Loading document...
| Application No. : | 13 / 00880 / A | | :-- | :-- | | Applicant : | Gilbey Farms Limited | | Proposal : | Approval in principle for extension and conversion of redundant | | | barn to a dwelling with improvement to vehicular access and | | | driveway | | Site Address : | Barn Field 321757 | | | Braaid Road | | | Braaid | | | Isle Of Man |
Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE SITE IS IN THE OWNERSHIP OF A PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBER AND THERE IS AN OBJECTION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND ALSO DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE
1.1 The site is part of a field which lies on the north western side of the A26 Braaid - Glen Vine highway. The field is 2.5 acres in size and the application site 0.2 acres in size and located in the southern corner of the larger field, extending back into the field by 24 m . There is an access to the field, which lies within the application site and another access to the south west of the site which provides access in to the adjacent field and ultimately into the remainder of the field in which the application site is located. 1.2 Within the site is a stone building which is 3.8 m from the highway ( 2.6 m from the edge of the site). It sits higher than the road and the field continues to rise to the north west of the building. 1.3 The boundary between the road and the building is formed by a sod hedge with selfseeded trees growing within it (ash, whitebeam and hawthorn) and a few conifers which cumulatively provide an effective visual screen of the building from the public highway. 1.4 The building is a stone structure with an external footprint of 8.4 m by 7 m and is 5.3 m tall with a roof finished in corrugated metal sheets. There is a vehicular access in the north eastern elevation and a first floor level opening in the south western elevation. Internally the ceiling height at ground floor level is 3.3 m . 1.5 Braaid Farm lies on the opposite side of the road - a dwelling with outbuildings: White House and Deerae lie further south towards the crossroads on the same side of the road. On the north western side of the road, some 75 m away from the application site, are Holmlea and its associated outbuilding.
2.1 Proposed is the principle of the conversion of the building to a dwelling. Detailed information has been provided to illustrate how the conversion could take place. The existing
access will be retained and a firm accessway created to the building in the form of a parking/turning facility close to the entrance. The creation of a safe means of access will necessitate the removal of five trees which are alongside the building and presently contribute to the screening of the building. 2.2 The building is to be retained and the existing aperture on the north east retained and glazed to form patio doors. No other windows are proposed on this elevation. The roadside elevation currently has no window or door openings: proposed are three Conservation style rooflights are proposed in the pitch facing the road 850 mm long and 500 mm wide with a central bar. The south western elevation facing towards the field hedge is to retain the first floor level aperture and have a half and half split window installed and two more at ground floor level. 2.3 On the north western elevation is to be an extension which as originally proposed would have projected 6.6 m from the side of the building and been 4.2 m wide, retaining a roof pitch to match the main roof. This was flush with the south western elevation. This has been amended to project 4.8 m from the rear elevation and be 4.2 m wide and will be set back by around 300 mm from the southern gable of the existing building. This will have an arrangement of a window and patio doors in the southern elevation. This will have a higher floor area - 1 m higher than the existing building, taking account of the rise in natural ground level. The main building will have a ceiling height of 2300 mm and a small mezzanine level accommodating a bedroom. 2.4. The roof is to be finished in natural slate with angled ridge tiles. 2.5 The extension represents an increase of 37 % over and above the existing, as measured externally (not including the mezzanine level which is not presently in situ). The extension is slightly lower in height than the main building. 2.6 In relation to the previous application, the projection of the extension into the rear field is 400 mm less, the extension is 1.8 m narrower, the curtilage is smaller (projects 2 m less into the field behind), there is a reduced turning area.
3.1 The site lies within an area which is not designated for development on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982. 3.2 There are policies in the Strategic Plan which provide support for conversion of buildings of interest:
Housing Policy 11 states "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 plans; 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 building of similar, or even identical form.
Further extension of converted buildings will not usually be permitted, since this would lead to loss or reduction of the original interest and character."
4.1 The site has been the subject of one previous planning application. PA 12/01515 was for a similar scheme (see paragraph 2.6 above). The Planning Committee considered the application at its meeting of Monday 11th February, 2013 and agreed to defer the application in order to see the site for themselves. The Committee members visited the site at 9am on Thursday 14th February, 2013. The members were able to see first hand the extent of the residential curtilage to be created, the extent of the extension as shown in the proposed plans which had been provided in the application and were also able to see inside the building where the solid and dry nature of the roof structure could be seen together with the crack in the roadside elevation of the building, which extended from the uneven eaves line of the wall almost but not quite to the floor. The members also saw the flag stones in the floor at the entrance to the building. 4.2 At the initial Committee meeting concern was expressed about the size of the extension on the basis that the extension shown would be more than 50 % of the floor area of the existing and as such could not be considered to be modest or subordinate as is required by HP 11. A discussion was undertaken as to whether the application could be considered for approval with an extension smaller than this. 4.3 The extension shown was larger than 50 % of the existing floor area and longer than the gable next to which the extension would be seen from the main road. As such, the proposed scheme did not comply with the requirements of HP 11. The applicant's agent indicated that they would not object to a condition which restricted any extension to no more than 50 % of the existing floor area. The Committee was advised that the important consideration in assessing whether an annex is subordinate or modest is, however, not simply a mathematical sum. It is important to look at the impact which an extension would have on the principal building and whether this would undermine the character of it. An extension of up to 50 % of the existing single storey floor area could result in an extension of the same width as was shown in the drawing, of around 4 m compared with 6.7 m as shown. The 4 m extension still results in a ridgeline which is 0.6 m longer than the depth of the gable as viewed from the side. An extension which projects with a ridge which is no greater in length than the existing gable, would represent an increase of around 40 % of the existing floor area. 4.4 The Members expressed concern about the extent of the residential curtilage - effectively an area of around 0.2 acres which they considered was excessive for this size and character of property. 4.5 Members also queried whether the building was truly of sufficient interest to warrant consideration under Housing Policy 11. The reporting officer advised that this was an example of older buildings within the Island's countryside, was attractive and indicated how the land was previously managed. It was discussed whether the screened and relatively unobtrusive nature of the building in visual terms meant that the gradual decline and possibly collapse of the building would be of limited impact to the countryside which is referred to in the preamble to Housing Policy 11, paragraph 8.10.2, where it states "Conversion of such buildings into dwellings can make a useful contribution to the housing stock, ensure retention of our built heritage and improve the appearance of what might otherwise become derelict fabric." The preceding paragraph refers to "examples of buildings which are no longer suitable or needed for their originally intended use, which are of sufficient quality or interest to warrant retention
and re-use." The building, or a building in the position of the application building, and approximately the same size, does appear on the County Series mapping which was produced in the 1860s as do buildings across the road at Braaid Farm. 4.6 The members asked if there have been similar proposals where a building which is physically detached from other buildings and where a residential curtilage would be artificially created in an otherwise agricultural field. There are very few examples which are so similar to this as to provide a useful guide to previous decisions in that most applications for conversion of buildings which were not previously dwellings are set within an existing building group usually a farm, and where isolated buildings have been proposed for conversion, these are mainly former dwellings, to which different policies apply. One example, however is PA 10/01544 which proposed the renovation and conversion of a building at Ballagarraghyn on the Coast Road in Jurby and was approved by the Planning Committee. This involved an isolated building sitting in a large field and resulted in the creation of a new curtilage around the building only a couple of metres deeper than the rear extent of the converted and extended building. That building was single storey and approval was granted to a rear extension. This was judged as the renovation of a former dwelling, but the building looked little like a dwelling when the permission was granted. 4.7 Other applications for remote buildings include one site off the St. Mark's Road at Blackhill, Malew (PA 09/01850) where a derelict cottage and barn were renovated to form a single dwelling with a newly created residential curtilage around the two buildings. Buildings which would not appear to have been of particular architectural or social interest but which were approved for renovation and conversion, albeit within a building group include Norfolk Place, Greeba (10/01076/B), Ballacaroon Farm, Mount Rule (PAs 07/00540, 11/000333, 11/01518 and 12/01057). Inspectors considering such applications have recommended approval based upon observations of such buildings, such as "The building is of traditional Manx stone construction retaining its original form and as such is of certain architectural and historic interest. In my opinion it is a building worthy of retention" (PA 08/00437 - Far End, Glen Auldyn). The only appeal decision which rejected a proposal for conversion of a building to residential use on the basis that the building was not considered of sufficient interest was PA 11/00855 for conversion of a former cow barn which had then been converted to a garage, which was described by the inspector as "quite basic and unremarkable structure of rendered walls and a slate roof...it has no special architectural features and there is no evidence to show that it has any historical associations..." for which "there is no evidence to establish that the appeal building has any architectural, historic or social value or interest." 4.8 The Planning Committee was advised that there is no clear formula for deciding whether a building is of sufficient architectural social or historic interest. It is certainly the case that approval has been granted for the conversion of buildings where there has not been any proven historical or social interest but where the building was considered a good and unspoiled example of its type and where the continued dilapidation of such buildings was not considered a positive step, as is referred to in paragraph 8.10 .2 of the Strategic Plan. The Planning Committee considered the application at its meeting of 25th February, 2013. The Members confirmed that the site visit had helped, the relevance to Housing Policy 11 was questioned along with compatibility to the established land zoning, members expressed concern that to meet the highway officer's request to provide adequate visibility splay would exacerbate any impact on the countryside, and that the size of the extension proposed and the curtilage size would alter the nature of the area visually and by use, also was the integrity of the existing structure. The reasons for a previous refusal were referred to and the land use relative to Housing Policy 11, were discussed. Interpretation and subjective judgement were relevant in this consideration. The visibility of the building currently on the landscape, the proposal being set on rising land and the access to the field next door would have to be provided for elsewhere. The policy for building in the countryside was discussed and the loss of this structure if it did not gain approval for development. As the building is not particularly
conspicuous it could be argued that its continued decline would not be detrimental to public amenity as referred to in paragraph 8.10.2 of the Strategic Plan. 4.9 The Planning Committee refused the application at its meeting of 25th February, 2013 for the reason that: "The site lies within an area which is not designated for development and where previous applications for new dwellings have been refused (PAs 97/01184, 98/02201) and where such refusals have drawn attention to the character of the area as having an "undeveloped and random appearance" and "where the space between dwellings is as important an element as the buildings which surround them". In this case, whilst the previous applications were for completely new dwellings and the barn already exists, and whilst it would be possible to design a conversion scheme which retained its character in accordance with Housing Policy 11b and d (involving reduction of the residential curtilage and the size of the proposed extension both as shown in the application), the creation of a domestic curtilage around the building, and its use for residential purposes together with the creation of a safe means of access would change the character of the site and would have a detrimental impact on the rural and open character of the site as it currently appears, contrary to the stated aim of the Strategic Plan to protect the countryside for its own sake (Environment Policy 1) and the conclusions in the case of the previous applications referred to above 4.10 To the north, PA 97/01184 was refused for the erection of a dwelling and to the south, PA 98/02201 was similarly refused. These are referred to above and in particular referred to the "scattered pattern" of built development in the vicinity of the site.
5.1 Marown Parish Commissioners object to the application on the basis that the site is not designated for development, the arrangements for access are unsatisfactory as visibility is poor and the road is at its narrowest, they do not believe that the barn is redundant and anticipate a further application for a new agricultural building if this is approved. They are aware of the previous reasons for refusal (PA 12/01515) and are not persuaded that these reasons do not still apply to the current scheme. 5.2 The residents of Braaid Farm object to the application, reiterating their previous concerns and commenting that some of the reasons for refusal from the last application still apply, notably that the creation of a residential curtilage and safe means of access will still adversely affect the character of the area, and that an approval to this current application would discredit that previous decision. 5.3 Highways Division recommend that provided that all vegetation and walling within the visibility splays are reduced to 1 m or below, the application is acceptable. 5.4 The owners of The White House express concerns similar to those in Braaid Farm. They also refer to PAs 10/1212 and 98/02201. PA 98/02201 is referred to above - PA 10/01212 was a proposal for the principle of a new dwelling alongside Braaid Hall and was refused. 5.5 The owners of Deerae object to the application on the basis that the site is not designated for development and the field and the fields around it are used for agricultural purposes and the building is not redundant. The express concern about the access and the precedent which may be established if the application were approved. They do not consider that the application is substantially different to the previous one which was refused. 5.6 The owner of Braaid Cottage objects to the application as he considers it the same as that which was refused.
5.7 A resident of Ballaquark objects to the application on the basis that the building has no architectural merit and would contribute to ribbon development alongside the highway.
6.1 The building was formerly associated with Braaid Farm whose farm buildings lie on the other side of the A26. It has not been actively used for any particular purpose for many years, illustrated by the relative lack of use of the access way into the field. The applicant's agent also advises that on their site visit, the door into the building was difficult to open, suggesting that it hadn't been opened for some time, and that inside were a "couple of old farm implements and some pieces of timber" (e-mail dated 11th December, 2012 for PA 12/01515). The horses which graze the field are stabled elsewhere. As such, it is accepted that the building is redundant for its original purpose and unlikely to be used for agricultural or equestrian purposes in the future, given its relatively isolated position in respect to the other buildings operated in association with this holding. If any further application were submitted for a new agricultural/equestrian building as a replacement for this, it will be noted that this building was considered by the applicant to be redundant and the evidence of what was stored inside, would be unlikely to justify a further building under EP15. The lack of redundancy was not given as a reason for refusal in the previous refusal. 6.2 The applicant has provided supporting information indicating that the building is constructed of 500 mm thick Manx stone which are "reasonably sound with no evidence of apparent subsidence" and within 50 mm tolerance of verticality throughout. Whilst there are two internal cracks these are considered to be "old", show no sign of movement and are not apparent on the outer walls. The required internal dry-lining and insulation will accommodate this. 6.3 The internal floor is a typical compacted earth floor and would be required to be leveled and insulated. The roof has been inspected and is considered by the applicant to be sound but will be inspected and repaired as necessary. 6.4 As such it is considered that the building is structurally capable of being converted to a dwelling. This was also not previously given as a reason for refusal. 6.5 The building is an attractive and sound building which is visible, although not prominent in the rural landscape. It gives an indication of how the land was formerly managed. As such it is considered appropriate for consideration for conversion under the terms of the policy. 6.6 The existing building provides around 39 sq m of floor space without the mezzanine level, which is large enough to accommodate one permanent resident under the Housing (Flats) Regulations 1982. The policy allows for extensions where these are "modest and subordinate" and where they "do not affect adversely the character or interest of the building." In this case the extension is 37 % of the size of the existing which perhaps is considered subordinate. The extension is smaller in width and length than the existing building, lower in height and is set back from the sides of the building where it will be attached. 6.7 The access into the site exists although the development would require a hard surfaced drive into the site and parked vehicles would be visible once the building were used as a dwelling. The site would become domestic in appearance and character, as would any site which is the subject of conversion under HP11 and some degree of change is inevitable. Whilst there are local concerns about the safety of the access, Highways Division do not object provided that any hedging or walling within the visibility splay is lower than 1 m in height. The provision of the access will necessitate the removal of the roadside trees, which was proposed in the previous application which will result in the property and site being more visible. The residential curtilage is now smaller than previously proposed and the turning head and paved area reduced in size.
6.8 Whilst the previous application was refused for reasons which could preclude the conversion of the building to residential accommodation in any form, it is difficult to compare this with other decisions for conversions which would and indeed have had a similar impact. Previously comparison was drawn with two applications for Blackhill, St. Mark's Road in Malew (PA 09/01850) and Ballagarraghyn in Jurby (PA 10/01544) both of which were approved and where the buildings were much more visible and with many fewer properties in the immediate vicinity. Whilst there is a number of applications which have been refused in this area, they were for completely new dwellings where this is for the conversion of an existing dwelling and as such the impact is different. If is considered that with appropriate landscaping, for example the inclusion of sod hedges around the perimeter of the residential curtilage, that this proposal will not lead to a visual intrusion into the countryside and will appear as a reused and tastefully renovated building whose continued disuse is not necessarily in the public interest.
7.1 The local authority, Marown Parish Commissioners are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status. 7.2 The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance. 7.3 The residents of Braaid Farm are directly opposite the site and would be affected by the proposed works and as such should be afforded party status in this case. 7.4 The other residents, of The White House, Deerae and Braaid Cottage are not directly alongside and are not directly affected by the proposal and as such should not be afforded party status in this case. 7.5 The resident of Douglas is some distance from the site and should not be afforded party status.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of 16.09.2013
Recommendation:
N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals
C 1. Approval of the details of siting, design, external appearance of the building[s], internal layout, means of access, landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.
C 2. The application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Planning Authority before the expiration of two years from the date of this permission.
C 3. The development to which this permission relates shall begin within 4 years of the date of this permission or within two years of the final approval of the reserved matters, whichever is the later.
C 4. This approval relates to the principle of the conversion of the existing building to a dwelling as shown generally in drawings reference, 12-J-034-02 2, 12-J034-06 1, 12-J034-01 2 and 12-J034-03 0 all received on 24th July, 2013 and 12-J034-04 4 and 12-J034-05 4 received on 19th August, 2013.
C 5. The curtilage of the dwelling as shown in the approved plans, shall be defined by a Manx sod hedge as described in Planning Circular 1/92.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made : \qquad \qquad Committee Meeting Date : 30 \cdot 9 \mid 3
Signed : Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES/NO
Tel: 621358
33, Ballaquark
DOUGLAS
ISLE OF MAN
IM2 2EY
3rd September 2013
Secretary to the Planning Committee,
Planning & Building Control,
Dept. of Infrastructure,
Murray House,
Mount Havelock,
DOUGLAS
IM1 2SF
RECEIVED
03 SEP 2013
REPARTMENT OF
MARROWN
My ref: Barn Braaid
Dear Miss Callow,
P.A.
| 13/00880/A | Approval in principle for extension and conversion of redundant barn to a dwelling with improvement to vehicular access and driveway, Barn Field 321757, Braaid Road, Braaid | | --- | --- | | | |
Environmental Policy 1 of the IoM Strategic Plan 2007 states: 'The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake.'
This proposal does not comply with that requirement
The site is "white land" on the 1982 Development Plan and therefore not zoned for development.
The building has not historic or architectural merit – it is just a barn. Even if it had some merit, any changes to make it residential would be so significant as to render it a completely different building.
The arbitrary boundaries take in agricultural land, which would become domestic, with all the concomitant visual intrusion.
This would all contribute to ribbon development along a public highway, contrary to good planning practice. It may also encourage applications for "infiling" between this site and the buildings at Braaid crossroads.
I have no direct interest in the land or application, only a professional academic interest.
Yours sincerely,
Geoffrey Clark
Bachelor of Town Planning
CC
PA13/00880/A Gilbey Farms Limited Approval in principle for extension and conversion of redundant barn to a dwelling with improvement to vehicular access and driveway, Barn Field 321757 Braaid Road Braaid Isle Of Man Planning Officer: Planning history and constraint detail extracted from the planning database for this site, collated for the benefit of the Planning Officer on 29.07.2013, includes;
Dev Control Polygons: Reference Number: 12/01515/A Status: Refused Proposal: Approval in principle to convert existing barn into a dwelling including an extension to the building
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
