Loading document...
The application site forms part of the curtilage of West Craig Farm, St Judes Road, West Craig, St Judes, which is located on the northern side of the St Judes Road and west of the St Judes Crossroads.
Within the application site consists a number of buildings, the main West Craig Farm House, a detached modern agricultural barn and two outbuildings. One of these partially built single storey outbuildings forms part of this assessment.
The partially built building is located 10.5 metres from the adjacent public highway (St Judes Road) and is 117 metres southeast of the main dwelling house West Craig Farm.
From the information submitted within the application, the site was once used for the extraction of marl which was used as fertilizing large areas for wheat production. As other fertilizers products became available this process became non-viable due to the labour requirement and extraction ceased. However, the old sections of the Marl pits remained which were found to have a large area of clay from brick manufacturing and the site was developed as the West Craig Brick \& Tile Works. The business had a workforce of 14 brick makers and at its height of production created 5 million bricks a year.
A number of buildings and structures where built on the site, some of which remain whilst most are no longer in place.
The applicant's long term plan is to provide self catering units on the site and preserving what they could of the old brick buildings and the pit site and provide a historical interest and character for visitors to enjoy.
The application seeks approval for the erection of a single storey building to provide tourist accommodation (Retrospective). The proposal would have a width of 18.1 metres, a depth of 6 metres and a ridge height of 4 metres.
The site has been zoned under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982 as being "white land" not zoned for development; the site is not located within a Conservation Area, nor is within an area zoned as High Landscape Value or Costal Value and Scenic Significance.
Due to the site location, zoning and the type of proposal, the following policies are relevant for consideration:-
Policy 2: New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3."
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:
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." "Business Policy 14: Tourism development may be permitted in rural areas provided that it complies with the policies in the Plan. Farmhouse accommodation or quality self catering units in barn conversions and making use of rural activities will be encouraged but must comply with General Policy 3 and Business Policies 11 and 12. Other forms of quality accommodation in rural areas will be considered, including the provision of hostels and similar accommodation suitable for walkers but must comply with General Policy 3 and Business Policies 11 and 12."
The following planning application is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application: Conversion of existing single storey barn into two guest/tourist accommodation units - 06/01675/B APPROVED Approval in principle to demolition of barn and erection of dwelling -88/00310/A - REFUSED
Andreas Parish Commissioners:- "No objections." Highways Division:- "Do not oppose, has no traffic management, parking or road safety implication" Mr Teare MHK writes to support the application which can be summarised as; applicants have the highest integrity and the current situation is a result of a genuine misunderstanding on their part; the works would be an improvement to the environment as the original building was in need of repair with heavy corroded corrugated iron roof which was replaced approximately 5 years ago; and the proposal will preserve the appearance of what is an area of considerable industrial archaeological significance for the north of the Island.
It is perhaps important to indicate why the current application has been submitted. As indicated within the history section of this report the site, approval was granted to convert the existing single storey building to two tourist units.
This was approved prior to the Isle of Man Strategic Plan was adopted and therefore Planning Circular 3/89 - Renovation of building in the Countryside was consider. This policy however is very similar to the criteria indicted within Housing Policy 11, which is how the Authority would consider an application for the conversion of rural buildings into a dwelling/s now.
As part of the previous assessment a structural report was undertaken which concluded:- "Structural assessment is that the building and existing openings are sound for reuse / conversion to tourist accommodation use and will require only minimal upgrading of the fabric in so much as all timber lintels to openings will be replaced where required. New openings can be created and matched in sympathetically without effecting the existing structural integrity. The existing roof structure trusses are sound for reuse with new rafters as required for support of the replaced slate roof finish."
The applicants have indicated that works to convert the building commenced in July 2010 when the contractor's carefully removed the existing metal roof sheeting and old roof trusses. Unfortunately on removal of the trusses the main outer wall were found to be unstable, the main truss ends had decayed resulting in a destabilising of the supporting 9" brick piers and panels.
Following further investigation it was found that the building had only a single brick foundation 150 mm deep on an underling clay layer which was just below the grassed surface.
The applicant states that discussions were held with Building Control and a Structural Engineer and it was determined that the building could not in its present state be underpinned.
Building Control of no record of these discussions, as their first site visit was to inspect the new foundations of the building ( 22nd July 2010).
This site visit was after the initial Building Regulations Application was made on the 24th May 2010 for the; "Erection of a single storey two bed self catering cottage". The Building Control Application makes no reference to a conversion; it is a totally new building with a totally new structure.
Following this, a letter was received by the Planning and Building Control Division from the applicant's architect (was architect for all applications on this site) on the 1st July 2010 in response to the Building Control Officers questions of the Building Regulations Application.
The Building Regulations Application was approved on the 9th July 2010.
At no time was a new planning application submitted or discussion held asking whether such development would need permission. Only when a member of the Planning Authority noticed the clearly unauthorised works and the Enforcement Officer contact the applicant, was the application consequently submitted.
The Building Control Officer who dealt with the Building Regulations Application, is surprised the original building couldn't be converted given; it was a brick building which had been in place for many years, on clay, underpinning could have been undertaken and given the structural report submitted in application 06/01675/B indicated conversion could be undertaken and "will require only minimal upgrading of the fabric...".
Notwithstanding the above, the original building was demolished and with new foundations laid on the new building was commenced on a similar footprint. The applicants state approximately 9,000 of the original bricks were retained, albeit 6,000 new bricks ( 15,000 total bricks required) of a similar design where required. The original bricks are proposed to be used in non-structural areas such as the internal feature clad walling, repairs to the drying house, path boundary, oil tank walls, paving and landscaping.
Since the 11th August 2010 all works have ceased and the application under consideration now was submitted.
As indicated by the plans, the accommodation and room layouts, the size of the property, separate access to main dwelling house and position of the unit in relation to the main dwelling house, all indicates that the unit is designed to be used a self contained unit, to provide tourist/living accommodation. Therefore, the unit would have no reliance on the host property for any facilities.
Consequently, it is considered the proposal would result in a two bedroom self contained unit living accommodation which would be tantamount to a new dwelling in the countryside in terms of its use and its appearance.
It needs to be remembered that planning permission runs with the land and the building will remain long after the current owners cease to have an interest in the property. The long term use of the building must be a consideration in the determination of the application. Consequently the same criteria that is used to assess an application for a new property, should be used to assess the application.
Whilst a condition could be attached tying the new building to that of the main house, the fact remains that it is a self-contained unit which looks like and for all intents and purposes is, a new dwelling in an area which is not designated for such development.
Furthermore, such condition could also be attached which prevents the building being occupied as a separate dwelling, but concern is raised as the unit proposed would create a separate independent dwelling and therefore such condition would be breached as soon as the dwelling is occupied.
Fundamentally, in terms of planning policy there is a long established presumption against new build residential development in the countryside. As identified earlier, within the planning policy section of this report, this presumption against is set out in two different ways. Firstly, the application site is not zoned for residential development under the 1982 Development Plan Order. Secondly, General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, states that in such areas new dwellings will generally not be permitted.
The proposal does not serve a viable agricultural holding nor replacing an existing dwelling and therefore there are no special circumstances to warrant the setting aside of the presumption against. The development proposed by this planning application is therefore clearly contrary to the current policies of the Department.
In terms of Housing Policy 11, this policy relates to conversion of existing rural buildings. As indicated previously, Planning Circular 3/89 was considered when determining the previous application. This has similar criteria as indicated within Housing Policy 11.
The proposal at that stage was determined to be structural capable for conversion as proposed. The proposal is a total rebuild, the width and depth remain the same but the height of the proposal has increased by 1.1 metres over the original building and what was approved previously. The window and door opening also differ from the original and the proposal includes the erection of brick chimney 4.2 metres in height. Furthermore the finish of the structure is not in the original bricks but new bricks and concrete blockwork.
Housing Policy 11 states that; "Permission will not be given for the rebuilding of ruins or the erection of replacement buildings of similar or even identical form."
Furthermore Planning Circular 3/89 stated, "It is incumbent upon the applicant to ascertain that the building in question is structurally capable of renovation. Permission will not be given for the construction of replacement buildings of similar or even identical form (unless no change of use is involved)."
Therefore, it is clear from currently policy (HP11) and previous policy, that what the applicant is proposing is contrary to planning policy.
An alternative view is that General Policy 3 (paragraph c) could be considered as the site could be classed as 'previously development land'. Under this section of the policy it states that previously developed land is 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.
Appendix 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan does go into further detail which is indicated below:- "Previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure.' The definition includes defence buildings, but excludes:
There is no presumption that land that is previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed."
There are a number of criteria listed to determine whether such a scheme could be consider as "previously developed land".
Starting with General Policy 3 (c) it could be considered the previous building was substantial and therefore could be considered that the land contained a significant amount of built development.
In terms of redundancy the use of the building was redundant, this issues was considered and accepted under application 06/01675/B.
Regarding whether the redevelopment would have less impact on the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment, it is difficult to argue the proposal would, given it is taller, but
also it could be argued that given the original building was demolition, then any redevelopment would have more of a impact.
The original building was worth of preservation given its history, the limited amount of brick structures remaining of this age in the north of the Island and as the building was an attractive building, especially once the corrugated (blue roofing) was removed and replaced with slate as proposed in application 06/01675/B. These were a number of the reasons why the previous application was approved to retain and convert the building.
Whilst it is not argued the new building would be an unattractive building; it is not consider it could be described as having an improvements to the landscape or wider environment, given the original building was attractive, historical and with character. The proposal will be and will appear as being a new built structure. This section of policy has generally been used when the original building is a large workshop/garage building in the countryside, generally being replaced with a traditional dwelling.
As indicated previously the definition of 'previously development land' continues within Appendix 1 of the Strategic Plan.
This indicates that previously developed land is that which IS or WAS occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This aspect of the policy would be relevant to this site.
However, the definition continues to list types of building which are excluded from the definition. Relevant in this case it perhaps "Land that has been developed for minerals extraction". The applicant has indicated that the use of the site was for the extracting of marl which was used as fertilizing and then the extraction of clay which is classed as a mineral. Therefore the use of the building in association with minerals is excluded from this policy.
The Planning Authority has recently had a similar application (08/01082/B) where permission was granted to convert an old agricultural building. However, the barn subsequently was not structurally capable when conversion began and required alterations and reconstruction of the barn.
The Appeals Inspector considered given the proposal was a new build, it could not comply with Housing Policy 11 and therefore Housing Policy 4 needed consideration. Again the proposal failed this policy, as does the application under consideration now.
That application differs slightly with the new application under consideration now, as two previous applications (03/01783 \& 06/02040) did not include a structural report, and therefore the assessment whether the building was structural capable was not considered appropriately.
The Appeals Inspector indicates that purchasing/converting a property which may not be structurally capable is "very risky". Whilst in the case of West Craig Farm the building did have a structural survey undertaken (06/01675/B). It is perhaps important to note the Inspectors comments (08/01082/B) when he states; "A planning permission authorises development, it does not offer a guarantee that the development can be carried out." Furthermore, the Appeals Inspector goes on to state; "The applicant should ensure that the building can be practically renovated and will remain standing during renovation." The applicants in this case have not ensured this.
Overall, the application site is not zoned for development. Therefore the proposal is contrary to both adopted general planning policy within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and The Isle of Man Development Plan, which seek to restrict such development within the countryside. Approval of the planning application which is tantamount to the creation of a new residential dwelling would set an undesirable precedent for further such inappropriate development in the countryside. Accordingly it is recommended that the application be refused.
PARTY STATUS It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
Andreas Parish Commissioners 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.
It is considered that the following do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:
Mr Teare MHK
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 14.01.2011 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. The application site is not zoned for development. Therefore the proposal is contrary to both adopted general planning policy within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and The Isle of Man Development Plan, which seek to restrict such development within the countryside. Approval of the planning application which is tantamount to the creation of a new residential dwelling would set an undesirable precedent for further such inappropriate development in the countryside. Accordingly it is recommended that the application be refused.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Senior Planning Officer. Decision Made : Refused Date : 26 January 2011 Signed : Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown