural merit; and does not comply with policy. ### Assessment The starting point for a proposal to convert an existing building in the countryside to a dwelling would be Housing Policy 11. There are a number of criteria indicated within this policy, which any proposed development must comply with. With regard to paragraph (a) of Housing policy 11, the barn is not currently in use for any major agricultural use. From comments received previously from the DEFA this type of barn can no longer be used for modern agricultural farming either for storage of equipment or keeping of animals (animal welfare standards). It is therefore consider the redundancy has been established and conforms to Housing Policy 11. With regard to paragraph (b), this item deals whether the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation. Included in the submission is a detailed structural survey. This report concludes that:- "The basic 4 walls of the barn section could be incorporated in any redevelopment of the barn, this to also include the open sided storage unit at the eastern end. There should not be any opening of any kind cut through the south stone retaining wall. Repair work will be required to infill areas where stones have been dislodged. The concrete slab floor in the higher wider section of the stone barn will need to be broken out to enable a dpm to be inserted. The asbestos cement sheeted roof covering will need to be removed along with the timber purlins, but the "A" frame timber trusses could be reused if required albeit the spacing will need to be amended to carry the modern heavier roof loadings." Whilst works are required to convert the property into a dwelling, it is considered it is possible, and therefore complies with the policy. With regard to paragraph (c) of Housing policy 11, the existing building is a Manx stone barn which is situated at the end of the single track lane which is not open to members of the public. The site cannot be seen from the Bride Road, given the topography of the surrounding land and the distance the site is from the highway. The elevation facing the lane is the best example of the Manx stone/pebble finish. The northwest elevation which faces into the site has been rendered in part, but some Manx stone is still apparent. There also appears to be small sections of block/brickwork which have been painted. The two gable elevations are finished with Manx stone/pebble. However these two gables are not totally apparent as the northeast gable end has had a timber/block work open store extension erected, whilst the southwest gable end has had a timber shed constructed. Both these two extension would be removed. The existing asbestos roof sheeting would be removed and replaced with a slate effect tiles which would vastly improve the visual appearance of the barn. The majority of the new windows and doors are to the northwest elevation. These include a mixture of traditional designed windows and doors with two bi-folding glazed doors. These works will result in the creation of additional openings and alteration of the existing openings. The works to the northwest elevations these would be to the betterment of the existing building and would be in keeping with the traditional character. It is important to note that no new openings are proposed within the southeast elevation or the two gable elevations (unblocking a previous access door to northeast gable). Overall, it is considered that it is worthy of renovation and conversion and therefore complies with Housing Policy 11. With regard to paragraph (d) of Housing policy 11, the proposal is large enough to form a satisfactory dwelling (width 22 metres & a maximum depth of 5.6 metres) over a single storey, therefore it is considered the existing barn would comply with this policy. However, the proposal does include a utility room extension to the southwest gable elevation, replacing the existing attached timber shed. The proposal would measure 2.6 metres in width, 3.6 metres in depth with a ridge height of 4 metres (eaves 2.4m). It is also proposed to remove the existing timber framed structure (including block work) to the northeast gable end wall and using the existing southeast stone wall and construction two new walls, forming a new bedroom. It is considered these proposals are rather modest in size and would actually decrease the footprint of the existing building. Housing Policy 11 does indicate that with a modest, subordinate extension which does not affect adversely the character or interest of the building, extension may be acceptable. The extensions are considered to be modest and subordinate to the existing barn, and from public view would have no impact upon the appearance of the barn, given the massing, proportion, form and design. Regarding paragraph (e) of Housing policy 11, perhaps one of the main issues with the application is whether the additional dwelling would result in an unacceptable impact upon the residential properties. The closest property is 'Shellag Farm House' which is owned by the applicant. The proposal would be sited 8.5 metres southwest of the existing dwelling and would also share the existing access and driveway. The submission does not demarcate the existing site into two separate units. However, from the submitted site plans and visiting the site, it is reasonable to consider both properties could be served by separate garden areas and separate parking areas (both having two off road parking spaces) without adversely affecting each other amenities. Furthermore, the orientation of the two properties prevents any direct overlooking. A suitable worded condition could be attached which required a plan (showing fencing/landscaping etc) be submitted showing the two separate units prior to the new dwelling being occupied. Due to the proximity and shared access which requires occupants/visitors driving past Shellag Farm House, there might have been some concern if Shellag Farm House was currently in separate ownership to the barn. However, given the current owners have accepted this potential impact and given any future owners would also be aware of this layout/access arrangement, it is not considered in this case to be an issue to warrant a refusal. For these reasons it is consider the introduction of a dwelling would not have a significant impact upon neighbouring residents of Shellag Farm House. Consideration also needs to be given to the owner/occupants of Shilley Aalin and Crosby Farm given any occupants/visitor of this new dwelling would require travelling past these neighbouring properties. As indicated within the site section of this report there are three properties located at Crosby Farm. The property most affected by the development would be "Crosby Farm Cottage" which forms part of a converted barn, which fronts onto the single track access lane which serves Shellag Farm House and the proposed new dwelling. Any traffic generated by the proposal would pass this property. It should be noted that the Highway Division have indicated in previous applications, that a single dwelling generally creates 6 to 8 vehicular movements per day. Therefore consideration needs to be given whether vehicles generated by the proposal would result in a significant impact upon the residential amenities of this property (noise/headlights etc). It is important to consider that there are no windows within the southern elevation of "Crosby Farm Cottage" facing the rear lane, as the main outlook and light for this property is to the north (landscaped courtyard area) and west (Crosby Farm private driveway) elevations. Consequently, whilst additional traffic would pass "Crosby Farm Cottage", it is not considered the proposal would introduce a significant impact upon the residential amenities to warrant a refusal. It should be noted the owners of Crosby Farm have recently benefited from planning approval to change of use of the existing converted outbuilding within the centre of the holding, from tourist accommodation to a residential dwelling (11/00323/C). This would likely generate more traffic throughout the year compared to a tourist use and any vehicle would pass the western elevation of "Crosby Farm Cottage", which would likely cause more of an issue to the amenities of this property compared to the proposed scheme, given the reasons indicated. Other properties within Crosby Farm are set back a considerable distance (Crosby Farmhouse) or is located within the centre of the farm buildings (converted outbuilding). It is not considered either of these properties would be affected by the additional traffic generated by the single dwelling given the reasons indicated. The final property which could be impacted by the additional traffic is Shilley Aalin, which is a single storey bungalow. The access road runs approximately 7 metres passed the gable end of the main dwellinghouse (within 2 metres of the garage extension which is attached to the gable end of the dwelling). This property is orientated in a way that would not prevent any direct overlooking from any passing vehicles or result in vehicles headlights shining into the windows of the property. It is therefore considered the level of traffic generated by the proposal would not result in a significant impact upon the residential amenities of the occupants of this dwelling. Overall, for these reasons indicated, it is considered the proposal would comply with paragraph (e) of Housing policy 11. In terms of the repair cost to the private lane this is a civil matter between the relevant parties and not a material planning matter which can be considered as part of this assessment. The final issue to consider is the proposed garage block and driveway, which results in the removal of 13 small trees. Due to the removal of these trees, the department has sorted views of the Northern Forster (DEFA). He has indicated:- "...From a tree removal perspective I have no significant comments. The trees in question are relatively small due to their exposed position and are accordingly of relatively low quality. I would see there being no significant impact on landscape, amenity or conservation values should they be removed. The immediate area has a variety of tree species of diverse age ranges that will remain." The Forster does also indicated that:- "One comment on the proposals is the proposed planting of new trees along the northern fence line; this, in my view, would be impractical due to the close proximity of grazing livestock from the adjacent field. Any planting would need large tree protection measures which would seem excessive for the minimal potential gains." Overall, it is agreed that the trees proposed to be removed are not substantial in size and do not have a significant contribution to the visual amenities of the area. From the access lane they are mostly screened by the barn given their modest height. As indicated the scheme submitted does propose new tree planting along the north-western boundary of the site. Regarding the Forestry Divisions concern of the siting of the new trees, perhaps a condition could be attached for a landscaping scheme which requires details of the type, spacing between the new trees and an alternative positioning within the site to overcome concerns of the trees being within close proximity of grazing livestock from the adjacent field. ### 7.0 Recommendation

7.1 Overall, it is considered the proposal would comply with the Isle Of Man Strategic Plan therefore it is recommended that the application be approved.

8.0 Party Status

8.1 It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d) and should be afforded interested party status:

• Bride Parish Commissioners
• The owners/occupiers of Crosby Farm, Bride Road, Bride

8.2 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.

8.3 It is considered that the following do not meet the criteria of Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d) and should not be afforded interested party status:

• The Manx Electricity Authority
• The owner/occupier of 33 Ballaquark, Douglas
• The owners/occupiers of Glebe Cottage, Maughold

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted

Date of Recommendation: 16.08.2012

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

• C : Conditions for approval
• N : Notes attached to conditions
• R : Reasons for refusal
• O : Notes attached to refusals

C 1.

The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

C 2.

This approval relates to the conversion of existing outbuildings to form an additional dwelling and erection of a detached double garage and workshop as proposed in the submitted

documents and drawings 01 REV A, 50, 51 REV A, 52, 53, 100 REV A and 101 REV A all received on 5th June 2012.

C 3.

No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the hard landscaping works include footpaths and hard surfacing materials and fencing. The hard landscaping works shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of any of the proposed dwellings hereby permitted. Details of the soft landscaping should include details of the trees planting along the northwest boundary of the site. All planting shall be carried out in accordance the approved details in the first planting and seeding seasons following that first occupation. Any trees or shrub which within 5 years from the completion of the development dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of similar size and species unless the planning authority gives written consent to any variation.

I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager/ Senior Planning Officer.

Decision Made : Permitted Date : 4/9/12

Determining officer (delete as appropriate)

Signed: _________________________ Anthony Holmes Senior Planning Officer

Signed: _________________________ Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control

Signed: _________________________ Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer

Signed: _________________________ Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager