Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/00563/B
Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/00563/B Applicant : Brandywine Limited Proposal : Conversion of redundant farm outbuildings into 5 residential units with associated garages and site works Site Address : Outbuildings Balnahow Farm Balnahowe Santon Isle Of Man
Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 21.06.2017 Site Visit : 21.06.2017 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AND THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAVE RAISED CONCERNS
THE SITE 1.1 The site is Balnahow Farm - a complex of a dwelling and agricultural outbuildings which were up until relatively recently, a working farm. The farm has been sold and the land around it sold separately and is now being farmed in association with Southampton Farm whose farm buildings are based in Port Soderick. Planning approval has recently been granted for a series of alterations and extensions to the main farmhouse which sits outs side of this application site but is understood to be owned by the applicant.
1.2 The site sits on both sides of a private road which joins the public road some way to the west. This public road provides access to the Meary Veg sewage treatment plant, as well as a number of dwellings. In this area there are a surprising number of dwellings with agricultural occupancy conditions - seven (Withaney (which subsequently had the condition removed), Thie ny Hawin, Hillcrest, Greenfields, , Ballacregga Farm and farm bungalow (which may not have a specific occupancy condition attached to it as no planning history has been identified for this property). Slightly further afield, Oatlands Farm has four dwellings associated with it and Ballaquiggin Farm, formerly had two. The two properties at Ballaquiggin had the conditions removed under PA 00/00245/B and are now the subject of redevelopment proposals, along with the adjoining properties, under PA 16/00351/A, having previously been approved for the same scheme. The main farmhouse at Ballacregga was recently the subject of a successful application for a certificate of lawfulness of use for occupation as a private dwelling, contrary to the original occupancy condition applied in the late 1980s when the dwelling was rebuilt (13/00581/LAW). Greenfields was the subject of an application for removal of the agricultural tie (PA 15/00641/B) which was withdrawn before a decision was taken.
1.3 An additional dwelling, Cregsweld which sits between Withaney and Hillcrest, has no such condition applied to it. The houses are a combination of traditional (Ballacregga and Balnahow Farmhouse) with the majority being modern properties of one and two storeys.
1.4 One group of the farm buildings are arranged in an L shape with additions to the east. The building to the south is linear with no projections front or rear.
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/00563/B
Page 2 of 7
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the conversion of the outbuildings from agricultural to residential. The applicant explains that the farmland has been sold to others who now farm it in association with an existing operation which has its own range of outbuildings. The application buildings are now, therefore, redundant.
2.2 The applicant has provided a structural survey, prepared by Consulting Civil and Structural Engineers which describes the outbuildings as dating back to the 1850s with later add ons and alterations. They describe the buildings as generally having ridged and gable ended slated roofs and mainly random rubble stone walls. They show little signs of having been used or maintained for many years. They describe the same remedial action for all of the buildings - re-slating the roofs with new timberwork, felt and insulation, new rainwater goods, new first floor structures, external walls repointed and rendered internally with defective steel and timber lintels replaced with damp trays installed and ground floors excavated and concrete slab floors installed on a damp proof membrane.
2.3 In addition to this, they recommend that:
Building 1 A short section of bowing should be remedied by reconstruction which will also allow the installation of new lintels and damp trays.
Building 2 There are no specific issues with this building.
Building 3 This is described as having suffered movement due to the lack of ties at first floor level which has resulted in internal cracking. This can be remedied by the installation of a new first floor, new lintels, crack stitching and repointing.
Building 4 Similar reporting and recommendations as for Building 3 above.
Building 5 This is described as being in good condition although the front elevation has been modified over the years with two large openings added and the stone work has been rendered over with sand/cement render. The steel lintels over these openings are described as being badly corroded and require urgent replacement. In addition, they report that this elevation has suffered from historical movement, possibly as a result of the earlier works and there is evidence of ties having been installed earlier. They recommend "a portion" of this elevation to be rebuilt with new lintels, the first floor tied into the front wall, the render removed and the stonework reinstated.
They conclude by recommending that the buildings are all reasonably robust and fully capable of renovation into habitable dwellings.
Building 1 2.4 This is a simple, linear building which has two floors of accommodation, the upper floor having limited ceiling height. A full first floor will be provided here not by raising the ridge level significantly (part of the building will be raised by 200mm) but by raising the eaves level and reducing the slope of the corrugated roof section to 30 degrees which matches the slope of the other section of the building which is currently roofed in slate. The corrugated roofed section would be re-finished in slate. The north west elevation which faces the road will be kept more or less as it is in terms of openings, with only an enlargement of one first floor window and the changing of an existing door to a window in the lean-to extension, the remaining openings staying as they are. The existing external steps are to be removed.
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/00563/B
Page 3 of 7
2.5 The south eastern elevation will change quite significantly, the present elevation having only two significant openings. This will accommodate eight windows, none of which are in the position of the existing, with two patio doors and a single storey pitched roof porch which will project out 1.65m from the centre of the building. A detached double garage is to be introduced to the south of the building (6.5m by 7m with two garage doors).
Buildings 2, 3 and 4 2.6 These are a complex of single storey and two storey elements which are all linked to each other and join unit 5 which is to be detached as part of the proposal. As with building 1, some elevations are to remain pretty much as they presently are with a small section of the end of the single storey unit (number 2) to be removed and a similar amount added on the rear of the adjacent section. Many of the other changes are based on existing openings but where they will be widened or enlarged with around five completely new window or door openings. A section of roof is to be continued down to join that of an adjacent building, producing a slightly uncomfortable upward extension of that roof, but this is at first floor level where the ground floor has a single storey annex in front, rendering the roofwork less obvious than it may otherwise be. The gable which faces Building 1 has a visible crack on it but this could be addressed with the introduction of the windows as proposed.
Building 5 2.7 This is currently attached to Building 3 and is to be detached by the removal of a section of existing walling 1m wide. It will have a small number of new apertures introduced but many remaining as they currently are and the rendered sections of the building are to be removed and the stonework beneath repointed and left exposed. A new detached garage is to be built to the north west - 6.5m by 7m, single storey with two garage doors.
2.7 Generally window frames will be timber or brown coloured uPVC (similar to another scheme undertaken by the applicant at Ballachurry, Ballafesson).
2.8 The scheme will provide a four bed two storey unit (building 1), a two bed single storey unit (building 2), a three bed two storey unit (building 3), a part single storey part two storey 2/3 bedroomed unit (building 4) and a two storey four bedroomed unit (building 5).
2.9 Car parking will be spread around the site, unit 2 having an integral garage and units 1 and 5 having detached garaging and each unit having a small garden area each curtilage defined by stone walls 1.5m high, Units 1 and 5 will have the largest gardens, their own entrance, driveways and turning areas. An existing shed to the north east of unit 5 will be demolished and paddock areas adjoining the gardens of this and unit 1.
2.10 Drainage will be provided via two new biodisk tanks with associated soakaways. One will serve unit 1 and be positioned to the south of the driveway within the curtilage of plot 1, the other will serve units 2, 3, 4 and 5 and will be positioned within the paddock to the east of unit 1.
2.11 The applicant has also helpfully provided a drawing which illustrates how the works would be done and which parts of the existing fabric of units 1 and 5, which are referred to in the Structural Engineer's report, will be removed and replaced to accommodate new windows and failing walling, together with a method statement outlining how these works will be achieved. A photograph of another site where this has been done, has been provided.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated as not for a particular purpose and of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982. On the draft Landscape Character Assessment, the area is recognised as Incised Slopes - the most common of the land use character types. The accompanying text talks about the rural character of the area with open fields and wooded areas and the need to approach development sensitively, recognising traditional materials, densities and styles.
==== PAGE 4 ====
17/00563/B
Page 4 of 7
3.2 As the area is not designated for development, there is a presumption against new works as set out in General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 2 particularly where it would adversely affect the character and appearance of the countryside which is protected for its own sake. There is, however, provision at Housing Policy 11 for the conversion of redundant buildings of social, historical or architectural interest, to dwellings subject to the following criteria:
(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 Other than recent applications by the new owner, the site has not been the subject of any previous applications for development. The new owner has applied for permission to erect gates and walling to the west of the building group and two applications for works to the farmhouse, none of which are relevant to the current proposal.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Santon Parish Commissioners comment that whilst they have no objection to the principle of the conversion, they wonder whether five units are too many and could result in overdevelopment of the site (15.06.17).
5.2 The Senior Biodiveristy Officer of DEFA recommends a bat survey prior to any work being undertaken on the roofs (20.06.17). The applicant has provided a bat report, dated 13th July, 2017 undertaken by the applicant and involving thermal imagining and an ultrasound detector as well as discussions with occupants of neighbouring property. The inspection was carried out over two warm still days (7th and 12th July, 2017) and all of the barns were subject to a thorough inspection with special attention given to the underside of the roofs, above the rafters and above the purlins. No bats were detected and no evidence of any roosting was found. The neighbour at Greenfields confirmed that in her occupation of that property for the last 40 years no bats had been seen. The applicant confirms that further checks will be conducted when the roofs are replaced.
5.3 Highway Services comment that:
The proposals are for the conversion of 5 outbuildings into 5 residential properties served off an existing access which in places in limited in width. Whilst there is generally good forward visibility for drivers to react to other approaching vehicles, there are concerns over the type and change in traffic generation from residential when compared with the existing use.
==== PAGE 5 ====
17/00563/B
Page 5 of 7
The junction with Old Castletown Road A25 is a simple priority junction with adequate sightlines to the right for vehicles emerging out onto the main road. However, there are no details of what the existing visibility is to the left. As there is no supporting Transport Statement supporting this application giving any traffic generation from either the previous use and or the proposed use, nor any details of visibility at the main junction connecting the site to the A25, this development does not provide enough comfort to satisfy my concerns over its impact on highway safety. It is recommended the application be deferred until additional supporting evidence is provided (21.06.17).
5.4 This information was provided by e-mail on 30th June, 2017 to Highway Services.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issues in this case are whether the proposal complies with the requirements of HP11, particularly whether the buildings are redundant and of sufficient interest to warrant consideration under this policy and if so, whether the buildings are suitable for and capable of conversion and whether the conversion works are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the buildings. The buildings sit next to other existing dwellings so the conversion is not considered incompatible with other existing adjacent land uses.
6.2 The Structural Engineer's report advises that the buildings do not appear to have been used for agricultural purposes for "many years" and as the land which formerly supported the use of the buildings, has been sold separately, it is unlikely that the buildings will be required in the future for agricultural purposes. The buildings are considered to be redundant for their original purpose on this basis.
6.3 The buildings are interesting due to their age and the mixture of heights and also as they are all stone finished, albeit that some areas have been unsympathetically rendered over.
6.4 The Structural Engineer's report advises that the buildings are capable of conversion but does not comment on the specific works required to undertake the scheme proposed here.
6.5 Much of the conversion work involves reinstatement of original materials, even where these have been subsequently changed to something less appropriate - for example the proposed replacement of the corrugated metal roofing and the hacking off of render over original stone work. This work will not only reinstate the original interest of the buildings, as is required by the policy, but will also reduce their impact in the landscape. Many of the existing window and door apertures are being retained and where new are being added, care has been taken not to produce a uniform or regular array and to maintain the random mix of sizes and shapes. The use of timber or brown coloured plastic frames will help the windows remain a subtle element of the buildings.
6.6 The proposed arrangements for parking are both convenient to the units and sympathetic to the character of a farmyard and whilst gardens and subdivision of the yard is proposed, the use of stone walling will help avoid a domestic character. No changes are being proposed to the highway, some of which is a private road and due to this, the amount of traffic using the road from the A5 to the site, after the access off to Meary Veg Sewage Treatment Works, is limited. Whilst pedestrians may use the road to gain access to the footpath to the west, the visibility of people walking along the road is good. Whilst visibility at the junction of the Meary Veg road onto the A25 is not ideal (around 70m to the south west), due to the vehicle approaching the junction being lower than the highway and visibility splays being measured to the nearside, not the farside as shown in the applicant's information, if the buildings were still used for agricultural purposes, this could generate vehicle movements using this junction, through the farmer and family and agricultural traffic, some of which may be large, slow moving vehicles. That said, the road accommodates traffic from only ten units at present, with the potential for a further five dwellings and this is not considered a sufficient increase to warrant refusal on the basis that the junction is not capable of accepting this additional traffic.
==== PAGE 6 ====
17/00563/B
Page 6 of 7
6.7 The scheme is considered to be a sensitive one which retains buildings of interest but gives them a new lease of life in a sympathetic manner and the application is recommended for approval.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, 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.
The Senior Biodiversity Officer is within the same Department as is the planning authority and as such should not be afforded interested person status under the Order.
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 18.07.2017
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 extensions, garages, garden sheds, walling, fencing or summerhouses may be erected without planning approval at any time other than those shown and approved in this application.
Reason: To control future development on the site.
C 3. Prior to the removal of the roofs, a further check for bat activity or presence must be undertaken and the results of this must be submitted to and approved by the Department. If bats are found to be present then a mitigation strategy must be formulated, submitted to and approved by the Department prior to the removal of any roofing.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Wildlife Act 1990 and Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.
==== PAGE 7 ====
17/00563/B
Page 7 of 7
N 1. For clarification, the scheme must be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans with particular attention to the fabric which is to be retained and that which may be removed to facilitate the development, as shown in drawing 11 received on 11th July 2017. No approval is hereby granted to the removal or rebuilding of any fabric which isn't so shown on the approved plans.
This approval relates to drawings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 all received on 23rd May, 2017 and 11 received on 11th July, 2017
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: 07.08.2017
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal