Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
16/00021/B
Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 16/00021/B Applicant : Mr Brian & Mrs Linda Brew Proposal : Conversion of two existing barns to create three tourist / residential units Site Address : Barnagh Rhencullen Kirk Michael Isle of Man IM6 2HB
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 21.10.2015 Site Visit : 21.10.2015 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is a parcel of land that includes a pair of beach stone barns, long-since redundant, as well as associated grassland and hardstanding in part associated with the adjacent dwelling known as Barnagh Farm, although there is no active farming on the site; the site is connected to the Kirk Michael coast road by a fairly straight access track formed of soil and stone and which runs roughly 570m in length in a southwestern direction. Also within the applicants' ownership is the dwelling and a pair of agricultural fields further to the southeast, within one is a small stone shed called the Turnip Barn.
1.2 The barns in question are rectangular in form and set almost at right angles to one another; the northeastern barn, which is shorter but taller than the other, sits roughly 11m from its neighbour to the southwest, and the existing dwelling a further 9m in the same direction. Both barns are finished with roof sheeting rather than slate, and each has a significant number of window and door openings, typical of Manx barns. The smooth finish of the beach / river stone, though not atypical in the northern part of the Island, does give the barns an unusual appearance.
1.3 The shorter, northeastern barn is set lengthwise into a slope and so is part single storey and part double storey; the ridge of its higher gable end is 7.1m above ground level while the lower gable end, to the rear (southeast) is 4.8m above ground level. This barn has a footprint measuring 12.7m by 6.3m, with roughly half the ground floor being available floorspace due to the land levels. There was a single storey lean-to extension to this barn, with a gable chimney that would have served both the barn and its extension still evident, but the extension has since been removed; the chimney is a most unusual, and almost certainly retrofitted given its brickwork construction, feature. It does not give the visual impression of being in especially poor condition.
1.4 The other, longer barn offers a similar finish and materials to the shorter barn when viewed from the northwest, but a rather unfortunate flat-roofed, plain rendered and unpainted extension has been installed fully across the rear. This barn, too, is also set into the slope, with its original element having two storeys and the rearward extension just one, though more of the slope was dug away to erect this barn and so the ground floor remains the same in size externally as internally. Although the barns are essentially rectangular in form, this barn does have a small but notable return in its northwestern elevation at its northern corner. At eaves level there is some unusual, and again seemingly retrofitted, brick detailing above some horizontally laid and projecting slate.
==== PAGE 2 ====
16/00021/B
Page 2 of 8
This barn's footprint measures 18.2m by 7.7m, with the single storey element to the rear providing the only double-storey element at present. There is a small single storey element to the northeastern edge of the barn at the ground floor level.
1.5 The agent to the application identifies that the existing dwelling was built as a replacement to a previous dwelling on the site, and which were used in associated with Barnagh Farm until the 1980s, when the farm ceased operating.
1.6 The site has various levels though there is no especially extravagant rise or fall; generally, the site slopes upwards to the southeast. Views into the site from the west are extremely limited; the distance is clearly a key factor in this but there is a robust and handsome group of trees to the west of the site that effectively screens all but the dwelling itself from here; the gable of the taller barn is just visible atop the treeline. Views from the east, largely achievable only from private positions and the Slieau Curn hill, are also screened somewhat from here owing to further trees.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the conversion of the barns into three units of tourist / residential accommodation.
2.2 The shorter, taller barn would have a single storey extension to provide an extended living / dining area at the ground floor; this would be identical in width to the existing barn and project 4.0m. This is shown with a pitched roof to match that on the barn at present, with a large gable end window. Most of the existing openings are to be preserved, with the occasional one being altered in position or size. The new window and door units would have stained timber frames. New gable windows are shown at both ends of the barn. Other than the proposed extension, the most notable change is the proposed replacement of the roof with slate tiles, along with four conservation-style rooflights in each roof plane. This barn would provide a single unit of accommodation, comprising a single living room / dining room / kitchen at ground floor and a pair of bedrooms (one en-suite) and a bedroom.
2.3 The second barn is proposed for conversion into two units; this would provide a similar extent / nature of accommodation to that of the other barn, but over a larger floor area. Again similarly, the existing window and door openings are proposed to be re-used, but in this unit no additional openings are shown and no change in the size or shape of the existing openings would be made. The existing rear extension would be retained but clad entirely in vertical larch boarding.
2.4 There would be a single area of land around the barns that is annotated as 'garden'. This land would not be apportioned between the barns and would instead be open for each to use.
2.5 Stone patios for each barn are shown to the frontage, which would face onto a gravel courtyard where six parking spaces are shown.
2.6 The application has been submitted with a Structural Survey carried out by the architect for the scheme, and which demonstrates that the buildings can be converted safely.
2.7 A bat survey was also provided on request. This was undertaken by the Manx Bat Group Chairman, and commented that there were no signs of previous occupancy, further noting:
"Whilst there is no obvious evidence of bat use of these barns at present, builders might come across an individual or small number of bats sheltering when work progresses.
"The site owner is known to be sympathetic to bats and has erected a number of large bat boxes around the property. Whilst these are not ideally constructed or site, it is to be hoped that features to attract bats might be built in as part of the development works."
==== PAGE 3 ====
16/00021/B
Page 3 of 8
2.8 A number of alterations and clarifications to the scheme were sought; the description of the proposal as outlined above includes those alterations and clarifications, while others are discussed in the Assessment.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 The existing dwelling was approved as a replacement dwelling under PA 05/01168/B; an earlier proposal (PA 04/01335/B) was refused on grounds of inappropriate scale, form and design. The approved scheme carried an advisory note on the basis of the case officer comments: "DoT considers the proposal will not have any adverse traffic impacts. However DoT has added a note to say the visibility for the driveway is inadequate to serve the needs of the existing traffic. Highway safety could be improved at this location by installing a traffic mirror."
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
4.1 The site lies within an area of 'white land' not zoned for any particular kind of development on the 1982 Development Plan; it also lies on the edge of a much wider area also zoned as being of High Landscape Value.
4.2 In view of this zoning and the nature of the proposal, a number of policies of the Strategic Plan are considered material to the assessment.
4.3 Although General Policy 3 does presume against new development in the countryside, exceptions can be made in respect of conversions of existing rural buildings to either tourist or residential use where a number of criteria (as set out in other policies, listed below) are met; GP3 reads in part: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
(b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11)."
4.4 Environment Policy 2 reads in full: "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."
4.5 Environment Policy 4 reads in full: "Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect:
(a) species and habitats of international importance: (i) protected species of international importance or their habitats; or (ii) proposed or designated Ramsar and Emerald Sites or other internationally important sites.
(b) species and habitats of national importance: (i) protected species of national importance or their habitats; (ii) proposed or designated National Nature Reserves, or Areas of Special Scientific Interest; or (iii) Marine Nature Reserves; or (iv) National Trust Land.
==== PAGE 4 ====
16/00021/B
Page 4 of 8
(c) species and habitats of local importance such as Wildlife Sites, local nature reserves, priority habitats or species identified in any Manx Biodiversity Action Plan which do not already benefit from statutory protection, Areas of Special Protection and Bird Sanctuaries and landscape features of importance to wild flora and fauna by reason of their continuous nature or function as a corridor between habitats.
"Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward."
4.6 Environment Policy 16 reads in full: "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. Proposals to convert rural buildings to residential accommodation will be considered along with the advice given at Section 8.10 of this document."
4.7 Environment Policy 34 reads in full: "In the maintenance, alteration or extension of pre-1920 buildings, the use of traditional materials will be preferred."
4.8 Housing Policy 11 reads in full: "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."
==== PAGE 5 ====
16/00021/B
Page 5 of 8
4.9 Business Policy 11 reads in full: "Tourism development must be in accordance with the sustainable development objectives of this plan; policies and 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. Within the rural areas there may be situations where existing rural buildings could be used for tourist use and Environment Policy 16 sets out the circumstances where this may be permitted."
4.10 Business Policy 12 reads in full: "Permission will generally be given for the conversion of redundant buildings in the countryside to tourist use providing that the development complies with the policies set out in paragraph 8.10 - Housing Policy 11."
4.11 Business Policy 13 is not necessarily directly applicable but given the mixed use proposed it is worth noting; it reads in full: "Permission will generally be given for the use of private residential properties as tourist accommodation providing that it can be demonstrated that such use would not compromise the amenities of neighbouring residents."
4.12 Business Policy 14 reads in full: "Tourism development may be permitted in rural areas provided that it complies with the policies in the Plan. Farmhouse accommodation or quality self catering units in barn conversions and making use of rural activities will be encouraged but must comply with General Policy 3 and Business Policies 11 and 12. Other forms of quality accommodation in rural areas will be considered, including the provision of hostels and similar accommodation suitable for walkers but must comply with General Policy 3 and Business Policies 11 and 12."
4.13 Transport Policy 7 reads in full: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Highway Services in the Department of Infrastructure initially, on 14.01.2016, sought further details on passing places along the access track. The amended plans received showed that there was a parcel of land within the applicants' ownership roughly halfway along the track that would appear to be of sufficient size to enable vehicles to pass one another. Highway Services confirmed they were content with the proposal on 6th April 2016.
5.2 Michael Commissioners offered no objection to the scheme in comments received 5th February 2016 and 19th April 2016.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The fact that the proposal seeks twin uses - both tourist and residential - means that the impact of both these needs to be assessed. It is to be remembered that the applicant owns the only dwelling likely to be significantly materially affected by the proposal. Although the application raises a number of issues and policies against which those issues need to be assessed, Environment Policy 16 and Housing Policy 11 are considered the most material to its assessment.
6.2 The kind of issues raised in terms of proposals seeking approval to convert buildings to tourist or residential accommodation are not altogether different. The impacts arising from residential accommodation in such circumstances would probably be more significant than with tourist accommodation, since people on holiday tend to less concerned about their own living conditions than would be permanent residents. While there is the argument that there may be more comings and goings associated with tourist use, and these are likely to be at different times of the day (often more common later in the evening), it also remains the case that permanent residents travel to work, shops, schools and so forth in any case.
==== PAGE 6 ====
16/00021/B
Page 6 of 8
6.3 The proposal does not appear to be in significant conflict with any of the six key criteria outlined in HP11. The farm ceased operation many years ago and there is no evidence the barns are needed in connection with any adjacent farming activity.
6.4 A Structural Survey has been provided with the application; this is really quite basic and refers primarily to the works proposed rather than whether or not the existing barns are substantially intact and can accommodate those works without suffering from structural instability. However, the visual inspection of the exterior of the barns did not indicate any particularly noticeable cracks or structural defects and it is considered that, although a full demonstration has not been made, concern on this issue to the point of raising a formal objection would probably be over-cautious.
6.5 The buildings are by their nature of historic interest and therefore worthy of retention. The loss of the chimney as a feature is unfortunate although it is not particularly attractive and nor is it a fundamental feature of the barn. That it is not original is not considered to be a point in favour of its loss since its very existence is unusual; however, its loss would help to restore the original appearance of the barn, which is also required in HP11.
6.6 An extension is proposed to one of the barns and, while the original appearance of the lean- to extension can only be guessed at (a mono-pitched roof would be the most likely), the mass proposed is neat and subordinate to the existing building, while its form also relates well. It is considered that the barns are therefore of sufficient size to accommodate the accommodation sought together with the (to use the policy wording) "modest, subordinate" extension.
6.7 The use(s) sought would be compatible with the neighbouring land uses and also could be provided with services without undue public cost, especially in view of the existing dwelling adjacent the existing barns.
6.8 Particularly welcome is the fact that the existing character of the barns, provided in this case by the varied size and location of window and door openings, complete with lintels, would be retained and, with the proposed slate roof, perhaps even enhanced. The retention of the flat-roofed extension to the rear of the larger barn is unfortunate but its proposed cladding would reduce its 'starkness' and is, in any case, not especially visible. It is therefore considered that the proposal meets with the important tests of Housing Policy 11 and also, by extension, those of Environment Policy 16 and also the four Business Policies.
6.9 The remaining issues that need to be assessed are the impact on neighbouring living conditions, the acceptability of the highway access, and the impact on protected species.
6.10 The impact on the immediate neighbours has already been assessed. There would be an impact on the dwellings adjacent the existing highway access in view of the additional comings and goings associated with the three proposed units of accommodation. However, a pragmatic view is that there is already significant scope for road noise in this location, which is immediately adjacent the TT course, and so additional use of this access at the scale envisaged by the proposal is unlikely to be materially harmful to the living conditions of people living in these properties.
6.11 The existing access, though, is not especially good, and there must be some concern about its additional use without alteration, particularly in respect of achievable visibility to the north. However, it is equally noted that Highway Services have not raised an objection on this ground. While the installation of new traffic mirrors to resolve the need to provide a greater level of visibility than can be currently achieved, it is noted that there is already a mirror in place. This does provide some helpful guidance to drivers, while the land between the access and the highway is not a pavement and so exiting drivers will not need to be aware of this potential danger.
6.12 No drawings have been submitted demonstrating what visibility can be achieved, but having been on site and exited the access it is clear that whatever can be provided it is lower than would
==== PAGE 7 ====
16/00021/B
Page 7 of 8
be ideal for regular use of the access. However, it is also noted that from the north the highway is entering Kirk Michael and so road speed will be lower in this direction than for vehicles travelling north.
6.13 The situation is not ideal. Visibility (to the north) is poor and the proposal will result in additional use of the access, from which no additional visibility can actually be achieved as the land either side is outwith the applicant's control. However, it is noted that Highway Services have not objected to the proposal and in view of the fact that there are mitigating features regarding the access it is considered that the proposal is not so dangerous as to warrant an objection on this ground.
6.14 The submitted plans show a single passing place along the access lane to the application site. Again, this is not ideal given the length of the lane itself. However, the lane is sufficiently straight that drivers would be able to see one another for almost (if not all) of its length, and in any case the lane does broaden in some places such that there are probably additional passing places not specifically shown. In addition, there is also more than sufficient space for two cars to be off the highway at the site access and await other vehicles exiting so as not to cause a highway safety hazard. Again, and on balance, this is considered acceptable.
6.15 The proposal is therefore considered to not be in such conflict with Transport Policy 7 as to sustain an objection.
6.12 The bat survey provided is as clear as any such survey can be that no harm will come to this protected species during or because of the construction works. The amended plans also show new bat accesses to be created. The proposal therefore complies with Environment Policy 4.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 In view of the favourable findings against the key issues, with only highway safety being the main potential concern, it is concluded that the proposal is acceptable and is recommended for approval accordingly.
7.2 It was considered as to whether or not a condition limiting occupancy period for the tourist units would be appropriate. Usually, however, such conditions are imposed where there is a concern the building in such use could become a separate and unjustified dwelling in the countryside - in this case, of course, the proposal seeks approval for both tourism and permanent accommodation and, as both has been found acceptable, no such condition would actually be necessary.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons: o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; o 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; o The Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure, and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 03.05.2016
==== PAGE 8 ====
16/00021/B
Page 8 of 8
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 development shall be undertaken in accordance with Class [specify] of schedule [specify] of the Order at any time.
Reason: To control future development on the site.
The development hereby approved relates to the Design and Access Statement (Rev A), the Structural Survey (Rev A), the Bat Survey and drawing numbers 732.02A, 732.03A and 732.04A, all date-stamped as having been received 5th April 2016.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 09.05.2016
Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Senior Planning Officer
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal