Demolition and replacement of existing dwelling including renovation of existing barns (Amendments to PA 11/01518/B)
Site Address:
Ballacaroon Farm West Baldwin Road Mount Rule Isle Of Man IM4 4HS
Case Officer:
Mr Chris Balmer
Photo Taken:
08.08.2012
Site Visit:
08.08.2012
Expected Decision Level:
Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSED DWELLING REPRESENTS MORE THAN A 50 PER CENT INCREASE IN FLOOR AREA OVER THE EXISTING
The Application Site
The application site comprises the curtilage of a dwelling and number of redundant stone and pre-fabricated outbuildings at Ballacaroon Farm, Mount Rule, Braddan. The dwelling, which is currently unoccupied, is located directly adjacent to the road. To the north of site is the A23 (West Baldwin Road) and to the west of the site is Mount Rule Equestrian Centre. To the east of the site is an unmade access lane. The application site is approximately 0.5ha in area.
Proposal
The application seeks approval for demolition and replacement of existing dwelling including renovation of existing barns (Amendments to PA 11/01518/B).
The proposed dwelling in terms of proportion, form and size is proposed to replicate a traditional Manx farmhouse design, with five upper windows over a central doorway with two windows set either side of the front door. The elevations of the main dwelling house would be painted render with a natural slate roof. The proposal also includes a single and two storey side extension finished with stone to the east elevation which forms an 'L' shape.
The proposal would be sited 23 metres to the south of the existing footprint of the existing dwelling. The proposed dwelling would be sited on a existing steel framed barn which would be removed as part of this development. The residential curtilage would remain as existing.
The proposal includes the conversion of the existing two storey traditional Manx stone barn which is located to the northwest of the proposed dwelling (west of existing dwelling). A single storey extension to the south elevation is proposed, forming a garage block (4 vehicle width) and a garden store.
It is important to note the main differences of this proposed scheme and the recently approved scheme (11/01518/B). These are:
Footprint of main dwelling house moved approximately 9 metres in a southerly direction (i.e. further away from the highway to the north);
Floor area of main dwelling house increased by 12 square metres (height remains the same);
Finish of main dwelling house altered from stone to painted render;
Single storey extension to eastern elevation of main dwelling house reduced (omitting two double garages);
Erection of a single storey extension to southern elevation of two story Manx stone barn, which replaces the existing single storey outrigger which was proposed to be converted to form a games room/ gym;
New scheme omits glazed link from the games room to the main dwelling house;
Minor window and elevational alterations;
Alterations to front driveway layout.
Planning History
The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, of which could be considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:
Approval in principle for the erection of a replacement dwelling, renovation of existing stone barn and access improvements - 06/01535/A – REFUSED
Approval in principle for the erection of a replacement dwelling and renovation and extension to existing stone barn - 07/00540/A – APPROVED
Reserved Matters application for the erection of a replacement dwelling and conversion of outbuildings to guest accommodation and garaging - 09/01154/REM - WITHDRAWN
Demolition of existing and erection of a replacement dwelling and renovation of existing barns to form a single dwelling - 11/00033/B- APPROVED
Demolition and replacement of existing dwelling including renovation of existing barns (Amendments to PA 11/00033/B) - 11/01518/B - APPROVED
Representations
Braddan Parish Commissioners have no objection to the planning application.
The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority do not oppose the planning application.
The Manx Electricity Authority make no comment on the merits of the application but ask for an informative note be attached to any approval.
Planning Policy
In terms of local plan policy, the application site is located within a wider area of land that is designated as open space (agricultural) under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Braddan Parish District Local Plan) Order 1991 – Plan No. 2.
In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains a number of policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.
General Policy 3 states: "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, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11);
(c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; 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-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 4 states: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:
(a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10;
(b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and
(c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14."
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 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."
Housing Policy 12 states: "The replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside will generally be permitted unless:
(a) the existing building has lost its residential use by abandonment; or
(b) the existing dwelling is of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation.
In assessing whether a property has lost its habitable status by abandonment, regard will be had to the following criteria:
(i) the structural condition of the building;
(ii) the period of non-residential use or non-use in excess of ten years;
(iii) evidence of intervening use; and
(iv) evidence of intention, or otherwise, to abandon."
Housing Policy 14 states: "Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the "footprint" of the existing, and should have a floor area, which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally, the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91, (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in general, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building.
Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact."
Assessment
It can be seen that in terms of principle there is provision for the replacement of existing dwellings and conversion of redundant buildings in the countryside through planning policy contained with the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. As such, the general principle behind the proposed development is acceptable and therefore the main purpose of the planning application is to assess the site specific impact and acceptability. In terms of these the two main planning policies to consider are Housing Policy 11 and Housing Policy 14.
In respect of the renovation of the existing barn it is considered that this part of the proposed development accords with the provisions of Housing Policy 11. This building is clearly redundant, substantially intact, of architectural interest, and they are large enough to readily convert. A structural engineer's report suggested that although it may be costly to do so there is no reason why the existing buildings proposed to be retained could not be renovated in accordance with the proposed development. The incorporation of the buildings into a residential development would not be harmful to surrounding properties and there is no known reason why services could not be readily supplied. Consequently, the conversion of the three storey barn would comply with Housing Policy 11.
It should be noted that the submission also proposes the erection of a single storey extension to the southern elevation of the stone barn. This would create a four bay garage and garden store. This aspect replaces the previous approved scheme of converting the existing single storey barn (games room/gym) and connecting this to the main dwelling house via a glazed link. It is noted from the structural report submitted with the initial application that that this aspect of the existing buildings was in the greatest state of disrepair and condition, with no roof and failed and extensive movement and cracking in the external stone walls. It is also worth noting that this would also reduce the amount of built development on this site. The previous two schemes proposed the garage block to be attached to the northern elevation of the two storey barn-like extension of the main dwelling house. The proposal would result in the garage block being behind the three storey converted barn and reduce built development on the site by 105 square metres (by the removal of the existing single storey stone building previously proposed to be converted). It is considered the
removed of this aspect and replacement with a similar sized extension finished with stone and slate would be appropriate and beneficial to the visual amenities of the site and area.
With regards to the replacement dwelling the starting point when determining any application is Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. This policy states that a replacement should generally be on the same footprint and should not be greater than 50% greater than that of the original building.
In addition to that allowance it is also necessary to take account of the previous application (07/00540/A) that granted approval in principle and therefore accepted the principle of a larger dwelling on the application site. The replacement dwelling shown within that previously approved planning application had a floor space of approximately 670 square metres.
Furthermore, there are two recent applications (11/00033/B & 11/01518/B) which resulted in planning permission for substantially larger dwellings in terms of floor area over the existing dwelling. It is noted that there seems to be a mistake in the calculations of both these applications. Planning application 11/00033/B was indicated by the applicant that the proposed new dwelling would have a floor area of 584 square metres. However, they had indicated that this calculation did not include the garaging link (letter dated 25th Oct 2011). The applicant has also indicated that they have always measured the internal floor area rather than the external floor area. It would appear the Department took the floor area of 584 square metres as the total floor area and approval was based on this figure (159% increase). In fact the proposed dwelling had an approximately floor area of 870 square metres (286% increase).
Again the second recent approved application (11/01518/B) appears to be calculated incorrectly, in terms of floor area. The applicant indicated (letter dated 20th January 2012) that this proposal would result in a dwelling with a floor area of 574 square metres, smaller than the previous approval. It appears again that this figure was taken as the total square meterage of the proposal and this was assessed against planning policy. Measuring the proposal it would appear the proposed dwelling was approximately 862.9 square metres in size (283% increase).
It would certainly seem the ground floor and first floor of the main dwelling house and the attached two storey extension was included in the calculation, but the roof space, glazed link, utility/store and attached garage was not included.
Consequently, it would appear there are two planning approvals which are substantially larger than what was indicated and envisaged by the Department, albeit the plans submitted with these applications are to scale and are correct. Rightly or wrongly, planning permission exist and considerable weight is required to be attached to these approvals.
Regarding the current application which is under consideration, the existing dwelling has a floor area of approximately 225 square metres, whereas this new proposal would have a floor area of 846.9 square metres which equates to a 274% increase in floor area over the existing property. It should be noted that the new garage block which would be attached to the proposed converted stone barn, is not included in the calculation as it is not attached to the dwelling. However, this is not automatic reason for refusal of the planning application as Housing Policy 14 goes onto to state that consideration may be given to larger dwellings where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact.
It has been accepted with the previous two approvals and the initial approval in principle application, that a significantly larger dwelling on this site is appropriate. The proposal now under consideration is smaller than the previous two applications.
Notwithstanding the previous approvals, it is still important to consider the proposed scheme and whether the size, position and design are appropriate for this site. Visiting the site/area it became apparent that the existing two storey dwelling does not add to the visual appearance of the street scene or countryside and being sited directly adjacent to the West Baldwin Road is a prominent unattractive feature along the street scene. The remainder of the site made up of a dilapidated agricultural steel framed barn and a redundant two storey stone barn. The site is also overgrown. Consequently, the site in its current appearance does not add to the visual amenities of the area. However, it is important to note that whilst this scheme and previous approved schemes would likely be an environmental improvement to the site/area, permission should not be granted solely for these reasons as works could be undertaken to improve the area without the need for a planning permission (maintenance).
It is considered the existing dwelling is of poor form (previously accepted) and therefore there is scope for a larger dwelling on this site.
The proposed dwelling would not be sited on the existing footprint but located approximately 23 metres south of the existing dwelling and 40 metres from the West Baldwin Road. This is further into the site (approximately 9 metres) compared to the previous approvals, although it is important to note the residential curtilage of the site is not proposed to increase and the proposal would be on the existing footprint of the steel framed barn. This would still result in the proposed property having a rear garden at a minimum depth of 18 metres (max 25 metres in depth). The finished floor level of the proposed dwelling would remain as previously approved even with the altered siting. The benefit of reposition of the dwelling is that built development is further away from the public highway and therefore has a reduced impact. It is also perhaps important to note the removal of the proposed garage block to the new proposal. Previously this garage block would have run in a northern direction from the two storey barn-like extension of the main dwelling house and would have retained a gap to the West Baldwin Road of 13 metres. This new scheme removes this garage block and therefore the closest aspect of the dwelling (utility/store) to the road would be 28 metres away. There are arguments for and against the repositioning. For the proposal is indicated above, that built development would be further away from the public highway and therefore potential reduces the visual impact of such development. Also it is noted that the repositioning of the dwelling away from the existing roadside position allows vehicular visibility from the site onto the public highway to be significantly improved, as the current position of the existing dwelling effectively prevents any real visibility to the right when exiting the site. Against the reposition is the fact the proposal would increase the development further into the site, and perhaps encroaching into the open countryside, albeit into the residential curtilage of the site. On this point it is noted that the main view would be to the east of the site, when travelling towards the site along the West Baldwin Road. It was noted when visiting the site/area that the proposed dwelling would be sited on the existing substantial steel framed barn, therefore the proposal would not appear as new built form on the proposed siting. Furthermore, the backdrop of the site when viewing from the east is a large equestrian building within the neighbouring property (Mount Rule Equestrian Centre).
At this stage perhaps it is relevant to consider Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91. These policies relate to traditionally designed properties which take the form of Manx vernacular. From the front elevation the proposal would follow the lines of Planning Circular 3/91 and would be symmetrical with five upper front windows over a central doorway which is flanked by two windows. All other elevations would also meet the criteria set out in Planning Circular 3/91. The proposal would be finished with a mixture of painted render and Manx stone, with a slate roof. These are all considered appropriate finishes to traditional properties in the countryside.
The initial application (11/00033/B) proposed three upper front windows over a central doorway which is flanked by single windows. This scheme proposes the main dwelling house to be finished in painted render and the two storey barn/garage extension in Manx stone. The following application (11/01518/B) was similar to the current application in that it had five upper front windows over a central doorway which is flanked by two windows. However, the main differences to the current and the last approval, was the main dwelling house was finished with Manx stone to all elevations (including two storey barn/garage extensions), whereas the current proposal the main dwelling house would be finished with painted render to all elevations.
When the last application (11/01518/B) was initially considered, concern was raised as that scheme also proposed white render to the main dwelling house. It was considered given the aspect of the main dwelling house in terms of size and massing was increasing over the previous approval (11/00033/B) and that would result in a dwelling grander in appearance.
It was agreed an amended scheme be submitted which included the cladding of the main dwelling house in stonework, omission of all eaves up stands and the introduction of the peaked gable to the rear elevation (south).
The applicants produced a long distant photo montage taken from the Lhergy Cripperty, the only public accessible vantage point, which reinforced the view that there was no distant visual impact—whether the main house was clad in stone or render. However the previous application wasn't amended to reflect this. Also they feel that visually the current proposal is more aesthetically pleasing and the contrast between the render and the stone in the current application is more in accordance with the Design Circular suggesting a farm dwelling which has been extended over time. They also indentify that the main difference with the current application is that the main house has been moved some distance away from the Mount Rule road and the photo montage from the road shows that whether clad in render or stone the close view visual impact of the house is significantly mitigated as a result.
Visiting the area it was noted there are a number of large properties in the area, all of which are painted render in finish. It was also noted the majority of the smaller traditional properties along the West Baldwin Road are render in finish. Distant views from the Lhergy Cripperty were also undertaken and whilst it would be difficult to argue that the proposed render finish would not be as apparent compared to a stone finished property, it is considered the distance from the Lhergy Cripperty to the site and given there are a number of more apparent dwellings between the site and the Lhergy Cripperty, the proposal would not have a significant impact upon the visual amenities of the wider countryside/landscape.
Therefore the property in terms of its design, form, proportion and finish would comply with the policies as set out within the Circular.
Overall, the design of the proposed dwelling is essentially traditional with the side extension designed to look like an attached barn building. Whilst sited further into the site it is not considered this would have significant visual impact or result in an encroachment into the open countryside. The proposal results in the main part of the dwelling moving approximately 40 metres from the existing roadside position. The proposal also includes a landscaping scheme for the overall site and the courtyard area, which serves to produce a higher quality development that should hopefully add value to the area. Given its location and position relative to existing surrounding properties the proposed development does not cause undue harm to private amenity.
RECOMMENDATION
Overall, it is concluded that the basis for allowing a substantial larger replacement dwelling on the application site has been established by the approval of a previous planning
applications; the new submission results in a smaller dwelling in terms of floor area; amount of built development on the site would be reduced and given the design, proportion, form and finish of the proposed dwelling would be of a traditional appearance in keeping with the locality it is recommended the application be approved.
Party Status
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:
Braddan Parish Commissioners
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 Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority The Manx Electricity Authority
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.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 10.09.2012
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
: 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 demolition and replacement of existing dwelling including renovation of existing barns (Amendments to PA 11/01518/B) as proposed in the submitted documents and drawings SC1185 – P/10/01, SC1185 – P/10/03C, SC1185 – P/10/04C, SC1185 – P/10/05C, SC1185 – P/10/06C, SC1185 – P/10/07C, SC1185 – P/10/08C, SC1185 – P/10/09C, SC1185 – P/12/01C, SC1185 – P/12/02, SC1185 – P/12/03C, SC1185 – P/112/04C and SC1185 – P/12/03C all received on 26th 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 those works shall be carried out as approved. Details of hard landscaping works shall include boundary treatment, footpaths, driveways and hard surfacing materials. The hard landscaping works shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details within 3 months of the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted; and all planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details in the first planting and seeding seasons following that first occupation. Any tree or shrub which within 5 years from 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.
C 4.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no extensions shall be erected (other than those expressly authorised by this approval).
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made : _________________________ Committee Meeting Date : 17/08/12
