Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
19/00874/B Page 1 of 9
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 19/00874/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Timothy Johnston Proposal : Alterations and extension to existing detached two tourist units building to create a self-contained residential annexe Site Address : Staward Farm House Sulby Isle Of Man IM7 2BA
Planning Officer: Mr Nick Salt Photo Taken : 03.10.2019 Site Visit : 03.10.2019 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 26.09.2019 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
R 1. Whilst not in and of itself unattractive, the proposed extension, alterations and decking would reduce the link to the building's past, resulting in a building which would not still appear as a converted outbuilding or barn. The extended building would be of a size much larger than would be expected as necessary for 'ancillary' accommodation, rather appearing and functioning as a standalone dwelling.
R 2. The loss of the two large trees to the rear would reduce the natural screening effect on the building and wider site. It is not considered that the benefits of their removal would outweigh the negatives both due to the loss of screening and net biodiversity loss. This would result in damage to an area of woodland, in contradiction of Environment Policy 3.
R 3. The proposal would not accord with the Department's policies on the conversion of rural buildings - previously encapsulated in Planning Circular 3/89 and currently stated in Housing Policy 11, in that it would constitute a 'subsequent extension' to that originally approved in 2001, and as it would not use the same materials and design as the existing. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None
__
==== PAGE 2 ====
19/00874/B Page 2 of 9
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR DETERMINATION AT THE REQUEST OF THE PRINCIPAL PLANINNG OFFICER.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is a building within the grounds of Staward Farm, Sulby Claddagh, Sulby. The wider site is a group of buildings consisting of the main, two storey farmhouse and, a pair of semi-detached holiday cottages to the east of a green area and an outbuilding to the northern part of the site. Both the holiday cottages and the outbuilding are similar in design and appearance being mainly single storey structures with upper storey dormer accommodation in pitched dormers. There are a number of large trees within the wider site including two directly to the rear of the proposal building.
1.2 Planning permission was granted for the conversion of existing outbuilding to create two tourist units in (01/01180/B). The building is known as Courtyard Cottages and is random coursed natural stone with mix of slate and artificial slate roofing and brown stained hardwood windows. This building is the subject of this application.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the conversion of the two tourist units within the outbuilding described above, to a single accommodation in association with the main dwelling on the complex. In addition, an extension to the building is proposed which would add 27m2 of floor space via a lounge to the rear, in addition to an area of decking - partly facilitated by the removal of the two large trees to the rear.
2.2 The extended part of the building would be finished with vertical timber cladding which would be allowed to weather naturally providing a silver/grey finish. The new part of the roof would be pitched and featuring natural dark slates. New windows and doors and replacement windows and doors throughout would have grey uPVC or aluminium frames.
2.3 The applicant has stated that the new accommodation proposed would provide accommodation for their elderly parents. They state, "Our parents are now 78 and 80 years old and their dependence upon us is growing, we want to be able to maintain the close living arrangement we have always had an in turn, be on hand to provide them with the support they need during this stage of their lives. This arrangement benefits us as a family unit but also provides wider social benefits in terms of providing care and support in a home environment."
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 As noted in 1.2, the building currently has approval for tourist dwellings and has been in use as such. One of the conditions on that approval (Con. 2) was that "The building must only be occupied by bona fide tourists with no individual let exceeding four consecutive weeks." The officer's report noted that the building was 'relatively new' at the time, no specific reference was given to the acceptability of the principle of the proposal in relation to any policy of that time.
3.2 The most recent approval was for a replacement of windows, doors and the roof covering (approved - 16/01379/B).
3.3 An application (19/00015/B) for the conversion of the workshop/playroom outbuilding to the north to create "self-contained ancillary living accommodation" was refused for the following reason:
==== PAGE 3 ====
19/00874/B Page 3 of 9
"The proposal would create a self-contained dwelling unit within an area not designated for such purposes. General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 lays down a general presumption against development within the open countryside without justification and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 requires that new housing be located primarily within existing towns and villages unless it is to provide for essential housing for agricultural workers and conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11. The building of which the application site forms a part is of recent construction and is not of any historic or architectural interest that would justify such a conversion. As such, the proposal would not comply with an essential criterion (c) contained within Housing Policy 11 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in respect of conversion of buildings located within the countryside. The proposal would therefore fail the requirements of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in respect of conversion of buildings within the countryside for residential use."
The case officer noted in their report for 19/00015/B, in reference to the current application building:
"6.9. Located directly to the south west of the site and within the red line area of the submitted drawings, presumably under the applicants' control, is a block of two dwellings each used as holiday accommodation which is significantly closer to the main house and arguably with the potential for use as ancillary accommodation for elderly parents without any requirement for planning permission. No consideration of this has been made of this potential use within this application."
4.0 PLANNING POLICY
4.1 The site is not zoned for any particular use as per the Sulby Local Plan 1998, and is within an area designated as Private Woodland. Under the 1982 Development Plan it is also within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. Due to the zoning of the site, and the nature of the proposed development, the following policies from the Strategic Plan 2016 are relevant in the consideration of the application:-
4.2 General Policy 3, which 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."
4.3 While not in area zoned for development the principles under General Policy 2 are considered to be relevant. General Policy 2 requires that proposed developments do not adversely affect the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape. It also requires that development does not adversely affect the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality.
==== PAGE 4 ====
19/00874/B Page 4 of 9
4.4 Environment Policy 1 & 2 are relevant given the rural nature of the site:
Environment Policy 1: "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."
Environment Policy 2: "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 3 also has the potential to be relevant given the location of the site within an area of woodland:
"Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value."
4.6 Housing Policy 4 requires that new housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:
(a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10; (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14.
4.7 In respect of conversion of existing redundant rural buildings into dwellings Housing Policy 11 states that this 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
==== PAGE 5 ====
19/00874/B Page 5 of 9
(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."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Lezayre Commissioners have no objections to the application. (06/09/19).
5.2 DoI Highway Services have confirmed that they have no highways interest in the application (09.09.19).
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The key considerations in the assessment of this application are the following:
o The principle of the proposed use; o The visual impact of the extension; o The parking and access situation;
6.2 The Principle of the Residential Use Proposed
6.2.1 In order to assess the acceptability of the principle of the use it is important to refer to General Policy 3, and Housing Policies 4 & 11.
6.2.2 General Policy 3 lays down a general presumption against new residential development within the open countryside such as this without justification such as the provision of agricultural worker's dwellings or conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic or social value and interests in accordance with Housing Policy 11. Housing Policy 4 states that new housing will be located primarily within existing towns and villages and again; provide essential housing for agricultural workers and conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with HP11.
6.2.3 HP11 sets out the criteria required for the conversion of existing buildings within the countryside to a residential use. The tests of HP11 are considered to be mostly met by the proposal. The building is capable of renovation, redundancy for the original use has been established through the use as tourist accommodation - although no redundancy for that use is likely, the building would be large enough to form a satisfactory dwelling, and satisfactory services could be provided.
6.2.4 It could be considered, criterion (c) and (e) of HP11 are not met by the proposal. It is not considered that the building is of "architectural, historic, or social interest" as its original form has and would further be detracted from. In addition, the land is not zoned for development. However, it is noted that the report for the previous refusal 19/00015/B noted the potential of the application building for the proposed use. Additionally, its acceptability for the conversion into tourist units, although prior to the current 2016 Strategic Plan, was apparent due to the approval recommendation in 2001.
6.2.5 The use of the smaller tourist units is more likely to remain connected with the main dwelling on the site due to their small size and inappropriateness for long-term tenancy. The proposal would establish a much larger bungalow on the site, in effect a new dwelling with all of the potential increases in traffic and domestic materials/sheds etc. Whilst conditions could
==== PAGE 6 ====
19/00874/B Page 6 of 9
be added in an attempt to prevent a split of the site and the new dwelling being sold off separately, such conditions would be difficult to enforce.
6.2.6 The acceptability of the principle of the proposal is finely balanced. Whilst if it were an outbuilding as it was prior to the use for tourist units, it would likely not meet the criteria of GP3 and HP11 above. However the fact remains that the building is currently two tourist units - and the acceptability of conversion from an outbuilding to a form of residential use has been previously established.
6.3 Visual Impact of the extension
6.3.1 The proposed extension to the building would appear secondary to the main building through the use of a pitched roof sitting slightly below the ridge of the main roof, and the use of glazing and vertical timber cladding to provide a visual break. In some respects the extension, and other alterations such as the wider doorways etc. would provide the building with a contemporary appearance.
6.3.2 The existing building does not readily appear as a traditional outbuilding due to its previous alterations, the proposed alterations would therefore not detract from any traditional stone building in need of preservation in situ. Overall, the visual impact outside of the site would be limited due to the lack of nearby dwellings to the north, and from within the site, the proposed alterations are considered acceptable. The proposed building would however, appear and be able to function as a standalone dwelling due to the prevalence of glazing, its size, and the decking amenity area to the rear. The extensions to the property would result in a further detraction from the original use of the stone building, resulting in a dwelling with reduced visible links to its appearance, purpose and design prior to the alterations approved in 2001.
6.3.3 Whilst not in and of itself unattractive, the proposed extension, alterations and decking would reduce the link to the buildings past resulting in a dwelling which would not necessarily appear as a converted outbuilding or barn. Housing Policy 11 requires that such proposals, "where pacticable and desirable, re-establish the original appearance of the building; and use the same materials as those in the existing building" and "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". In this respect, Housing Policy 11 would not be accorded with. Environment Policy 16 which would be the current policy applied to the conversion of an outbuilding to tourist accommodation states that it must be demonstrated that "the building could accommodate the new use without requiring extension or adverse change to appearance or character." Similarly, Planing Circular 3/89 states that:
"Extension of modest and appropriate scale may be permitted for the provision of essential facilities if shown to be impracticable within the existing building and a requirement of the Building Byelaws. Such an extension would have to be of the design and materials to match the existing building. No subsequent extension would be permitted."
This circular was in force when the initial alterations to the building were approved in 2001, the proposal would constitute a 'subsequent extension' and therefore does not accord with Planning Circular 3/89 or EP16 of HP11. The building would be of a size much larger than would be expected as necessary for ancillary accommodation, rather appearing as a standalone dwelling.
6.4 Parking and Access
6.4.1 The application site is large, with accommodation for at least 10 vehicles on the site. The use of the application building for residential purposes is unlikely to lead to an increase in parking demand from the existing use as two separate tourist accommodations. It is
==== PAGE 7 ====
19/00874/B Page 7 of 9
considered that adequate on-site parking capacity would remain for the proposed use, and the existing main dwelling on the site.
6.5 Trees
6.5.1 The loss of the two large trees to the rear would reduce the natural screening effect on the building and wider site. It is not considered that the benefits of their removal would outweigh the negatives both due to the loss of screening and net biodiversity loss. This would result in damage to an area of woodland, in contradiction with Environment Policy 3.
7.0 CONCLUSION
7.1 In summary, whilst the principle of the proposal is balanced and the parking and access impact considered acceptable, the visual impact of the extension and alterations on the original character of the building, the removal of the trees to the rear and the size of the proposed extended building relative to what might be considered an annex, are all considered reasons for the application to be recommended for refusal.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. __
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : ...Permitted... Committee Meeting Date:...07.10.2019
Signed :...N SALT... 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 8 ====
19/00874/B Page 8 of 9
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 07.10.2019
Application No. :
19/00874/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Timothy Johnston Proposal : Alterations and extension to existing detached two tourist units building to create a self-contained residential annexe Site Address : Staward Farm House Sulby Isle Of Man IM7 2BA
Planning Officer : Mr Nick Salt Presenting Officer As above
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
At the Planning Committee meeting on 07.10.19, the Committee declined the recommendation of the case officer and the application was approved subject to the following condition(s).
C1: 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.
C2: The tree marked for removal on drawing 18 1292/05 which is furthest away from the application building shall to be retained. If this tree dies within 5 years of the date of this decision notice, it shall be replaced with a similar species of tree as agreed in writing by the Department to be planted within 1 year of such an occurrence.
Reason: In the interest of Environment Policy 1 and the existing tree.
C3: The tree marked for removal on drawing 18 01292/05 which is closest to the application building shall be replaced with a similar species of tree elsewhere on site as agreed in writing by the Department, to be planted within 1 year of such an occurrence.
Reason: In the interest of Environment Policy 1 and the preservation of the countryside and its ecology.
C4: All future occupancy of the development hereby approved shall remain fundamentally linked to the main Staward Farmhouse dwelling by virtue of being occupied only by dependent relatives to the occupants of Staward Farmhouse or by the residents of Staward Farmhouse.
Reason: To ensure that the risk of separation of the site is reduced.
==== PAGE 9 ====
19/00874/B Page 9 of 9
C5: 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.
C6: 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.
C7: 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 decking shall be constructed or placed 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.
Plans/Drawings/Information
Plans and Drawing Numbers 18 1292 04, 05 and 06 all date stamped as received 2nd August 2019.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal