Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
18/01121/B Page 1 of 17
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. 18/01121/B Applicant : Mr Alexander Boswell Proposal Refurbishment and rebuilding of redundant farmhouse and outbuildings including extension and relocation of vehicular access. Site Address Tower Farm Mountain Road Ramsey Isle Of Man
Case Officer :
Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 21.05.2020
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. 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.
Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
C 3. 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 garages or other free standing buildings shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, without the prior written approval of the Department.
Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
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 fences, gates, walls or other means of enclosure shall be erected or placed within the curtilage of any dwelling house forward of any wall of that dwelling house which fronts onto a highway, without the prior written approval of the Department.
==== PAGE 2 ====
18/01121/B Page 2 of 17
Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
C 5. No development shall commence until a bat survey has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The bat survey shall identify impacts on bat species together with mitigation, where appropriate, including a timetable for its implementation. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the bats.
C 6. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.
C 7. There shall be no external lighting along the new access road.
Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
C 8. No development of the farm can take place until the access has been constructed as shown in Drawing No. 102 Rev F. The visibility splays shall thereafter be permanently maintained free from obstruction to vision above a height of 1.05 above the level of the adjacent carriageway.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
C 9. Prior to the commencement of any development a landscaping scheme shall be submitted and approved by the Department which demonstrates the provision of a new grassed/landscaped banks which run along the eastern/southwestern boundaries of the new access driveway which also demonstrates the provision of a new public footpath and this approved scheme is to be completed prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved.
Reason: in the interests of visual amenities of the area and for the provision of a new public footpath.
C 10. Prior to the commencement of any development a scheme shall be submitted and approved by the Department which demonstrates how the existing vehicular access onto the Mountain Road is to be blocked up. This approved scheme shall be completed prior to the occupation of the new dwelling and retained thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
C 11. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in drawing 101 REV C shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the shed, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which die or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.
Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The conversion of the existing properties within the site would re-establish a dwelling on the site, reuse existing historic and architectural buildings worthy of retention all in a sensitive and
==== PAGE 3 ====
18/01121/B Page 3 of 17
appropriate which would an adverse visual impact upon the amenities of the countryside setting and landscape and therefore comply with HP 11 & 13 and EP 1 & 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan. The new access arrangements while having an impact upon the visual amenties of the countryside/landscape, are considered necessary, appropriate, well designed and represent a significant improvement to highway safety for all road users; which include pedestrians, over the current access arrangement and therefor comply with EP 1 & 2 and TP 4 of the IOM Strategic Plan.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers;
Received on 25th October 2018 100, 103, 104, 110, 02, 03, LS-01, LS-02, LS-03,LS-043,TS2-27217 REV 1, TS1-27217 REV 1, 9779-001 Design and Assess Statement, Structural Appraisal, Sanderson Access Report, Road Safety Review, Tree Survey and Water Supply Assessment.
Received on 22nd March 2019 105
Received on 16th October 2019 102 REV F & 101 REV C
__
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):
Manx Wildlife Trust - as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy; are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy; as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. __
Officer’s Report
THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT RECOMMENDED FOR AN APPROVAL
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is Tower Farm, Mountain Road, Ramsey which is located to the western side of the Mountain Road, with the Ballure Reservoir to the southeast an Albert Tower to the north of the site.
1.2 The farm is made up of a collection of three main building, one being the former Manx farm house and the reminding two being detached barns. The former farm house has lost its habitable status and is in a poor state of repair with no roof and a number of windows/doors
==== PAGE 4 ====
18/01121/B Page 4 of 17
missing. The detached barns are in a better state of repair and both have their roofs still in place. The site has quite clearly not been used as an operational farm for many years.
1.2 The site is accessed via a lane (public highway/footpath) which runs from the Mountain Road in a north westerly direction for approximately 100m (to former farmhouse). The lane also provides access for Albert Tower and the telecom masts which can be found in the neighbouring fields; as well as access to the surrounding agricultural fields.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the refurbishment and rebuilding of redundant farmhouse and outbuildings including extension, new detached garage and relocation of vehicular access.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The following previous planning application is considered of material relevance to the determination of the current application;
3.2 Approval in principle for erection of farmhouse and alterations to barns to create ancillary accommodation and farm buildings - 99/02346/A - REFUSED
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The application site is designated as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance under the IOM Development Plan Order 1982 and therefore no designated for development. The site is not within a Conservation Area.
4.2 The following policies are taken from the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and are relevant for consideration:
4.3 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(1) 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."
4.4 Environment Policy 1 states: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative".
==== PAGE 5 ====
18/01121/B Page 5 of 17
4.5 Environment Policy 2 states: "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."
4.6 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."
4.7 Housing Policy 13 states: "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.
This policy will not apply in National Heritage Areas (see Environment Policy 6). 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)."
4.6 Transport Policy 4 states: "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Garaff Commissioners have made the following comments:
==== PAGE 6 ====
18/01121/B Page 6 of 17
13.11.2018 "Members noted that Housing Policy 13 is particularly relevant to this application. The consensus was that the proposed did not significantly contradict this policy particularly if a water supply can be accessed.
It was felt that the proposals made appropriate use of the existing structures and their size and scope would not present an unacceptable impact on this remote and visually sensitive location.
Members noted the proposals to provide a new exit/entrance onto the A18, but felt that Highways were best placed to comment on the road safety implications of this change."
04.04.2019 "Members request that the Planning Officer consults Highways and considers the adaption of these plans to include a design which improves pedestrian safety for those crossing from the Ballure Reservoir Car Park on the eastern side of the A18 to access the path on the western side of the A18 which gives access to the Albert Tower...".
09.11.2019 "The Commissions has previously requested that consultation take place with the applicant prior to any approval with a view to improving the safety pf pedestrians in the vicinity.
On the 4th of April 2019, the Commission submitted a request to the Planning Authority to consider alternative options to the entrance to the proposed development that would also incorporate a re-routed pathway for pedestrians to use to access between the Ballure Reservoir Car Park and the Albert Tower amenity area. This request is copied below along with a map also submitted at the time. The current route of the path funnels pedestrians to an extremely dangerous crossing point almost on the apex of a corner on this section of the A18 Highway.
It may be that, as an act of goodwill, the applicant would be willing to assist in an endeavour to improve the safety of the public by re-siting the crossing point of the path.
The Commissioners would be very willing to discuss the matter further with the applicant and the Planning Authority. Members would very much welcome an approach from the Applicant or the Planning Authority to discuss this matter further.
The Commissioner fee that an opportunity to increase public safety will be missed if the issue of pedestrian safety is not considered in the course of any approval granted of this application."
5.2 Highway Services initially objected to the application for a number of reasons (18.12.2018).
Following these comments the applicants provided amended/additional/statement in response. Highway Service then made the following comments (14.08.2019):
"Following the previous highway response dated 18/12/18 the applicant has submitted additional information.
New site gates would be erected on the proposed site access road at least 18m back from the public highway allowing even the largest size vehicle to wait off the highway when the gates are closed without causing an obstruction.
The applicant has not confirmed the largest size vehicle that would require access to the site as previously requested. It should therefore be taken as a full size HGV of 16.5m in length in the absence of any other information. The swept path analysis of a 10m length vehicle provided cannot therefore be agreed.
==== PAGE 7 ====
18/01121/B Page 7 of 17
The way the swept path analysis is presented does not allow for the 2 individual vehicle plots to be adequately seen and it appears that the passing places are inadequate based on this information. The swept path analysis should be revised accordingly, and the passing places increased as necessary, to enable a 16.5m length HGV to pass a car as a minimum, and preferably a larger vehicle. It is suggested that the swept path plot is presented differently showing the vehicle outline position at the start and end of the track plot only (i.e. just 2 vehicle positions), with the lines showing the wheel tracks and body overhang paths only in between. The current display of the vehicle position every metre makes it impossible to view the required information (i.e. it cannot be seen that there is no vehicle overrunning between the 2 track plots).
The swept path plots showing the vehicle turning into and out of the proposed site access needs to be revised for the same reason showing the 16.5m length vehicle. A left turn into the site and a left turn out of the site are the only track plots required as these represent the worst case scenario (i.e. no right turns needed). The turning movements should avoid encroaching over the centreline of the highway as this would be unacceptable.
Visibility splays of at least 2.4m x 120m in both directions at the proposed site access junction are needed for 50mph traffic as previously stated. A maximum offset of 0.5m into the carriageway from the nearside kerb line would be acceptable. The cross hatching of the visibility envelopes are all shown incorrectly and must be removed from all the plans as they are not required and do not comply with visibility standards. As previously stated, the visibility splay to the north (for traffic turning left out of the site) is unacceptable as it has been incorrectly drawn to the opposite kerb line which is contrary to visibility standards. It must be redrawn to the nearside kerb line. The applicant should refer to the 'Making a Planning Application - A Guide for applicants: Supplementary Guidance on Highways Issues' document on the planning website which shows how visibility splays should be drawn (refer to the diagram in Figure 1). There must be nothing above 1m in height within the visibility splay areas. The plans show gradients of 1:12 along section A-A of the proposed site access road which is the part that would connect onto the public highway and would facilitate suitable vehicle and pedestrian access. It is recommended that there are no gradients steeper than this along the whole site access road.
A S109 Highway Agreement would be required to construct the new site access junction and close the existing vehicular access. It would need to include suitable drainage measures to ensure no surface water would illegally drain from the site onto the public highway.
Summary Highway Services oppose the application on highway safety grounds as it has not been demonstrated that the proposed site access junction would have sufficient highway visibility, and that large vehicles could access, egress and pass each other on the proposed site access route.
Recommendation: O"
5.2.1 Further to these comments the applicants provide further information/comments as requested and Highway Services responded by stating (16.05.2020): "Vehicle Movements: No estimate of vehicle movements has been provided by the applicant. Reviewing the applicant's statement indicates that the combined movements associated with a residential property and third party access requirements should not generally exceed 50 movements a week. Vehicular Access The proposal closes the existing vehicular access on to the north-west side of Mountain Road (A18) and creates a new vehicular access on the same side, some 79m to the south-west.
==== PAGE 8 ====
18/01121/B Page 8 of 17
A new direct access at this location should conform to the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges
Speed measurements have been made available by the Applicant and the calculated 'y' distance for visibility purposes based upon Design Manual for Roads and Bridges CD 109 Highway link design guidance is 120m to the north and 160m to the south. The estimated vehicular movements and the submitted access layout do comply with the guidance given by DMRB for a direct access. The proposed access is of sufficient depth and width and would be suitably surfaced. Visibility is improved on provision of the new access with the visibility splay to the left of 130m and 66.5m, but falls short of the required distance by approximately 30m and 53.5m respectively. The relaxation in standards requires mitigating factors to be considered. Road Safety: On review a single vehicle damage only collision was recorded on the section of Mountain Road (A18) in the last five year period in the vicinity of the current and proposed farm access. The cause was unrelated to turning movements associated with the farm. Though the installation of a new access will increase the safety risks associated with increased turning movements, the overall risk is likely to be less than the risk of using the existing access. As the new access geometry and location will: o Improve the available sight lines to the north and south. From 17m and 34m to 130m and 66.5m respectively. o Improve the ease of turning movements for larger vehicles into and out the site; and o Improve the forward visibility of southbound drivers approaching the rear of a stationary vehicle turning right into the site, increasing from approximately 53m (existing access) to 96m (new access). Internal Layout - PROW P502: The proposal alters the alignment of the PROW P502 as it passes the southern curtilage of the farm. The applicant will need to make a decision regarding the PROW, either, leave it as it is making sure it is accessible and walkable, or, apply for a public path order to divert it. Conclusion: The proposed direct access will achieve betterment in both visibility and geometry when compared to the existing direct access, albeit that the new direct access remains non- compliant. Overall, Highways Services considers the proposed development will have not have an adverse impact on road user safety or highway capacity. Recommendation: DNOC
==== PAGE 9 ====
18/01121/B Page 9 of 17
Highway Services Division would request for reasons of highway safety that planning conditions are added so that: o No development of the farm can take place until the access has been constructed as shown in Drawing No. 102 Rev F. The visibility splays shall thereafter be permanently maintained free from obstruction to vision above a height of 1.05 above the level of the adjacent carriageway. o The closure of the existing access should occur in advance of the new access being brought into operation. o No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a construction management plan or construction method statement. The approved plan/statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The statement shall provide for: parking of vehicle of site operatives and visitors routes for construction traffic; hours of operation method of prevention of mud being carried onto highway; users of PROW P502; proposed temporary traffic restrictions and arrangements for turning vehicles."
5.3 The Ecosystems Policy Officer (DEFA) comments that there is insufficient information in the application to access the risk to bats and that a number of the trees proposed to be removed may have potential for bat rousts and these should be checked; and the buildings should also be checked for bats (23.11.2018).
5.4 Manx Wildlife Trust comments that it was difficult to find photographs to document the farm buildings and there seemed to be no mention to whether there was a risk to bat roost from the tree work/building works (15.11.2018).
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 There are potential a number of issues relating to this application. These include: 1. Conversion of existing buildings to residential use; 2. The visual impact of the proposed works; 3. Highway Safety matters; and 4. Potential impacts to wildlife, namely bats.
Conversion of existing buildings to residential use 6.2 There are two aspect to this issue, firstly the conversion of the former dwelling and the second the conversion of the existing outbuildings.
6.3 In relation to the conversion of the dwelling the relevant policy is HP13. This indicates that when those rural dwellings which have lost their former residential use by abandonment (this former dwelling has), 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.
6.4 The proposal does involve the conversion of the existing dwelling which does still have at least three walls up to eaves level. In fact it has all four, with only the roof missing. A structural report is included with the submission at the report concludes that:
"The walls that form the basic shell of the farmhouse are standing to their original full height and could be incorporated in any refurbishment of the building subject to taking down and rebuilding certain sections of the walling. Namely taking down the chimney stack and the middle section of the south gable wall down to the dislodged Manx stone lintel over the fire place, see marked up photo 16, and the triangular section of walling above the steel rail lintel
==== PAGE 10 ====
18/01121/B Page 10 of 17
over the door and window in the north gable wall to the kitchen outlet, also the middle section of the front elevation down to the underside of the lintels over both of the windows on that frontage, see marked up photo 13. It will also be necessary to underpin the walls to get the required depth of penetration below ground level to make the required construction depth for an insulated ground bearing floor. To remove and replace the existing eternal render with a new flexible render coating."
6.5 Accordingly, sections (namely the front first floor wall and a section of the gable end approx. half would be required to be removed. Therefore, the proposal in the strictest terms may not entirely comply with the policy, albeit if the total area of existing walls being retained, is still relatively high. The proposal does also include a upward extension to given the appropriate internal roof height. This results in the eves level and the ridge level increasing by 1m. The proposal also includes a first floor extension above the existing single storey extension of the property
6.6 HP13 indicates that extensions of such dwellings may be permitted if the extension is clearly subordinate to the original building. It is considered the proposal would meet this criteria. In terms of floor area the first floor extension and the link extension equates to a floor area of 62sqm approximately and results in a 41% increase in floor area approximately (proposal 212.7sqm - existing 150.7sqm). Accordingly, in terms of the 50% threshold the proposal would meet this.
6.7 Arguably, the main issue is whether the works would be clearly subordinate to the original building. In this case it is considered to do so. What results would be a very well proportion Manx traditional farmhouse including the two gable end chimneys, slate roof, painted render finish, and three upper windows over a centre doorway which is flanked by single windows. The dwelling would accommodated four bedrooms and associated en-suites only. The main living space would be incorporated into one of the detached barns to the rear of the existing former dwelling. The works to the dwelling/barn also include a single storey link extension which would become the main entrance to the property. The works associate with the conversion of the barn will be considered later in this report.
6.8 In terms of additional criterial in HP 13, paragraph b requires that there is an existing, usable track from the highway. There is one in place; albeit the applicants are proposing to create a new access to serve the dwelling as well as any associated service vehicles for the telecom masts and also happy with the suggestion from the Commissioners regarding a public footpath being incorporated into/adjacent to this new access track. The visual impacts and highway issues associated within this will be considered later. However, if this new access/lane is consider acceptable then this proposal would meet the criteria laid out in HP13.
6.9 The final aspect of HP 13 is that a supply of fresh potable water and of electricity can be made available from existing services within the highway. Electricity is not an issue as there are electricity cables nearby, which are likely to serve the telecom masts. The main issues of this section relates to water. The applicants have employed the services of AMC Environmental Ltd who have produced a detailed report on possible options available to the applicant for a domestic water supply. This detailed report has identified two possible locations for potable water, one being in a neighbouring field (appx 200m from dwelling) where there is a water spring and the second from a watercourse (approx. five fields away - 600m). Water quality test have been undertaken and with some treatment, the water is of a drinkable quality and in sufficient volume. The report concludes there the two sources are viable options for the development of a water supply. The water spring is the preferred option as it is closer to the house and likely to be cheaper to develop and easier to manage. Overall, while the specific details are not yet know, The Department is conformable there are two viable options for the applicants to provide adequate water supply to the dwelling. It is clearly the applicants own interest to ensure this is provided, otherwise they would have a property with no water supply.
==== PAGE 11 ====
18/01121/B Page 11 of 17
It is considered at this stage it would be reasonable to attach a condition requiring additional information be provided prior to ant works commencing.
6.10 Overall, while there are some aspects which may not entirely meet the policy requirements of HP13 in the strictest terms; overall, it is considered the overall benefits of the retention of the majority of the dwelling on this site outweigh these possible issues. Accordingly, overall it is considered the proposal meets the aims of HP 13.
6.11 The starting point for a proposal to convert an existing building/s (i.e. the detached single/two storey barn) in the countryside to a dwelling, would be Housing Policy 11. It should be noted that the proposed conversion of the barn is linked to the existing former dwelling; however the overall works result in a single dwelling only. There are a number of criteria indicated within this policy, with which any proposed development must comply.
6.12 With regard to paragraph (a) of Housing policy 11, the barn is not used in relation to agriculture (i.e. its original use) and therefore it is clearly redundant. Furthermore, from comments received previously from the DEFA (Former Agricultural Advisor) this type of barn/s can no longer be used for modern agricultural farming either for storage of equipment or keeping of animals (animal welfare standards). It is therefore considered that redundancy has been established and the proposal conforms to Housing Policy 11 in this respect.
6.13 With regard to paragraph (b), this deals with whether the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation. The applicants submitted structural report concludes that:
"Building 1 is in good structural condition and can readily be incorporated into any refurbishment structure for the building. The verticality of the stone walls along with their well bounded stonework means that no extensive remedial works are required just some local patching and repointing e.g. where the shaft to the grain grinding machine is removed. The roof is in very good condition but there is need to add guttering, downpipes, and surface water gullies. The walls may need to be underpinned depending on proposed floor levels and the form of construction of the ground floor. It is recommended that the ground to the south of the building be lowered to be the proposed ground level of the building, and that the ground level be the same around the whole of the perimeter of the building."
6.14 Accordingly, it is considered the barn is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation and comply with this section of HP 11.
6.15 With regard to paragraph (c) of Housing policy 11, the existing barn is of Manx stone construction and it is considered the appearance, age and character has an overall architectural interest to warrant its retention and therefore complies with this aspect of Housing Policy 11.
6.16 With regard to paragraph (d) of Housing policy 11 this policy states that the building should be 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. As mentioned there is the glazed entrance link which runs from the rear elevation of the main dwelling house to the table end of the barn. This extension in terms of its position, form, finish and scale would be subordinate, being much smaller and having a lower roof height than the barn. The only further extension to the barn is a single storey modern designed flat roofed sun room (21 sqm) made up with large sections of glazing. Again, given its location, size, height and design it would have little visual impact. And being to the rear, would be well screened form public view. Overall, the proposal with little in the way of extensions would comply with this section of the policy.
6.17 Paragraph (e), questions whether the use would be compatible with adjoining established uses. The dwelling would sit on its own, not near any other residential properties.
==== PAGE 12 ====
18/01121/B Page 12 of 17
It is not considered as single dwelling on this site would have any conflicting impacts to adjoin uses, namely agricultural fields the applicants own.
6.18 Paragraph (f) requires that the building is or can be provided with satisfactory services without unreasonable public expenditure. Again the comments within paragraph 6.9 of this report relate to this issue. Therefore the proposal complies with this aspect of Housing Policy 11.
6.19 The former cow shed which is a detached single storey barn located to the west of the main dwelling house would be converted also, not to residential accommodation but to be used to accommodate the water treatment system and water tanks and a garden store. Due to it being located to non-residential the tests of HP11 are perhaps not as strict. However the structural report concludes again that the building is in good condition and is capable of conversion. Clear this is a good use of the building, otherwise a separate building would likely have been required for the water treatment system and garden store. Accordingly, the re-use of the building would be supported.
The visual impact of the proposed works; 6.20 There are consider two main aspects to the visual impacts of the proposed works, the first relates to the associated works required to convert the former dwelling/barn conversions and the second is the visual impact by the proposed new access and driveway/footpath.
6.21 When considering these aspects Environment Policy 1 & 2 are required to be taken into account. Environment Policy 1 requires that development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative. Environment Policy 2 states 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.
6.22 In terms of the works to the dwelling, the majority would be well screened form public views. Currently, the appearance of the site from the Mountain Road is well screened with only limited fleeting views of the site when travelling towards the site (namely Douglas to Ramsey direction). The proposed works in most part would be unnoticeable from views form the Mountain Road. The main aspect which would potentially become more apparent is the works to the main dwelling house. However, such views would be fleeting and would be of a traditional Manx farmhouse, which is a common feature in the countryside setting and landscape.
6.23 The main public views of the site are from the immediately adjacent public footpath which is within touching distance of the dwelling. Accordingly, the visual impact from these views would be more significant. However, arguably seeking a dilapidated dwelling and site isn't especially of benefit to the countryside setting and it is more likely the overall works proposed would result in a betterment to the visual appearance of the countryside and to the site.
6.24 Overall, given the appropriate and modest works to the existing buildings within the site, it is considered the proposed works to the former dwelling and conversion of barns would not adversely affect the countryside nor harm the character and quality of the landscape.
6.25 Arguably, the main visual impact is the creation of the new access and lane which would serve the site, nearby telecom masts and potentially a public footpath. Part of this assessment includes to whether there is considered a highway safety improvement by undertaking the proposed works. This will be considered in the next chapter of this report; however, if it is felt
==== PAGE 13 ====
18/01121/B Page 13 of 17
there is a highway improvement, this could be considered a material reason in favour of the new access/lane and potential outweigh the visual impact.
2.26 The fact the proposal is creating a new access which also involves the realignment of the existing roadside Manx stone wall in both directions along the Mountain Road and the creation of a new lane though a neighbouring field to the dwelling; there is clearly going to be a visual impact by the proposed works.
2.27 The new lane has been carefully considered and designed to ensure it appears as a country farm lane (similar to existing lane serving the site), rather than a more domestic styled driveway. This includes large sections of it having central grassed areas flanked with concrete striped either side; creation of new field boundaries with the introduction of stock fencing and new landscaping along. Further the applicants have agreed with the Department opt potentially create a grass bank with additional landscaping on top along the eastern sections of the new lane (these face towards the Mountain Road) which in time will screen the lane from public views from the Mountain road.
2.28 It should also be noted they have tried to site the access in a position which achieves an acceptable level of visibly splays, while having the least visual impact as possible. For example if the access was closer to the existing access, this would have a reduced visual impact perhaps, but visibility would not be at the same level as what is proposed. It is very much of a balancing act. Of course if there are concerns of the highway benefits and/or the principle of the conversion overall, then the visual impacts of the new access/lane would also raise additional concern. However, if it is considered that these matters are acceptable that there are acceptable highway safety improvements and that the site is worthy of being converted for a single dwelling, it is considered the applicants have designed a well-designed access/lane which in time would sit well within the countryside and landscape, subject to an condition relating to further details of a bank/landscaping to the eastern side of the new access (applicants are happy with such a condition).
2.29 There is a further aspect which is the single storey detached pitched roof garage which is located to the west of the main dwelling house and between the dwelling and the former cowshed. The garage design is appropriate with the building throughout the site, having a slate pitched roof and Manx stone finish to all elevations. The building is sited in the centre of the site. Accordingly, the garage would be read as just a further collection of t building on the site sitting within the existing curtilage of the site. It is not considered the proposal would have any significant adverse impact upon the landscape/countryside to warrant a refusal.
Highway Safety matters; 2.30 Perhaps the starting is to consider whether there is a need for a new access, namely give the existing access is arguable not safe.
2.31 Firstly, it should be noted that if the application is approved, the existing vehicular access would be blocked up. It is understood the vehicular aspect of the access is private and in control with applicant, albeit they allow telecom operators for example to use to maintain the masts in the area and farm vehicles also to farm the surrounding fields. There is however a separate public footpath which runs parallel with the access lane. It should be noted following suggestions made by the Commissioner's, the applicant is happy to provide a new public footpath which would run adjacent and parallel with the new lane now proposed. This would improve pedestrian access from the Ballure Reservoir car park opposite the area of the new access to the new public footpath. This location is believed to provide better pedestrian visibility. Currently, the pedestrian access on the Ballure Reservoir side (is opposite existing access/lane serving application site) has poor visibility for pedestrians, to an extent that it realises heavily on listening rather than looking, given the poor level of visibility. No specific details are including on the application drawings of the new pedestrian footpath, although the
==== PAGE 14 ====
18/01121/B Page 14 of 17
principle has been established and it is considered could easily be incorporated successfully into the scheme via a condition.
2.32 What needs to be acknowledged that this planning application (or the Department) does not have the powers to close the existing public footpath or designated the new footpath as a public footpath. These powers lie with DOI and Tynwald. However, this application can at least make the provisions for such a footpath, and given the applicants, Commissioners and the Department are all happy to make such provision, it would seem odd not to take such opportunity up. Accordingly, this aspect of the application falls in favour of the application, especially the new access arrangements.
2.33 The second issue is whether from a highway safety aspect in terms of vehicular traffic, is the existing access safe? Visiting the site and observing traffic and form the pans and evidence provided by the application, it would clear all point to the fact that the existing access is very substandard both for traffic exiting and entering.
2.34 In terms of visibility the existing access has 2.4m to the north (towards Ramsey) and 2.4m x 17m to south (towards Douglas). It should be noted the visibility to the north is very deceptive and gives you the initial impression that you have greater visibility than the suggested 70m. There is an "S" bend to the north and when looking in this direction, it actually gives the impression that you have more time and greater visibility than you actually have. This is due to the "S" bend in the road which essential has a blind stop within and essentially can hid an entire vehicle for a few seconds. Therefore, you could easily drive out onto the Mountain Road to be met by a vehicle with is accelerating uphill. Further, the narrowness of the existing access and the 2.6m width of the lane, can only accommodate a single width of traffic (please note the public footpath is separate from the lane). Accordingly, any traffic entering the access/lane must wait for any vehicle to exit. This in turn would result in traffic on the Mountain Road from having to stop, which isn't ideal or safe in this locations due to the "S" bend in the road which would potentially screen views of such waiting traffic on the road (heading from Ramsey to Douglas).
2.35 The proposed new access would have visibility splays of 2.4m x 130 in a southerly direction and 2.4m x 83m in a northerly direction drawn to the nearside kerb line. Actual visibility to the north is in practice greater than 83m, potentially up to 120m, albeit to achieve this the visibly splays crosses the centre line of carriageway into the lane of incoming traffic. This generally causes concern as splay lines are shown to the nearside kerb line to taken into account of possible traffic overtaking incoming vehicles. However, in this location it is highly unlikely of such occurrence given the blind bends and the "s" bend would make any overtaking manoeuvre very difficult and wholly unsafe.
2.36 Two speed surveys were undertaken by DOI on behalf of the applicants, one at the existing access and the second at the location of the new access. From these surveys it was demonstrated at the existing access that the 85% speed to traffic from the north (from Ramsey travelling up hill) was 41.8mph and from the south (from Douglas travelling downhill) 40.3mph was observed. At the at the new access the 85% speed to traffic from the north (from Ramsey travelling up hill) was 46.8mph and from the south (from Douglas travelling downhill) 47.6mph was observed. Accordingly, traffic where the new access would be located is higher, which isn't unexpected as traffic is either accelerating uphill on a straight section of road or traffic is about travelling downhill on a straight section of road. The new access is on the straight section of road, where as existing access is on a bend. Utilising the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) due to the speeds observed the higher 47.6mpd (76.6kph) is used and plays of 2.4m x 120m are sought.
2.37 Highway Services full comments to the most up-to-date plans/information are within paragraph 5.2.1 of this report and no objections are made.
==== PAGE 15 ====
18/01121/B Page 15 of 17
2.38 The applicants Highway Consultant accepted that the new access does not wholly meet the aims if the DMRB in terms of visibility splay to the north is 83m rather than the 120m generally sought. However, they believe it is evident that the proposed access affords significantly improved levels of vision, better presence and ease of access for larger vehicles.
2.39 Due to these reasons, it is considered there are sufficient highway safety reasons to allow a new access/lane, and in turn accept while there is a visual impact of such a new access/lane to the countryside/landscaping, the significant highway safety improvements; not just to the occupants/visitors of the dwelling, but also other utilities companies/telecom companies and farmers and of course all users of the public highway (Mountain Road); outweigh any visual concerns.
2.40 Construction Management Plans have proven difficult to enforce, and it is considered such matters are better controlled under other legislation. As such no condition is proposed in relation to this.
Potential impacts to wildlife, namely bats. 2.41 The matters raised by DEFA and Manx Wildlife Trust are very similar, essential to ensure no bats are impacted by the development through the construction works and removal of trees. It is considered these matters can be addressed via a condition required a bat survey form being undertaken prior to any works commencing.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Overall, the conversion of the existing properties within the site would re-establish a dwelling on the site, reuse existing historic and architectural buildings worthy of retention all in a sensitive and appropriate which would not adverse visual impact upon the amenities of the countryside setting and landscape and therefore comply with HP 11 & 13 and EP 1 & 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan. The new access arrangements while having an impact upon the visual amenities of the countryside/landscape, are considered necessary, appropriate, well designed and represent a significant improvement to highway safety for all road users; which include pedestrians, over the current access arrangement and therefor comply with EP 1 & 2 and TP 4 of the IOM Strategic Plan. Accordingly, the application is recommended for an approval.
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.
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
__
==== PAGE 16 ====
18/01121/B Page 16 of 17
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:...08.06.2020
Signed :...S BUTLER... 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 17 ====
18/01121/B Page 17 of 17
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 08.06.2020
Application No. : 18/01121/B Applicant : Mr Alexander Boswell Proposal : Refurbishment and rebuilding of redundant farmhouse and outbuildings including extension and relocation of vehicular access. Site Address : Tower Farm Mountain Road Ramsey Isle Of Man
Principal Planner : Mr Chris Balmer
Presenting Officer S BUTLER
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
Approved subject to the correction of typo's in the reason for approval.
The conversion of the existing properties within the site would re-establish a dwelling on the site, reuse existing historic and architectural buildings worthy of retention all in a sensitive and appropriate way which would not have an adverse visual impact upon the amenities of the countryside setting and landscape and therefore comply with HP 11 & 13 and EP 1 & 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan. The new access arrangements while having an impact upon the visual amenties of the countryside/landscape, are considered necessary, appropriate, well designed and represent a significant improvement to highway safety for all road users; which include pedestrians, over the current access arrangement and therefor comply with EP 1 & 2 and TP 4 of the IOM Strategic Plan.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal