Loading document...
Application No.: 21/01225/B Applicant: Mr Simon & Mrs Sharon Mellor Proposal: Extension and conversion of detached outbuilding to provide living and tourist accommodation Site Address: Ballachrink Mooar Sound Road Glen Maye Isle Of Man IM5 3BJ Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 30.08.2022 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The culmination of extensions covering over the existing elevations and alterations including excessive roof lights and hardstanding result in an adverse and overbearing visual impact on the original historic and social interest and character of the existing outbuilding contrary to Environment Policy 16 (b and c) and Housing Policy 11 (d) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - R 2. The proposal also fails to demonstrate that it would not be at risk of flooding or that suitable mitigation could be introduced, or that it would not make worse existing flood risk through increased surface area and hardstanding areas contrary to Environment Policies 10 and 13 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - R 3. The application fails to provide sufficient information in respect of trees and so it is unknown whether there would be any adverse impact on the designated woodland area or loss of trees contrary to Environment Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - R 4. There is a lack of detailed information provided in respect of how foul sewerage will be dealt with and no information as to how the watercourse will be protected during the shorter term construction phase contrary to Environment Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
Officer’s Report THE SITE
1.1 The application site relates to an existing outbuilding sitting adjacent to and within land owned by Ballachrink Mooar, Sound Road, Glen Maye. - 1.2 The existing outbuilding sits alongside Glen Maye River and within a small clearing within trees. - 1.3 There is a shared access lane which runs between the building and Ballachrink Mooar and which is also shared by a number of other properties. - 1.4 The outbuilding is single storey and comprises a pitched roof part and a mono-pitched part. The roof is crinkly tin throughout. The building measures approx. 11m long x 4.5m wide and 1.9m to eaves and 3.2m to the central ridge. There is a small door and two small window openings along one longest edge, and two small windows shown on one gable end. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the conversion and extension of the existing outbuilding to provide a new two bedroom dwelling with off road parking. - 2.2 The proposal includes the following works:
3.1 The main dwelling Ballachrink Mooar has been subject to a number of previous application for alterations and extension, although not considered to be materially relevant. PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The dwelling sits within an area recognised as being 'woodland' on the 1982 Development Plan and also within an AHLV. The site is also recognised as being at a mix of both medium and low surface water flood risk on recent maps. Given the nature of the proposals the most relevant policies would be Environment Policy 2 in respect of the AHLV, Environment Policy 3 in respect of the woodland, Housing Policy 11 in respect of the conversion works to the building and those general standards set out in General Policy 2. Environment Policies 7, 10, and 13 also seek to address flood risk, and seek to ensure no unacceptable harm to watercourses.
REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Patrick Commissioners - no comments made (17/06/2022).
5.2 DOI Highway Services - Do not oppose (04/05/2022) - the track serving the site is not a publically adopted road, but there is a public right of way over it which will continue to exist and would not radically change the nature of the use of the PRoW. The turning point would not be obstructed. The hardstanding could be reduced in size and still accommodate 2 cars and pedestrian use, and could be formed in reinforced mesh to allow grass to grow but prevent rutting. If to be hard surfaced surface water drainage must be contained within the site and details provided accordingly.
5.3 DOI Flood Risk Management - Oppose (12/11/2022) - Flood Risk Management require a FRA of 1/100 flood event modelling + 30% for climate change. - 5.4 DEFA Ecosystems Policy - No objections (05/11/2021) - happy with the findings of the Manx Bat Groups Bat Survey Report and that a suitable level of assessment has been undertaken with no bat roost being found. Bat boxes could be considered by the applicant and to install these in nearby trees. - 5.5 DEFA Environmental Protection - concerns (19/11/2021) - the application mentions the use of a septic tank discharging to the river; this is not permitted under the Water Pollution Act
discharge license policy a connection to mains is the preferred option to protect the watercourse.
5.6 DEFA Inland Fisheries - no objection provided that there is no adverse effect on the adjacent watercourse (19/11/2021). - 5.7 DEFA Forestry - Do not object subject to condition (25/08/2022) the need for an arboricultural protection plan and method statement to be submitted before any works on site, this information needs to shows how the proposed development will be implemented without damaging the surrounding retained trees including their roots. - 5.8 Manx National Heritage - concerns (26/10/2021) the site is within 15m of a watercourse and measures should be considered to ensuring that materials are not stored in close proximity to the water course, no materials or run off from such materials should be permitted to reach the water course and precautionary measures such as sedi-mats may need to be in place prior to works. Neighbouring Comments - 5.9 The owner of Mountain View - Objection (10 & 11/11/2021 and 22/05/2022) - the main entrance from Sound Road is not suitable for more traffic, and additional accommodation would add more traffic to the road and to the junction, and could impact emergency vehicular access and highway safety. The proposal would result in an over intensification of traffic in the area. Earlier comments also include photographs of the site and showing the river in flow, and the turning area subject to surface water. - 5.10 The owner of Lane Cottage - Objection (11/11/2021 and 24/05/22) - concern is expressed as to the proximity of the watercourse and the short and long term impacts of the development on the river, also concern is raised in respect of highway safety and the increased traffic and the access onto the main road being unfit for purpose. - 5.11 Two owners of Claddagh House have both written in separately - Objections received from both dated 11/11/2022 and 24/05/2022 - these comments raise similar issues summarised as follows:
6.1 There are a number of matters to cover in the assessment of the application, the principle and visual impact of the proposals assessed against EP16 and HP11. The flood risk and highway safety issues, amenity impacts on the neighbours and whether there would be any adverse harm on the designated area of woodland. Principle and Design
6.2 Whilst the principle of the proposal is not at odds with Housing Policy 11 or Environment Policy 16 in that it seeks to convert an existing rural building and residential development would not be out of keeping with surrounding residential properties and could likely be provided with services given the surrounding infrastructure serving existing dwellings, there are concerns in the starting position of the existing building being fairly small scale and the size and position of the extensions having a negative impact on the existing building.
6.3 The existing building is stone built and relatively small scale having low level and monopitch tin roof finish. While perhaps not so much of architectural interest it could be argued that there is some kind of social and historic interest through its stone materials, age and likely forming part of the original farm buildings. The building appears on the 1860's historic map. - 6.4 The building is not currently used for agriculture. There is no structural survey provided and so whilst the building appears substantially intact it is unknown whether it is properly capable of renovation. - 6.5 Part (d) of HP11 indicates that the building should already be large enough to form a satisfactory dwelling either as it stands or with modest subordinate extension, and such extension should not adversely affect the character or interest of the original building. In this case the proposal seeks to increase the footprint from around 53sq m up to 84sq m (approx. 58% increase). The proposed two bedroom dwelling will not be excessively large per se, however there is concern that the proposed culmination of extensions and covering three of the original elevations somewhat detracts from the original character and appearance of the host dwelling. The height of the proposed timber clad extension and its covering of both front and rear elevations also brings into question its subordinate nature and so when further paired with the sunroom extension on the opposite gable there remains very little of the original building on show. - 6.6 The proposal also seeks to increase the height of the eaves of the building which will likely accommodate a greater internal head height. The scheme also includes the installation of a new slate roof and several roof-lights throughout. A new slate roof would be unobjectionable and fairly in keeping with other buildings in the area. The minor increase of the eaves is also not so harmful in this case as to negatively impact the original quality of the building, however it is the culmination of these changes along with the number of extensions and covering over of the original elevations and now the inclusion of a considerable number of roof-lights further drawing attention to the changes being made to the building and somewhat detracting from its overall historic and social appearance as an ancillary small scale farm outbuilding. - 6.7 The agent states in a supporting information that the existing building is 'not unsightly in its appearance retaining many of the old features of a traditional agricultural building.". They indicate that "in its current format is too small to provide living accommodation therefore requiring sympathetic alterations and extensions", and that those extensions should not copy the existing building but rather show how it's evolved over time. The proposal in this case includes a timber framed extension on one end which offers this contrast in age and materials but still maintains a somewhat agricultural feel, while the sun room on the other end offers a wholly domesticated appearance and one which negatively impacts the overall appearance of the proposal. While the materials and style of the timber extension is considered acceptable, it covers over of a considerable amount of the existing building and its old features and therefore
negatively impacts its original character and qualities. This is further exacerbated by the extensive off road car park area covering the frontage of the property. The proposal is not considered to meet with the tests of EP16 (b and c) or HP11 (d).
Flood Risk
6.8 The agent makes reference to the levels of the river being between 1.5m - 2m below the site level, however there is no survey drawing or spot levels provided to demonstrate this. The application has not been provided with any flood risk modelling and comments from DOIFRM remain as oppose. The proposal would bring an existing outbuilding into use as living accommodation and introducing a new dwelling closer to the river and in an area which is identified to be low and medium surface water flood risk. There is no mitigation outlined and there is uncertainty that the site would not be susceptible to flood risk and so the proposal would be contrary to EP 10 and 13. - 6.9 There is also a lack of detail to indicate that the increased surface area from the extensions and large driveway area would be accommodated without negatively increased surface water flood risk in the area, and so this also failing to meet with the tests of EP10 and EP13. Parking, Access and Highway Safety - 6.10 The DOI Highway Services have indicated that the roadway passing the site is not adopted although is identified as having a Public right of way over it. They clarify that the proposal will not affect this public right of way. The hardstanding area appears fairly excessive and when paired with the changes to the building only exacerbates the overall negative impact of the proposal on the semi-rural character, although from a highway safety perspective there is to be a minimum of two off road car parking spaces and the likely increase in traffic relating to a small dwelling would not be so significant or adverse as to warrant any increased or new highway safety issues beyond the existing level of shared use by the existing dwellings in the immediate area. While physically the design of the hardstanding is considered to have an adverse visual impact, there is no significant adverse highway safety issues expected and thus in line with General Policy 2 (h and i). Impact on Trees - 6.11 The site is designated as woodland, and photographs and aerial images clearly show trees to be in the surrounding area. The agent indicates that there would be two sycamores affected by the proposal yet there is no tree survey nor any mitigation or tree protection plans provided. There is an uncertainty as to the impact of the development on the trees and designated woodland area. DEFA Forestry have provided comments indicating that ideally they would need an arboricultural constraints and impact assessment to fully judge the impact to the surrounding trees. DEFA Forestry indicate that it appears that the development could be implemented without tree removal but would likely require engineering solutions and thus have suggested a pre-commencement condition that requires a protection plan and method statement. However, minded that the land is designated as woodland, it seems premature to approve any such works without seeing full detail in respect of trees to unsure no undue or unacceptable harm or loss of the trees in the first instance. As such, the proposal is considered contrary to Environment Policy 3. Watercourse and habitats - 6.12 Concern has been raised in respect of sewerage and proximity of the water course to the proposed development. There appears to be a lack of information and detail provided as to ensure suitable and safe removal of foul waste from the site and that the watercourse and its fish would be suitably protected during the short term construction phase or through the life of the development contrary to EP7. CONCLUSION
7.1 While there is not one specific or explicit design flaw on which the refusal is based, it is the culmination of the changes including the sunroom and timber clad extensions, roof lights, large hardstanding and covering over of a large part of the external original elevations which amount to an overbearing and negative visual impact on the original historic and social interest of the host building contrary to EP 16 (b and c) and HP11 (d). The proposal also fails to demonstrate that it would not be at risk of flooding or that suitable mitigation could be introduced, or that it would not make worse existing flood risk through increased surface area and hardstanding areas contrary to EP10 and EP13. The application fails to provide sufficient information in respect of trees and so it is unknown whether there would be any adverse impact on the designated woodland area contrary to EP3. While a pre-commencement condition has been suggested, it would be premature to progress to a decision without knowing the full extent and impact of the works as any harm or loss of trees here would be contrary to established planning policy, and similarly in respect of the lack of information in respect of foul sewerage and the uncertainty as to the potential negative impacts on the watercourse both in the short term construction phase and the longer term occupation of the property contrary to EP7.
7.2 The application by reason of its design, lack of flood risk details and lack of information for the trees and foul waste is considered to fail Environment Policy 16 (b and c), Housing Policy 11 (d), Environment Policies 3, 7, 10 and 13 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
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 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.
Determining officer Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton
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
View as Markdown