Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00256/B Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 21/00256/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Michael and Carly Stratton Proposal : Conversion and extension of existing stone barn into a dwelling Site Address : Ballahutchin Beg Dalby Isle Of Man IM5 3BR
Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 15.04.2021 Site Visit : 15.04.2021 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 05.05.2021 __
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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 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 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.
C 3. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwellings, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.
Reason: The landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme and must be implemented as approved.
C 4. Prior to the undertaking of any other work hereby approved the entrance including visibility splays shall be formed in accordance with drawing P-03 and retained as such thereafter.
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00256/B Page 2 of 7
Reason: to ensure that the development has a safe means of access.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. It is considered that the proposal will accord with the provisions of Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan and is supported. Whilst it does not comply wholly with the provisions of Housing Policy 11, taking into account the context of the site, it is not considered that this policy should be required to be complied with in its entirety in this instance.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to drawing EX-01, EX-02, P-01, P-02 and P-03 all received on 10th March, 2021. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
Department of Infrastructure Flood Risk Assessment Team is a Government Department which has raised material considerations and should be afforded interested person status. __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAVE OBJECTED TO THE APPLICATION AND THE PROPOSAL MAY BE CONSIDERED NOT TO ACCORD WITH HOUSING POLICY 11 AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
THE SITE 1.1 The site is a piece of land which sits on the western side of the A27 coastal highway which links Dalby, where the site lies, and Glen Maye and Peel to the north. The site is linear in shape and has a frontage to the main road of 68m which is formed by a low stone wall with concrete coping on the top. Within the site is a dwelling - a traditional Manx farmhouse - and a stone outbuilding. To the north of the site is St. James' Church.
1.2 The buildings within the site sit lower than the road. Both buildings are served by a gated entrance which sits between the two buildings and the house also has a pedestrian entrance to the south of the building.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the conversion of the outbuilding to a dwelling including extensions. The existing building has a lean to, single storey extension at each side - the southern annex having a curved shape and the northern annex being larger and built of brick and in the roadside elevation has a single door above ground floor level and two small windows below this level. The seaward elevation has more openings with five doors and six windows of different sizes with two floors of accommodation. There is a line of red brick coursing with openings under the eaves.
2.2 The proposal involves retaining the single storey lean-to annex on the southern elevation but the replacement of the northern annex with a full two storey new addition which doubles the footprint of the existing building, adding two bedrooms with associated facilities and at ground floor level at TV/playroom and family dining room and kitchen with the main existing building accommodating a family lounge, hallway and stairs and two bedrooms and a bathroom upstairs. One existing pedestrian door in the western elevation will be replaced with three bifold/patio doors but otherwise the existing apertures are to be retained.
2.3 The new fabric is arranged in a T shape with the existing building and will come forward of the existing building by around 3.5m, coming within around 8.5m of the highway. The new fabric will sit separate from the existing building but linked with a glazed element. The new
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00256/B Page 3 of 7
element will be finished in cladding with a large amount of glazing in the seaward elevation and under a metal roof. The roadward gable of the new element will be relatively plain with four windows arranged symmetrically. The existing building as it faces the road will remain plain with the door and two small windows. Additional rooflight will be added to both pitches of the existing building and new pre-formed bird nest boxes will be added to the upper part of the road facing elevation. The elevation facing the church will contain only two high level windows in the first floor and a pedestrian door at ground floor level.
2.4 Areas of paving will be provided on both the west and eastern elevations. No garaging is shown on the drawings. The existing floor area is 194 sq m and proposed is 350 sq m, a 80% increase.
2.5 The entrance is to be re-formed with stone curved walls leading to a 4.7m wide opening with a 5m setback from the road for the proposed entrance gates. Access is retained through the site to the field to the west which is also in the same ownership as the proposed converted building and the main house.
2.6 The application includes a Structural Engineer's report from BB Consulting Engineers dated 18th December, 2020 which notes that the building corners are plumb and true although significant out of plumb measurements were found on both flank walls of the building with the eastern wall leaning inwards by up to 150mm over its height and the western wall leaning outward by up to 90mm over 3.6m measured above ground level. Elevated levels of damp were measured at the junctions of the roof trusses with the perimeter walls and active wood boring insect attack was suspected in the main structural timbers of the roof but no evidence of recent differential movement between the trusses and the flank walls suggesting that the la in the walls is relatively long standing. The first floor is not considered to be structurally competent and the southern extension is showing diagonal cracking internally and externally and the roof structure is badly affected by rot and is not structurally competent. The northern extension is in reasonable condition although shown as being replaced in the proposed scheme.
2.7 Despite the leaning being to a significant degree is it not sufficient to be unstable. It will be necessary to enhance the lateral stability of the structure by tying the first floor and roof structures adequately to the flank walls and new internal walls will also need to be designed to transfer lateral loading to new footings/the ground floor structure and this is readily achievable in this instance. The diagonal cracking of the curved portion of the south extension is indicative of foundation movement and it may be possible to retain this section of walling but they suggest that it may be more practical to remove this section of wall and rebuild in concrete masonry with a new concrete foundation with the existing stone used as a facing. The roof here requires compete replacement. Their conclusion is that the building is substantially intact and they consider it is structurally capable of renovation.
2.8 The proposed drawings do not show any rebuilding of the southern annex as is referred to in the Structural Engineer's report.
2.9 The application includes a Planning Statement which refers to other larger dwellings in the vicinity such as Driftwood, Shellan Meayl and Geay Varney all of which are in elevated positions on the other side of the road and they consider that what is proposed complies with Spatial Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan. They consider that the dominant presence of the stone barn will continue even as extended and the use of contemporary buildings ensures that the existing building remains unaffected and in some respects improves the existing through the removal of the out of keeping brick walled and asbestos sheeted roofed lean to. They refer to 16/00220/B at Orrisdale where a similar approach was adopted to extend and convert a disused barn and provide calculations of footprint, which is not relevant.
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00256/B Page 4 of 7
2.10 They are content to undertake a bat survey if required. They have provided information on visibility and traffic speed and numbers.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982 as not for a particular use and also within an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
3.2 The site does not lie within a Flood Risk Area, Conservation Area nor are any of the buildings or trees on the site Registered. There is a small area at low risk of surface water flooding at the northern end of the site on the national flood mapping.
3.3 There is therefore a presumption against development here and the protection of the quality of the landscape and the countryside in its own right are the most important considerations as set out in Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan.
3.4 There are policies which permit the conversion of rural buildings in the countryside with Housing Policy 11 setting out guidance on conversion to residential use as follows:
Conversion of existing rural buildings into dwellings may be permitted, but only where: (a) redundancy for the original use can be established; (b) the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation; (c) the building is of architectural, historic, or social interest; (d) the building is large enough to form a satisfactory dwelling, either as it stands or with modest, subordinate extension which does not affect adversely the character or interest of the building; (e) residential use would not be incompatible with adjoining established uses or, where appropriate, land-use zonings on the area plan; and (f) the building is or can be provided with satisfactory services without unreasonable public expenditure.
Such conversion must: (a) where practicable and desirable, re-establish the original appearance of the building; and (b) use the same materials as those in the existing building.
Permission will not be given for the rebuilding of ruins or the erection of replacement buildings of similar, or even identical, form. Further extension of converted rural buildings will not usually be permitted, since this would lead to loss or reduction of the original interest and character.
3.5 General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 4 protects ecology.
3.6 The site sits within Dalby, a settlement identified in the Strategic Plan as a village and where it advises at Spatial Policy 4:
"In the remaining villages development should maintain the existing settlement character and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities."
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 14/00769/B saw a single storey extension approved.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Patrick Parish Commissioners object to the application on the basis that the size of the extension is unacceptable in that it is considerably larger than 50% greater than the existing and although the proposal is in a village setting, it is rural and the Strategic Plan policies should
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/00256/B Page 5 of 7
still apply. They consider that the proposal will not respect the adjacent church or other nearby dwellings in particular in respect of the large windows on the landward side (15.04.21).
5.2 Highway Services do not object to the application subject to the development being undertaken in accordance with drawing P-03 and advise that a note should be attached relating to the need for an agreement under Section 109(A) of the Highway Act (21.04.21).
5.3 DoI Flood Risk Management Team confirm that there is no flood risk interest in this proposal (26.04.21).
5.4 DEFA Inland Fisheries request the completion of a form relating to development within 9m of a watercourse (21.04.21).
5.5 The applicant responds to the concerns of the Commissioners on 22.04.21. They suggest that the Commissioners are applying the wrong policy as the 50% increase is referred to in Housing Policy 12 [it is actually HP14] and the policies which refer to extensions to residential properties are inappropriate as this is not currently a dwelling. They consider that the works are sympathetic to the church as the extension runs parallel with it and is some 10m from it. The eaves of the church will run parallel with the proposal and the church will remain dominant in the streetscene due to its height and massing. They consider that the timber effect cladding will reflect the natural stone on the existing building and the church rather than just imitating the stonework. They confirm that there are no large windows on the landward side as they are on the seaward side and the glazing in the landward side serves as a designed visual break between the existing and the new. The extended building is similar to other properties in the vicinity - Geay Varrey, Shellan Meayl and Driftwood and is set 2-3m down below the level of the road whilst the properties opposite are set higher above it.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issue in this case is whether the principle of the conversion of the existing building to residential use and the extension of the building are acceptable, whether the proposed works would have an acceptable impact on the character and quality of the landscape, having regard to Environment Policies 1 and 2 and in such an assessment it is relevant to have regard to Housing Policy 11 which is the principal policy on the conversion of rural buildings into dwellings. Whilst reference to other approved schemes is seldom directly applicable as each scheme has its own unique context. The approval of 16/00220/B in Orrisdale is interesting as this too was a rural building which was approved to be extended quite significantly.
6.2 Housing Policy 11 makes provision for the conversion of buildings of historic or architectural interest in the countryside. This building is a handsome, old stone building which has little in the way of modern additions or alterations. It is considered to accord with the type of building described in HP as being worthy of consideration for conversion. Setting aside the nature of the extension, the principle of conversion is considered acceptable and not in conflict with the adjacent land uses which are mostly residential.
6.3 It is also relevant that the site lies within an identified settlement (Dalby) and has existing buildings on three sides as viewed in the streetscene. This could justify a slightly more relaxed application of Housing Policy 11 as opposed to buildings which sit in open countryside without many buildings close to them, forming a context. Here, there are buildings on three sides - a traditional cottage, a church and two modern dwellings which form the context of the site and particularly the two modern properties opposite have an impact on how stringently the criteria in HP11 should be applied. It is in a settlement where there are services and is currently unused and considered redundant for its original purpose given the limited sized openings for any agricultural or equestrian use. The submitted engineer's report confirms that it is structurally capable of the proposed conversion works.
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/00256/B Page 6 of 7
6.4 Whilst the Commissioners incorrectly refer to 50% as a specific criterion to be applied to this application, they are correct in asserting that extensions to such buildings should be subservient in size to the building being extended as Housing Policy 11 requires that extensions are "modest" and "subordinate" and anything that is more than half as big again as the existing cannot be described as either of those things. HP14 refers to replacement houses not being significantly different in size than the existing and refer to replacements being no greater than 50% larger than the existing which gives a guide as to how big proportionately enlargements should be, whether this be replacement buildings or extensions.
6.5 The site is not designated for development. However, it sits within a settlement identified in the Strategic Plan and well within the extents of it. As such, it is felt that the criteria applied under Housing Policy 11 need not be strictly applied in this case and the fact that the extension is larger than could be considered modest or subordinate is not fatal to the consideration of the proposal. The fact that it is very similar to another approval for conversion and extension of a building which was in the countryside and not in a settlement (16/00220/B), helps this position.
6.6 St. James' church is not only an architecturally and historically important building in its own right, it is also the first building one sees as one approaches the hamlet from the north. It is therefore important that what is proposed does not adversely affect the setting of this building. The application building sits below the level of the road whereas the church sits level with it (as well as stepping down at the rear). The application building also sits further back from the road than does the church and even as extended, it would continue to do so such that it would not be visible from the northern approach until one is level with it. The building as extended remains lower than the church and some distance from it and the use of timber effect cladding will help the extension to sit comfortably alongside both the barn and the church without struggling to dominate either. Additional tree planting is to be introduced between the building and the road.
6.7 As such, whilst not being in accordance with all of the elements of HP11 in this instance, the proposal is considered to be acceptable.
6.8 It is considered that a condition is attached to suspend certain provisions of the Permitted Development Order: this would be appropriate in respect of extensions to the completed dwelling as the increase proposed in this application is already significant and further extensions may not respect the careful design that has resulted in what is proposed here, however in respect of garaging it is relevant that the curtilage of the new dwelling is shared with the existing house which also does not have a garage and any garage built under the PDO could be argued to be associated with the main house which has its own PD rights. As such, it is not considered appropriate to attach a condition to restrict the provisions of the PDO in respect of garaging and car ports.
CONCLUSION 7.1 It is considered that the proposal will accord with the provisions of Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan and is supported. Whilst it does not comply wholly with the provisions of Housing Policy 11, taking into account the context of the site, it is not considered that this policy should be required to be complied with in its entirety in this instance.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
==== PAGE 7 ====
21/00256/B Page 7 of 7
(d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
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 4(2) who should be given Interested Person Status.
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status. __
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Permitted
Committee Meeting Date: 24.05.2021
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