Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/90956/B Page 1 of 11
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/90956/B Applicant : Mr And Mrs Mike Fletcher Proposal : Extensions to east elevation Site Address : New House Ballalonna Farm, Dalby Road, Dalby, Isle Of Man, IM5 3BW
Principal Planning Officer: Belinda Fettis Photo Taken : 19.11.2024 Site Visit : 19.11.2024 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 28.11.2024 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R1. By virtue of the scale and design the proposed east elevation extensions would appear discombobulated with the character of the barn. The original barn would be consumed by the multitude of extensions and the original building would be harder to comprehend. The extensions are considered disproportionate to the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property, whilst being of a design and built form that would be incongruous to its historic and traditional character. In addition the proposal has the potential to appear unduly prominent within the broader site context within the farmstead group in open countryside. The proposal is contrary to General Policy 2, Housing Policy 15, Environment Policy 3 (a) and 4(b) the Design Guide and Planning Policy Statement 3/91.
Drawings no.SM24/615/5 Revision A and no.SM24/615/4 Revision A are therefore refused.
__
Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: o DoI - Highways Services - No objection __
Officer’s Report 1.0 THE SITE
1.1 The application relates to the residential curtilage of a converted Manx stone barn, New House Ballalonna Farm. The house is one of group of buildings within an original farmstead.
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/90956/B Page 2 of 11
1.2 Amendments have been made to the address which excluded the words 'New House' and the red line boundary to reflect the residential curtilage of New House Ballalonna Farm which includes an annexed building known as Cottage Ballalonna Farm but excludes Ballalonna Farm which is a separate dwelling.
1.3 A key feature of all the buildings are the slate roofs and stone walls of original farm barns.
1.4 The land rises to the east and slopes down towards the sea to the west. The dwelling is on graduated land that rises east and south resulting in a varied ground level.
1.5 The buildings are set amongst countryside and agricultural fields on the east side of the A27 Dalby Road. A private semi-circular driveway provides two access points onto and off the Dalby Road.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The proposal is described on the application form as being East Elevation Extensions. The extensions will increase the number of bedrooms by two, creating a four bedroom dwelling. The details are broken down as follows.
Engineering operation 2.2 Demolition of an existing retaining garden wall which after excavation of the land will be rebuilt in its new position approximately 1.5m from the new rear elevation; between 4 and 7m from the existing rear elevation.
First floor extension 2.3 Demolition of the existing dormer and construction of a first floor extension above the existing ground floor extension. With a slight inset the first floor extension will rise to create a first floor with a dual pitch roof, creating one of the three proposed gables. The ridge of the extension will be the same as the existing barn.
2.3.1 The fenestration within this gable retains the existing ground floor curved top windows and above, located between the ground floor windows a patio door with Juliette balcony is proposed. The external surface of this gable is stone to match the existing ground floor.
Two storey gable extensions 2.4 Construction of a two storey rear extension across the remaining section of the east elevation creating two dual pitch rendered gable ends adjacent the new stone faced gable. The ridge of the extension will be the same as the existing barn. The two storey extension will protrude around 4.8m for a width of around 7m whereupon it will meet the other gable that will protrude around 7m from the east elevation for a width of around 4.6m. The inglenook fireplace is retained on the ground floor plan and the chimney stack appears within the roof; therefore this element encompasses the inglenook fireplace chimney.
2.4.1 The east elevation fenestration within the two gables is of a mixed scale described as follows. A small first floor window and narrow patio doors are shown in the timber clad section between the gables. At ground level both gables have matching wide windows with 3 glazed sections. At first floor level, one gable has a two panel window the other gable has patio doors with a Juliette balcony.
2.4.2 The ground floor curved top north elevation window in the inglenook is enclosed or removed. The new north elevations each have a window at ground floor level; the one nearest the barn gable has three panes and furthest away is a single vertical window.
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/90956/B Page 3 of 11
2.4.3 In the south elevation of the gable nearest the first floor extension, patio doors with a Juliette balcony are added at first floor level and a two pane casement window at ground floor level.
Materials 2.5 Natural slate to match the existing is proposed throughout.
2.6 Timber cladding is proposed on the elevations between the three gables.
2.7 All windows and doors are to be white uPVC double glazed casements. Where cil's are proposed they are to be precast concrete. The increased floor space is stated as 142.54sqm in Section 12 of the planning application.
2.8 Section 16(a) of the planning application states that surface water run-off from the new hard surfaced will be directed towards an existing stream.
2.9 Section 16(b) of the planning application states that foul sewage will be directed towards the existing septic tank.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 There are several previous planning applications associated with Ballalona Farm however those listed below are considered most relevant to this application.
o 04/01065/B Construction of porch on approved barn conversion o 03/00182/B Amendment to approved barn conversion to provide chimney stack and French doors o 01/01684/B Alterations and extension to convert barn to dwelling
4.0 PLANNING POLICY
4.1 Site Specific
4.1.1 The site is not within a Conservation Area and is not a Registered Building, nor is it within the setting of either. Surface water flood risk is identified running along the site boundaries but the site is not identified as being within an area of flood risk.
4.1.2 On the adopted 1982 Development Plan South Map the site is not within an area identified for development and is within an area identified as being an Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV).
4.1.3 The site is within an area covered by the Draft Area Plan for the North and West which is nearing adoption. However at the time of writing this report, the 1982 Development plan is adopted plan. It is worth noting that there is no change to the designations.
4.1.4 Although the site is not in an area identified as Predominantly Residential it is an extension to an existing dwelling therefore the following Strategic Plan Policies are relevant.
4.2 Strategic Plan Policies
4.2.1 Strategic Policy 3 (a) seeks to avoid coalescence between built forms and protect the built heritage of the coastline and countryside.
4.2.2 Strategic Policy 4(b) requires development to protect and enhance landscape quality.
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/90956/B Page 4 of 11
4.2.3 General Policy 2 states that development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of the Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development accords with the criteria of the Policy. In this case the following criteria are considered relevant (b), (c), (d), (g), (h), (n); (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption
4.2.4 Environment Policy 1 was adopted to ensure that the varying demands on the countryside and coastline are complementary, respecting its importance. All land outside defined settlements is countryside.
4.2.5 Environment Policy 2 seeks to protect the countryside by classifying areas assessed as being Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's).
4.2.6 Environment Policy 13 states that development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted.
4.2.7 Housing Policy 4 (b) and Housing Policy 11 are relevant considerations because the dwellinghouse is a converted barn. In converting a barn to a dwellinghouse Housing Policy 11 provides criteria that a proposal must meet. Criteria (d) is relevant, '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'. The Policy goes on to state that further extensions will not usually be permitted because this would lead to loss or reduction of the original intertest and character.
4.2.8 Housing Policy 15 states that extensions or alterations of existing traditionally styled properties in the countryside will normally only be approved where the proposal respects the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. Only in exceptional circumstances will permission be granted for extensions above 50% of the external floor space of the existing building. Paragraph 8.12.2 states that in the case of traditional properties, the proportion and form of the building is sensitively balanced and extensions of inappropriate size or proportions will not be acceptable where these destroy the existing character of the property.
5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Policy/Strategy/Guidance 5.1 Planning Policy Statement 3/91 provides guidance on traditional design and patterns of development in the countryside in respect of extensions and dwellings.
5.1.1 Policy 3 states that extensions to existing buildings should maintain the character of the original form.
5.1.2 Policy 4 states that modern materials are acceptable for construction but the external finishes should be from the limited range of traditional materials and should include such details as appropriate to the existing building, such as deep window reveals.
5.1.3 Policy 5 goes into detail about how fenestration should replicate traditional features of window and door openings both in position and size.
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/90956/B Page 5 of 11
5.1.4 Policy 6 goes into detail about roofs and chimneys and the form.
5.2 Residential Design Guide (2021) provides advice on the design of extensions to existing property as well as consideration of the impact upon adjoining property and the landscape.
5.2.1 Section 3.1 reiterates the aims of Strategic Plan Policies for development to take account of existing character, adjoining neighbours and wider setting, encouraging protection of a localities distinctiveness.
5.2.2 Section 4.0 reiterates the aims of Strategic Plan Policies for development to take account of the relationship with the original building, adjoining or neighbouring property and the impact upon the occupants.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS
Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 Local Authority: Patrick Commissioners - although consulted on the 15.08.2024 has not commented on this application at the time of drafting this report, and so it is assumed that there are no objections to the application.
Statutory 6.2 Highways: No Interest (27.08.2024).
6.3 Manx Utilities, Electricity - although consulted on the 15.08.2024 has not commented on this application at the time of drafting this report, and so it is assumed that there are no objections to the application.
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.1 Notwithstanding removal of the permitted development under the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005 this proposal would require planning permission.
7.1.2 Proposals for extensions to existing dwellings are generally acceptable subject to consideration of design and amenity impacts. In this instance the assessment requires added scrutiny because the dwelling is a converted barn for which permitted development was removed to protect the character of the original building and the setting of the farmstead.
7.2 Therefore the assessment must take account of not only the removal of permitted development but Policies relating to the conversion of agricultural buildings and extensions in the countryside.
o 7.3 The principle of the proposal o 7.4 Design and impact upon the building and its setting o 7.5 Landscape and biodiversity o 7.6 Residential amenity - would you include septic tank? o 7.7 Highway impacts o 7.8 Environment - surface water o 7.9 Planning Balance o 8.0 Conclusion
7.3 Principle
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/90956/B Page 6 of 11
7.3.1 Approval to convert the barn to a dwelling was granted under planning application no.01/01684/B. When permission was granted in 2001 the proposal was assessed against the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982, Part 3, Section 11, 2(b) and (xiii) which relate specifically to the preservation of an attractive environment and buildings of architectural interest. Permitted development for a range of development including extensions was removed and there exists within the group conditions relating to the method of construction and retention of timber sash windows and doors.
7.3.2 This application is assessed against the relevant Policies stated in section 4.0 of this report.
7.3.3 Housing Policy 4 (b) and Housing Policy 11 are the polices used in consideration of converting a barn to a dwelling. Criterion (d) of Housing Policy 11 is such that conversions must be of sufficient size to provide satisfactory dwelling amenity without the need for an extension or with a modest, subordinate extension which does not affect adversely the character or interest of the building. The Policy goes on to state that further extensions will not usually be permitted because this would lead to the loss of or the reduction of the original interest and character of the building.
7.3.4 The documents submitted with the planning application do not include details of the original floor space nor the existing floor space increased through incremental additions. However it is estimated that this proposal would almost double the original floor space; Original floor space calculated as 165sqm, extensions floor space calculated as 116.10sqm.
7.3.5 Therefore the principle of the proposal is contrary to Housing Policy 11(d).
7.3.6 Because the barn conversion was approved five years before Housing Policies 4 and 11 were adopted it is necessary to consider the proposal as an extension to a dwelling. Therefore further assessment is made against the policies relating to other material matters to facilitate planning balance prior to conclusion.
7.4 Design
Existing 7.4.1 The features of the extensions proposed are detailed in section 2.0 of this report.
7.4.2 The position of the dwelling is such that because it is at an angle to the road the west elevation and the depth of the building are prominent from the road.
7.4.3 The original barn building is a simple dual pitch gable barn. Conversation to a dwelling resulted in the addition of domestic features; dual pitch and mono pitch roof combination porch on the front west elevation and Inglenook chimney and stack on the east elevation. When the chimney stack extension was approved the planning officer has commented that the chimney would be partially visible but the impact was thought 'not be so great as to refuse.' When the porch was approved the planning officer has stated that the porch would interrupt the façade of the building and policy was not to allow additions to barn conversions, but on balance considered the scale and harm to be minimal enough to approve. Both extensions appear subordinate and although stone clad, incorporate materials that match the original building.
7.4.4 The prominent features of the building are visible from the public road which are more or less visible depending on the seasons due to leaf cover. From the road depending on the direction of view, the adjacent dwelling, Ballalona Farm, is viewed with good separation between it and the application site. There appears separation between Cottage Ballalona Farm and the site but slightly less open because of the collection of building at that end of the farmstead. Overall the visual from the road is a group of individual buildings.
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/90956/B Page 7 of 11
Floor space 7.4.5 The extensions would increase the existing floor space by 142.54sqm. The original floor space is estimated as being 165sqm therefore a proposal increasing the floor space by 81sqm would accord with policy. The existing floor space which takes account of the incremental extensions, is estimated as being 231.32sqm therefore a proposal increasing the floor space by 115sqm would accord with the policy.
7.4.6 The proposal is to increase the floor space by 142.54sqm therefore irrespective of whether Housing Policy 11 is applied (discussed at section 7.3), this proposal is contrary to Policy 15 by proposing an extension above 50% of the existing building. No exceptional circumstances are submitted and calculations to verify the existing and proposed floor areas are not submitted.
7.4.7 Because there have been incremental extensions to the original barn the cumulative increase in floor space is a material consideration.
Visual 7.4.8 Visually the depth of the projecting gables more than doubles the width of the northern end of the building. Visually the width doubles from either barn gable but is most prominent from the perspective of the northern elevation. As a result the character of the long barn is lost and the open space between the site and the adjacent dwelling is significantly reduced. The extensions are not subservient to the host dwelling and this accentuates the bulk of the increased scale.
7.4.9 One of the gables is a different width but individually and collectively the gables appear out of character with the traditional building. A projected gable was introduced on the front elevation however this Is not an original feature and not a reason to replicate the design on the rear elevation, particularly of such magnitude. PPS 3/91 and the Design Guide provide guidance to ensure that proposed extensions respect the existing character and setting. Section provides detailed information, including drawings, to demonstrate what is considered acceptable. Explicitly 4.2 demonstrates the impact of roof design, 4.3 addresses visual impact, streetscene and landscape, 4.8.6 demonstrates proportional extensions.
7.4.10 Moving onto materials, previously approved alterations to the barn and other buildings within the group have conditions attached requiring the use of traditional materials including timber sliding sash windows and timber doors. In contrast this application proposes to introduce white uPVC with top openers, painted render and timber boarding.
7.4.11 The use of natural slate for the roofs of the extensions and Manx stonework externally on the first floor extension gable is in keeping with the building, therefore those materials accord with policy, the PPS and the Design Guide.
7.4.12 Given the historic use of the building as a barn, the use of timber boarding is not wholly uncharacteristic. Located as it is set back from the gables it is of no great concern.
7.4.13 Render has been used on the existing dormer extension therefore to finish the proposed gables in render would not introduce the material to the site. However by virtue of the expanse it is considered that it would cause unacceptable harm to the character of the barn conversion; In particular when looking onto the north elevation. In the wider setting the adjacent dwelling, Ballalona Farm, is finished in render however that is the original farm dwelling, not a converted barn and the character of the site should reflect that fact.
7.4.14 Installation of uPVC windows has increased because of improved design construction and government grants. However the design of the window should reflect the existing character in scale and design and in this instance that would be sliding sash or mock sash windows if appropriate.
==== PAGE 8 ====
24/90956/B Page 8 of 11
7.4.15 The two ground floor windows on the north side elevations appear out of character with the overall visual of the north elevations. This is exacerbated perhaps by the eaves and ridge not being subordinate and the lack of fenestration or any other detail in the elevations. Although the visual incorporates north elevations that are set back from each other, this does not detract from the visual that would be a block of render adjacent the stone gable. The visual detracts from and harms the character and form of the original barn building and farmstead setting.
7.4.16 The east elevation gabled design is not helped by a smorgasbord of fenestration incorporating different heights, widths and Juliette balconies which detracts from the original character both in scale and design of the host dwelling and the proposed extensions.
7.4.17 On balance, in respect of harm, the design of the fenestration is secondary to the scale and design of the extensions. Therefore by virtue of the scale, design and materials the proposal is inappropriate and does not respect the history of the site or its farmstead countryside location. Therefore the proposal is contrary to General Policy 2 (b) and the aforementioned sections of Planning Policy Statement 3/91 and the Residential Design Guide.
7.5 Landscape and biodiversity
7.5.1 Section 14 of the planning application asks whether the proposal involves a change in land levels and Section 17 asks whether there are any trees or large shrubs within the site, the answer to both is no. However the site visit confirmed that there are a number of mature shrubs within the area of development and excavation.
7.5.2 The site layout includes details to move the existing garden retaining wall to facilitate the extensions. This would involve removal of mature shrubs and excavation of the land. From the details submitted it appears that the excavation would only be to a depth and width as required, and then presumably landscaped. Had the proposal been acceptable more detail regarding this would have been requested, including confirmation of the change in land levels / gradients.
7.5.3 The site offers wildlife habitation shelter and foraging and due to the surrounding landscape is likely to attract a variety of wildlife. Had the proposal been considered acceptable discussions would have taken place to gain further detail on new habitation creation to replace that which would be lost.
7.5.4 The trees and shrubs between the road and the buildings are not protected by planning conditions as such they could be removed at any time. For this reason paragraph 4.3.11 of the Strategic Plan is relevant, it states that "Merely arguing that a new building cannot be seen in public views is not a justification for the relaxation of other policies relating to the location of new development". Therefore a case that the new extensions cannot be seen is not a reason for approval.
7.5.5 The garden excavation is unlikely to harm the landscape and any loss of forage areas could be recreated elsewhere. Therefore these matters would have been addressed had the proposal been acceptable in all other areas.
7.5.6 In the wider landscape the proposal would not cause harm to the overall designation of AHLV. However, by virtue of the increased bulk of the building the proposal would introduce a built form into the open landscape that would result in a visual coalescence of buildings within the group, particularly when viewed from Ballalonna Farm. This would be contrary to Strategic Policy 3 (a), 4(b) and General Policy 2 and is not essential therefore contrary to Environment Policy 2.
==== PAGE 9 ====
24/90956/B Page 9 of 11
7.6 Residential amenity
7.6.1 The nearest dwelling is Ballalona Farm house that is about 25degrees to the north of the north elevation of the application site. Both dwellings are afforded views to the hillside northwards.
7.6.2 The existing north elevation, which is the only elevation facing the neighbour has a small ground floor window. The proposal introduces two larger windows at ground floor level and introduces two Juliette balconies. Due to the angles and separation distances no residential harm is observed in respect of overlooking. For the same reasons, the extensions would not introduce overlooking or loss of light.
7.6.3 However it is considered that the scale of the two storey extensions would introduce a bulk built form into the open landscape that could have an overbearing impact upon the general amenity of Ballalona Farm.
7.6.4 Overall the proposal is unlikely to cause such harm to neighbouring residential amenity and would likely enhance the amenity of the occupants of the site.
7.7 Highway impacts The proposal increases the number of bedrooms therefore it is relevant to consider impacts upon parking. The site has a large area for parking and sufficient access points to the public road. Highways have not objected and the proposal is considered to not impact the existing parking situation.
7.8 Environment Surface water
7.8.1 Close to the site areas are identified as being susceptible to surface water flooding. New development should take into account the management of surface water and available energy saving methods. The proposal does not incorporate any non-fossil fuel energy provisions and Section 16(a) of the planning application states that surface water run-off from the new hard surface will be directed towards the existing stream, yet it is also stated that the site is not within 9m of any watercourse.
7.8.2 All new hard surfaces generate additional surface water displacement. The scale of the proposed extensions together with extending the outside area will generate additional surface water.
7.8.3 The floor plan (SM24/615/4 Rev.A) is annotated with new drains to take surface water northwards away from the site. There are no details as to where the stream is, however, the application form states that there are no watercourses within 9m of the site. Government mapping shows a stream to the south close to the farmhouse / Cottage Ballalonna Farm. It is therefore unclear whether the additional surface would be managed within the site or is likely to exacerbate an existing flood problem.
7.8.4 There are no details regarding the septic tank capacity however this matter would be dealt with through Building Regulations and the site appears to have capacity to accommodate a new package treatment plant if required.
7.8.5 Had the proposal been accepted this would have been explored further so that an assessment could be made against the relevant Policies.
7.9 Planning Balance
7.9.1 Extensions to traditional barns for domestic or agricultural purposes tend to add onto gables or be single storey, sometimes with the addition of a 'cat slide' roof to provide
==== PAGE 10 ====
24/90956/B Page 10 of 11
mezzanine or first floor space. This proposal results in three gable extensions to the rear elevation resulting in a visual doubling the depth of the original building.
7.9.2 Returning to the principle of the proposal, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Housing Policy 4 (b) and Housing Policy 11(d). However it would be unreasonable to apply these policies five years after conversion therefore they carry no weight in this case.
7.9.3 The proposal is contrary to Policy 15 because the increased floor area is considered to be greater than 50% of the existing floor space.
7.9.4 The building is not a registered building nor has it ever been but it is an example of a historic Manx stone barn building. The conditions attached to the permission for conversion were applied to protect the original character.
7.9.5 Having reviewed the history of the dwelling it can said that as a result of the extensions some harm has already impacted upon the character of the original barn. The porch more than any other.
7.9.6 If this proposal was permitted no part of the rear elevation would connect with the original barn therefore the character would be harmed significantly. The original features would appear discombobulated from the rest of the building, almost as though the barn was added to the extensions.
7.9.7 Therefore in weighing up the planning balance the proposal is unacceptable.
8.0 CONCLUSION
8.1 By virtue of the scale and design the proposed development would appear discombobulated with the character of the barn; the original building would be unrecognisable, as such extinguishing the original character. The proposal is contrary to General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 15, the Design Guide and Planning Policy Statement 3/91.
8.1.2The scale would diminish the open space in the landscape increasing coalescence within the original farmstead group known as Ballalonna Farm. Therefore having a detrimental impact upon the landscape setting contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 3 (a) and 4(b).
8.1.3 Therefore the proposal is recommended for refusal.
9.0 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.
__
==== PAGE 11 ====
24/90956/B Page 11 of 11
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 29.11.2024
Determining Officer Signed : J SINGLETON
Jason Singleton
Principal Planner
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal