Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/00488/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. 20/00488/B Applicant : Robert & Fiona Anderson Proposal Conversion of existing structure for residential and additional tourist use (part retrospective) Site Address The Tower Knockaloe Beg Farm Knockaloe Beg Lane Raggatt Peel Isle Of Man IM5 3AQ
Case Officer :
Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
25.06.2020 Expected Decision Level Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 25.06.2020
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
N/A as retrospective
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. It is considered that the development does not comply completely with Housing Policy 11 or Environment Policy 15 but in this case, there is sufficient justification to consider the proposal acceptable as the overall site is used for tourist and residential accommodation and the original structure is historically part of the character of the farmholding and should be preserved.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to drawing 01 and the plans submitted on 14th April, 2020.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE DEVELOPMENT COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
THE SITE
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/00488/B Page 2 of 6
1.1 The site is a triangularly shaped piece of land which forms part of the holding of Knockaloe Beg Farm which sits to the west of the A27 coastal road which links Peel with Glen Maye. The site accommodates a range of buildings - a farmhouse which provides permanent residential and tourist accommodation, agricultural buildings and buildings which have been converted from agricultural to tourist and café uses. Permission has also been granted for the installation of glamping pods and a camp site (see Planning History).
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is partly retrospective approval for the conversion of the building to permanent and tourist accommodation. Building works are also proposed in the form of a sun lounge. All of the proposed works have been implemented but the applicant considered that permission had been grated previously for roofing and window works so these elements are not unlawful. The accommodation comprises a sun lounge which acts as an internal link between the shower room and the main accommodation, a modest living and kitchen space and in one corner of the space is a small spiral staircase which leads up to a small bedroom.
2.2 The applicant explains that the works were approved in principle in 2007 but that they went ahead with the conversion works without applying for approval of the reserved matters.
2.3 There are no as existing (original) buildings proposed and the as approved drawings which are provided, differ from what is proposed in a number of ways:
The original building had a gable ended stack: the proposed scheme has a stack which projects up from close to eaves level in the side of the northern plane The original building had a an offset, square upper floor window and what is proposed has a central, rectangular window.
2.4 Also proposed is the addition of a sun lounge which projects 1.45m and 4.85m from the existing projecting walls alongside the building, creating additional floor space of 13 sq m. The overall floor area as original was 33 sq m. A shower room of a further 8 sq m was added without planning approval in 2014 "to make it possible" for the applicants' daughter to live in. In 2019 they added a conservatory and used all the reclaimed materials and wooden windows to maintain the original character of the building including lime render for the internal finishes.
2.5 The applicant suggests that the application building, which they refer to as a shepherd's cottage, is redundant for its previous historic use as an itinerant shepherd's cottage but which up until recently had been used as a store. The building was substantially intact and they have used the old walls in their entirety and replaced the roof on old wall plate level. The building forms part of the walled garden which is now used as a working vegetable and fruit garden.
2.6 The applicants explain that the Knockaloe Beg Farm has become a popular staycation and holiday destination over the past 12 years and they have been looking to fill different areas of the tourist market and the proposed cottage will add very well to their portfolio of accommodation, adding a quaint, romantic building with a lovely view of the vegetable garden, "taking people back in time". It is located sufficiently far from the existing residential buildings so not to be a nuisance and the development needs no new services. They add that they are the only property on the Island with a Gold Green Tourism Award.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982 as not for a particular purpose and within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic or Coastal Significance. There is therefore a presumption against development here other than where this is in accordance with, inter alia, Environment Policy 16 and Housing Policy 11.
3.2 These state:
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/00488/B Page 3 of 6
Environment Policy 16: The use of existing rural buildings for new purposes such as tourist, or small-scale industrial/commercial use may be permitted where:
a) it is demonstrated that the building is no longer required for its original purpose and where the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation; b) the reuse of the building will result in the preservation of fabric which is of historic, architectural, or social interest or is otherwise of visual attraction; c) it is demonstrated that the building could accommodate the new use without requiring extension or adverse change to appearance or character; d) there would not be unacceptable implications in terms of traffic generation; e) conversion does not lead to dispersal of activity on such a scale as to prejudice the vitality and viability of existing town and village services; and f) the use of existing buildings involves significant levels of redevelopment to accommodate the new use, the benefits secured by the proposal in terms of impact on the environment and the rural economy shall outweigh the continued impact of retaining the existing buildings on site.
Housing Policy 11: Conversion of existing rural buildings into dwellings may be permitted, but only where: (a) redundancy for the original use can be established; (b) the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation; (c) the building is of architectural, historic, or social interest; (d) the building is large enough to form a satisfactory dwelling, either as it stands or with modest, subordinate extension which does not affect adversely the character or interest of the building; (e) residential use would not be incompatible with adjoining established uses or, where appropriate, land-use zonings on the area plan; and (f) the building is or can be provided with satisfactory services without unreasonable public expenditure.
Such conversion must: (a) where practicable and desirable, re-establish the original appearance of the building; and (b) use the same materials as those in the existing building.
Permission will not be given for the rebuilding of ruins or the erection of replacement buildings of similar, or even identical, form. Further extension of converted rural buildings will not usually be permitted, since this would lead to loss or reduction of the original interest and character.
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The most relevant previous application for this site is 05/92183/B which was for and in which the two shepherd's cottages (the current application building and another on the other side of the walled garden) were shown as being re-roofed and their doors and windows replaced. It would not appear that there was a proposal in this application to use these buildings for any new purpose.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Patrick Parish Commissioners advise on 09.06.20 that their next meeting is not until 13.06.20.
5.2 Highway Services do not oppose (03.06.20).
5.3 DEFA Fisheries Directorate request that a Development within 9m of a watercourse form is completed (10.06.20).
ASSESSMENT
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/00488/B Page 4 of 6
6.1 The issue is whether the works comply with EP16 and HP11. The fact that the works have already been undertaken should not be a material or persuasive consideration.
6.2 The works - the shower room and the sun lounge - do not appear out of keeping although they do add relatively significantly to the size of the original building, arguably more than the "modest" amount referred to in HP11 and indeed EP16 which presumes against any extension at all.
6.3 The finished project does not appear out of keeping and adds to the range of tourist accommodation available on the site. The space within the walled garden is now used for the growing of vegetables and for recreation. The building, along with the other on the other side of the walled garden, is an important part of the history and character of the site and its continued use and maintenance in a way that will not adversely affect the overal character of the area, should be encouraged.
CONCLUSION 7.1 It is considered that the development does not comply completely with HP11 or EP15 but that in this case, there is sufficient justification to consider the proposal acceptable and the application is supported. Whilst DEFA has requested a form to be completed regarding works within close proximity of the watercourse, the works have already been completed and as such, the completed form is not necessary.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
(a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
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 4(2) 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. __
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:...13.07.2020
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/00488/B Page 5 of 6
Signed :...S CORLETT... 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 6 ====
20/00488/B Page 6 of 6
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 13.07.2020
Application No. : 20/00488/B Applicant : Robert & Fiona Anderson Proposal : Conversion of existing structure for residential and additional tourist use (part retrospective) Site Address: The Tower Knockaloe Beg Farm Knockaloe Beg Lane Raggatt Peel Isle Of Man IM5 3AQ
Principal Planner : Miss S E Corlett
Presenting Officer As above
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The report states that the Patrick Parish Commissioners requested a deferral until after 13th June, 2020, whereas their letter requested a deferral until after 13th July, 2020 as they had not received the application by the time of their meeting on 8th June. The application was received by them on 9th June, 2020. This correction was brought to the attention of the Planning Committee at its meeting of 13th July, 2020.
In addition, a late representation from the Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society was also brought to the attention of the members at their meeting. The response, sent on 10th July, 2020 confirms that they have no objection to the re-use of the building per se, as the building was one of the few remaining original buildings on the site and within a walled garden which is relatively rare on the Island. Unfortunately it is noted that the application contains no information on how the building was prior to its renovation and extension. Had the application not been retrospective, they would have considered that any extension should be subservient to the original building and they considered that the wall and lean-to roof of the shower area is higher than the garden wall and the chimney flue stack is out of keeping with the rest of the stone building, both of which are visible from the adjacent parking area and they consider that the sun lounge with additional timber uprights adds massively to the footprint of the structure and whilst only fully appreciable from within the walled garden, the changes take away from the unique standalone appearance of the original structure with its very high doorway. They request a condition requiring the replacement flue stack be given a stone finish to reflect what would have previously existed.
It was recommended that the IOMNHAS not be granted interested person status as they do not comply with the requirements of the Operational Policy on IPS and are not mentioned in paragraph 4(2) of the Procedure Order 2019.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal