Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/01141/B Page 1 of 11
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/01141/B Applicant : Mr Illiam Christian Proposal : Renovation and extension of two existing dilapidated cottages for use as residential dwellings and additional use as tourist accommodation along with creation of associated vehicular access, driveway and parking Site Address : Ballerghey Cottages Lhergy Cripperty Union Mills Isle Of Man
Case Officer : Mr Jason Singleton Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 05.02.2018 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. Prior to any works taking place to renovate or extend the existing buildings, the access approved under planning application 16/00498/B shall be constructed and the visibility splays shall remain unobstructed at a height of 1.05m thereafter.
Reason: To ensure safe access during the construction period in the interest of highway safety
C 3. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided and remain free from obstruction thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety.
C 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department.
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/01141/B Page 2 of 11
Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to drawings referenced; 01; 02; 03; 04; 05; 06; 07; 08; 09; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20 date stamped received on 31st October 2017.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED MAY BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SPECIFICALLY HOUSING POLICY 13 OF STRATEGIC PLAN) BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is a roughly triangular parcel of land situated to the north of the Lhergy Cripperty highway in Braddan. To the northeast is the part of Union Mills sited to the south / southwest of the TT course. The site immediately bounds the highway at its southeastern edge, with open fields on the other sides. The land falls away quite steeply from the highway towards the northwest, and distant views of the site are possible from public positions to the northwest. However, it is at its most prominent from the highway. While there have previously been a number of fairly low quality trees lining the highway along here, recently some of these have been removed and replaced with a close-boarded timber fence for a short section, which has made the buildings within the site much more visible from the highway.
1.2 Within the site is a pair of detached tholtans arranged side-by-side and parallel to the highway. Neither has its roof, but otherwise both are complete, aside from the lack of fenestration in the apertures. The application identifies the tholtans by numbers - 1 is to the southeast, 2 to the northwest, with the former the smaller. Although the application describes them as 'cottages', this is not really appropriate in Planning terms and therefore the word 'tholtan' is used in this report for the sake of accuracy. Tholtan 1 has gable walls and chimney stacks in each, while Tholtan 2 has a prominent central chimney stack sat almost central between the two gable walls either side. The architect suggests that Tholtan 2 may have once been two cottages owing to its asymmetrical nature. Each is formed of Manx stone, but Tholtan 2 has in the past been thinly cement rendered, which is in poor and incomplete repair.
1.3 Tholtan 1 has a rearward 'lean-to' extension. Although the smaller of the two in footprint terms, it is probably the more prominent given that it is the first building seen when travelling up the hill and, moreover, has the lesser level of vegetative screening.
1.4 There is no highway access to either of the tholtans.
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/01141/B Page 3 of 11
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for various physical alterations (including extensions) to the buildings to turn each into a unit of residential or tourist use. As part of the proposals would be the creation of a new access lane, parking spaces and a manoeuvring area, and a new utility shed adjacent to Tholtan 2 to its southwest.
Tholtan 1
2.2 In terms of the front and side elevations, the existing window and door apertures would be retained but fitted with new, timber-framed windows and solid timber doors. The external walls would be 'made good' with materials to match the existing (i.e. stone and mortar), with slate roofs and chimney pots re-instated.
2.3 The most significant change to Tholtan 1 (as is the case with Tholtan 2) is in the form of an extension to the rear elevation. The extension proposed to the smaller of the two tholtans would have a pitched roof at a slightly steeper pitch than that proposed to be re- instated on the existing. There would be a small flat-roofed link extension between the existing and proposed elements. The extension would be finished with corrugated metal to both roof and walls, and would have large glazed areas in the rear elevation.
2.4 The architect explains that the design approach for the extension at Tholtan 1 has reflected the agricultural materials found in small amounts on the existing extension and other smaller outbuildings nearby. He is of the view that the extension proposed would be subservient to the existing built form, by virtue of its position at the rear of the building and also through the use of 'lower grade' agricultural materials. He notes that the extension is clearly readable as a separate, new element.
Tholtan 2
2.5 Similarly to Tholtan 1, the existing window and door apertures to the front elevation would be filled with new timber frames and a solid door without alteration to those apertures. The drawings suggest that the existing cement render would be made good, while the supporting statement suggests that it is "likely" that it will be replaced with a breathable, lime- based render.
2.6 This structure does not have an extension. Accordingly, the architect explains, a different approach to the proposed extension's finish is different. The architect explains that an extensive range of sketches were prepared with regards the most appropriate extension approach, and it has been concluded that a simple, flat-roofed approach would best ensure its subservience to the original tholtan, but also to the site itself and the topography across and along the site. (These sketch drawings have not been provided with the application.) He notes that the existing plan form of Tholtan 2 lends itself to a duplication of that form to the rear, which in turn helps it become a more integrated part of the existing structure.
2.7 Finally, he argues that the timber finish of the extension - "oiled cedar" - would keep the extension both subservient to the existing building. It also takes precedent from the rural, treed location.
General
2.7 The intention is to refurbish the buildings as viewed from the roadside elevation. The finishes of the extensions take different forms because while they structures have similarities (scale, presence on the roadside, use of traditional materials), they also have differences (depth of plan, symmetricity or lack thereof, typical window / door / window elevations or lack thereof). As such, the existing differences define the different approaches in both form and material finish.
==== PAGE 4 ====
17/01141/B Page 4 of 11
2.8 The architect also states that great importance will be placed on the quality of the finishes and construction will be essential for a sensitive refurbishment that maintains a simplicity of appearance.
The access / parking
2.9 The access to the buildings would be formed well to the southwest of Tholtan 2. The wider landholding of the applicant includes extended farmland, which includes an access running to the southwest of the application site. The access to the dwellings would be provided off this access lane, with a grasscrete (or similar) base for a new access lane shown running parallel to the Lhergy Cripperty highway from southwest to northeast. Four parking spaces would be created off the manoeuvring area, and adjacent to the highway. This would be screened to some degree by the retained trees along the highway.
The utility building
2.10 Adjacent Tholtan 2 would be a flat-roofed and timber-clad building with a flat, green roof below a footprint of 5.7m by 3.7m, with the narrower elevation sitting parallel to / facing the highway. This would provide a storage space as well as laundry / boiler room to be used in association with the two tholtans. While full elevations have not been provided, this is largely due to the fact that the building is proposed to be set into the topography of the site.
Boundary treatment
2.11 A Manx stone wall is proposed to the frontage of the site (i.e. parallel between the tholtans and the highway). This would run for a length of 21m, unbroken; this would however be set within a sod bank and so only the bank itself would be seen from the highway. The bank would be roughly 0.8m above the height of the road, although there is some variation in this as the height of the bank and the road are not consistent along the full length.
2.12 There will be fencing and gates, all timber, separating the buildings and their proposed gardens. No heights have been provided for these on the drawings and the architect has said that they would be content with a planning condition seeking further information on this.
Trees
2.13 All trees are proposed for retention on the site, although it is noted that one ash tree has already been approved for removal under a recent planning approval (see below).
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 While the site itself has not been the subject of relevant planning history, PA 16/00498/B sought and gained approval for alterations to the access to the adjacent Ballerghy Farm (which as noted is within the control of the applicant). This is relevant inasmuch as the new access for the current application would be provided from the approved amended access, and the architect explains that the new access would in fact be dependent on those works being carried out.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area of land not zoned for any kind of development, and which is also zoned as being of High Landscape Value on the 1982 Development Plan.
4.2 The nature of the proposal is such that reference to a number of Strategic Plan policies is appropriate:
o Environment Policy 1 (Protection of the Countryside) o Environment Policy 2 (Areas of High Landscape Value)
==== PAGE 5 ====
17/01141/B Page 5 of 11
o General Policy 3 (Development Outside Areas zoned for Development) o Housing Policy 13 (Reuse of Rural Dwellings) o Environment Policy 16 (Reuse of Existing Buildings for Tourism) o Business Policy 13 (Use of Residential Properties for Tourism) o Business Policy 11 (Tourism Development) o Transport Policy 7 / Appendix 7 (Parking Standards)
4.3 As it is a policy rarely referred to, it is worth noting the relevant parts of Housing Policy 13 here:
"In the case of those rural dwellings which have lost their former residential use by abandonment, consideration will be given in the following circumstances to the formation of a dwelling by use of the remaining fabric and the addition of new fabric to replace that which has been lost. Where:
(a) the building is substantially intact; this will involve there being at least three of the walls, standing up to eaves level and structurally capable of being retained; and (b) there is an existing, usable track from the highway; and where (c) a supply of fresh potable water and of electricity can be made available from existing services within the highway.
"Permission will not be given for the use of buildings more ruinous than those in (a) above, or for the erection of replacement buildings. Extensions of dwellings formed in accordance with the above may be permitted if the extension is clearly subordinate to the original building (i.e. in terms of floor space(3) measured externally, the extension measures less than 50% of that of the original)."
4.4 If the principle of the development is judged acceptable, the application also falls to be assessed against General Policy 2.
4.5 Reference to Housing Policy 11 may also be helpful to some degree.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure has commented as follows (07/12/17); The proposal is to renovate 2 cottages and bring them back into use as dwellings with additional use for tourism. Car parking will be provided in accordance with the IoM Strategic Plan making use of an existing access that is the subject of PA 16/00498/B.
Highway Services does not oppose this application subject to the following conditions:
Prior to any construction the access approved under planning application 16/00498/b shall be constructed and the visibility splays shall remain unobstructed at a height of 1.05m thereafter. Reason: To ensure safe access during the construction period in the interest of highway safety
Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided and remain free from obstruction thereafter. Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety.
5.2 Braddan Parish Commissioners offer no objection to the application in an email dated 6th November 2017.
==== PAGE 6 ====
17/01141/B Page 6 of 11
5.3 The owner / occupier of 33 Ballaquark, Douglas, writes in objection to the application in a letter dated 8th November 2017. He notes that the buildings currently blend into the countryside, and they should be left to "genteel decline". The rebuilding, extension of residential curtilage and associated residential activities will make the more noticeable. This will add to the ribbon development alongside the highway, to a detrimental visual impact an in an area of High Landscape Value where such sporadic development is particularly detrimental.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 It is considered that there are four main issues:
Additional Tourist Use.
Principle of Development
6.2 Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 2 seek to protect the countryside for its own sake, with General Policy 3 providing for development in certain circumstances, one of which being development which complies with Housing Policy 13 (reuse of rural dwellings). Housing Policy 13 allows for the reuse of rural dwellings subject to 3 criteria (level of intactness, provision of services and existing access track) with any extensions needing to be subordinate to the existing structure.
6.3 The private comments in objection to the application are noted, but it should be remembered that Housing Policy 13 makes clear provision for the formation of new dwellings from the existing built fabric of former dwellings that have lost their residential use by abandonment. While 'abandonment' can be very difficult to establish, the nature of these tholtans - and the arguments of the architect - suggest that such a conclusion is not unreasonable here.
6.4 First of all, the buildings retain four of their walls and these are all up to eaves level. While there is no structural survey with the application, the architect has undertaken a visual inspection had believes the buildings to be capable of the works proposed. This is not an ideal baseline, but structural surveys are generally sought for the benefit and peace of mind of the applicant - it is always a fear that a conversion scheme be approved but subsequently be unimplementable owing to a lack of structural stability. There is not considered to be sufficient reason to warrant the refusal of the application on this ground.
6.5 There is nothing to indicate that services cannot be connected to the tholtans.
6.6 There is not an existing, usable track from the highway. This could form a reason to refuse the application. It is to be borne in mind that the site lies within an area of countryside, which should be protected for its own sake, and therefore the options available to the applicant are to provide the access in the position shown or anywhere else along the highway frontage. Consideration was given to land to the southeast. However, it is considered that the proposed access lane would be by far the least intrusive in visual impact terms. While there is no track from the existing farm access itself, that which is proposed would be parallel to the highway and finished in a grasscrete-style material to enable it to blend into the landscape. There is no new highway access proposed, and this would help ensure that the 'domestification' of the site / area is kept to a satisfactory minimum.
6.7 While there has been a balance to be struck with respect to the access required, it is considered that the most important issue in this case is the intactness of the existing buildings and also the minimisation of the visual impact of the new access track that would be needed.
==== PAGE 7 ====
17/01141/B Page 7 of 11
With that in mind, it is considered that the principal of the formation of two dwellings is acceptable. This conclusion is not reached lightly and is very much a balanced judgement.
Design
6.8 In terms of the detail of the application, consideration needs to be given to the scale and nature of the extensions proposed. Environment Policy 2 seeks to prevent development which would harm the character and quality of the landscape within Area of High Landscape Value.
6.9 There is no question that the extensions to the two tholtans will be to everyone's tastes. They are both unashamedly contemporary, and both are quite large relative to the existing buildings. It is to be remembered that there has already been an element of balance in concluding that the principle is acceptable: the further that the development 'moves away' from the provisions of Housing Policy 13, the more difficult it becomes to support.
6.10 That being said, it is noted that neither of the extensions proposed would exceed the 50% threshold as set out in HP13. The architect's calculations put the extension proposed for Tholtan 1 as a 40% increase (noting the loss of the existing extension), and that for Tholtan 2 would be a 29% increase. Generally speaking, as Members will recall from assessment of proposals seeking approval for extensions to or replacements of existing dwellings, the numeric threshold can be a trifle simplistic and not always a helpful measure for a scheme's success. That the percentage is lower than 50% is helpful to note, but more important here is considered to be the visual impact of the extensions proposed.
6.11 In respect of Tholtan 1, the extension proposed takes a not dissimilar form to the existing building. The double-piled approach has precedent on the Island, and the use of contemporary materials to distance the old from the new represents conservation best practice. The architect's argument that the subordination of the extension to the existing building is also achieved through the use of 'low grade' materials is accepted to a degree. More important is considered to be the somewhat insubstantial nature of those materials relative to the more robust stonework of the existing.
6.12 It is concluded that the extension proposed here represents an unusual and thought- provoking architectural approach - but, more importantly, one that complies with the relevant parts of Housing Policy 13.
6.13 The proposed extension to Tholtan 2 is perhaps less easy to rationalise. The use of simple-form extensions is appropriate in certain circumstances, and those circumstances need to be properly contextualised in order to ensure that what is sometimes viewed as almost generic 'modern architecture' - i.e. a box - is appropriate against that context.
6.14 While the range of sketch drawings that were prepared to guide the design approach have not been submitted with the application, they have been provided by the architect on request along with a short statement of explanation. This is helpful as the approach set out defines that the approach taken reflects something of a process of elimination. The conclusion reached by the architect is that the lack of symmetry within the building's roof pitches, along with the strong gables, the deep plan for its width and the low rear eaves is such that a simple form extension approach should be taken. There is a strong logic to this argument, and moreover (he explains) the smaller the extension the more it "defers" to the existing. This also enables longer views into the site of the historic elements can be better maintained / achieved than if the extension would have been larger or had a pitched roof. While it should never be the case that the best route should by definition be acceptable, in this case it is judged that the proposed extension would be clearly subordinate to the existing building as per the wording of the policy.
==== PAGE 8 ====
17/01141/B Page 8 of 11
6.15 The architectural treatment to the rear elevations owes much less to the existing buildings. It is right that a certain level of freedom should be encouraged with design approaches, and moreover it is right that the planning system should not stifle innovation. With historic fabric such as this, though, it is more important to ensure that alterations are not unnecessarily attention-grabbing - policies are clear that extensions to older buildings should be subordinate to and respectful of the existing. The fenestration at the rear of both the extensions proposed is large and varied in size and position. It is accepted that some people may view this approach as being perhaps rather overly expansive, and could also result in reflections seen from across the hillside. However, it is worth noting that the fenestration within the existing tholtans also display a notable lack of symmetry or rhythm, and the character provided by the existing openings takes the form of small punctures within a defined 'frame' of the front elevation. In this respect, the approach proposed for the rear elevations is judged to reflect a slightly more expansive version of such an approach.
6.16 There is sometimes a need to balance the visual impact of a building against the natural environment in which it would sit. Some applicants seek to demonstrate that their development proposal is acceptable because it is screened from public views. In this case, it is considered that the design approach taken is appropriate to the site as a whole, albeit with the impact at Tholtan 2 perhaps less successful than Tholtan 1. As such, it may even be somewhat lamented that views of the buildings as proposed to be altered cannot be more readily achieved. However, that being said, the roadside boundary treatment is considered wholly appropriate, and the continuation of the sod bank that provides a significant contribution to the character of the Lhergy Cripperty highway is deemed very welcome.
Highway Safety and Parking
6.17 With respect to highway safety, it is noted that Highway Services do not object subject to a condition. There would be four parking spaces, in accordance with Transport Policy 7 / Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan.
Additional Tourist Use
6.18 Environment Policy 16 allows the reuse of existing buildings in the countryside for tourism purposes subject to various caveats, including that it is no longer required for its existing use. As the proposal is for a tourism use alongside a residential use this policy is not considered relevant. Business Policy 13 indicates that support will normally be given for using residential properties as tourist accommodation where this would not compromise the amenity of neighbouring residents (the nearest neighbour is the applicant). Business Policy 11 clarifies that "designations which seek to protect the countryside from development will be applied to tourist development with as much weight as they are to other types of development". It is therefore concluded that if the proposal is considered acceptable when considered against Housing Policy 13, its additional use for tourism would also be acceptable.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The application raises a number of issues. Where there are a number of balances that need to be struck with respect to policies, this can suggest that an application should be refused even if it is judged that on balance the proposal is acceptable against all those policies. The greater the number of balances, the more contrived the solution may be, and accordingly the less acceptable the overall outcome may be.
7.2 In this case, it is concluded that the development broadly proposed complies with Housing Policy 13, and although a new access track is required, the visual impact of this is very limited and therefore insufficient grounds for refusal. The quality of the design, the proposed tourist use and compliance with highway/parking requirements weighs in the applications favour.
==== PAGE 9 ====
17/01141/B Page 9 of 11
8.0 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:
(a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material; (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure, and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 The decision-maker must determine:
o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material, and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. __
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : Permitted
Committee Meeting Date: 12.02.2018
Signed : J SINGLETON Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
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.
==== PAGE 10 ====
17/01141/B Page 10 of 11
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 12.02.2018
Application No. :
17/01141/B Applicant : Mr Illiam Christian Proposal : Renovation and extension of two existing dilapidated cottages for use as residential dwellings and additional use as tourist accommodation along with creation of associated vehicular access, driveway and parking Site Address : Ballerghey Cottages Lhergy Cripperty Union Mills Isle Of Man
Presenting Officer : Mr Jason Singleton
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
On the 12th February, the application went before the planning committee who unanimously approved the application but sought to vary condition 4 which suspended permitted development for the extension, alteration or enlargement of the dwellings and sought to include the removal of the ability to install walls and fences within the residential curtilage identified in red on drawings 11A.
Conditions of Approval
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. Prior to any works taking place to renovate or extend the existing buildings, the access approved under planning application 16/00498/B shall be constructed and the visibility splays shall remain unobstructed at a height of 1.05m thereafter.
Reason: To ensure safe access during the construction period in the interest of highway safety
C 3. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided and remain free from obstruction thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety.
C 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without
==== PAGE 11 ====
17/01141/B Page 11 of 11
modification) there shall be no alterations, extensions, outbuildings, fences or walls erected without prior planning approval.
Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
Plans/Drawings/Information
This approval relates to drawings referenced; 01; 02; 03; 04; 05; 06; 07; 08; 09; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20 date stamped received on 31st October 2017.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal