Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/01463/B Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 21/01463/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs J&S Kneen Proposal : Conversion of existing agricultural buildings into 2 tourist accommodation units with associated landscaping and drainage works Site Address : Ballaoates Farm Ballavagher Road St Johns Isle Of Man IM4 3JE
Head of Development Management: Mr S Butler Photo Taken : 02.03.2022 Site Visit : 02.03.2022 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 13.05.2022 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposals do not sufficiently preserve the appearance or character of the barn. The raising of the roof and the introduction of timber cladding and enlarged window openings and dormers will fundamentally change the appearance of the barn which will appear overly domestic lacking a rural or agricultural appearance. The proposed replacement structures of the existing cattle sheds will overly the existing barn. The proposal is therefore contrary to Environment Policy 16(b, c) and Housing Policy 11(c, d and second paragraph) of the Strategic Plan (2016).
R 2. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation and as such the proposal is contrary to Environment Policy 16(a) and Housing Policy 11(b) of the Strategic Plan (2016).
R 3. Insufficient information has been provided in relation to site levels to properly assess this aspect of the application (Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 requires site plans for full applications to show, "where changes are proposed to site levels, existing and proposed levels".
R 4. Insufficient information to assess the impact in terms of protected species (bats and birds) and as such is contrary to Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan (2016). __
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/01463/B Page 2 of 8
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
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):
Isle of Man Natural History & Antiquarian Society
as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy. __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE AS THE APPLICANT IS A CLOSE RELATIVE OF A MEMBER OF P&BC STAFF
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site defined in red is part of a larger site, defined in blue which is the current holding of Ballaoates Farm which stretches north west from the Archallagan Road which links the A24 with the A3 at the Hope. The whole site accommodates a range of buildings with a traditional Manx farmhouse at the entrance with the other side of the entrance formed by outbuildings which run parallel with and right alongside the road. Further into the site are larger, more modern buildings of an agricultural style and appearance. The application site concerns only the outbuildings to the north west of the entrance. All are brick built and have been painted in the past and have corrugated sheeted roofs. These buildings sit between 1m and 1.2m above the road with a sloping bank between the buildings and the road.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the conversion of existing agricultural buildings into 2 tourist accommodation units with associated landscaping and drainage works. The works include raising the height/reroofing the buildings and enlarging the overall footprint. Use is made of timber cladding.
2.2 The application form confirms full approval. Existing use is given as farm and proposed use is as farm with tourist units. The proposal would create 119m of additional floor space. The proposal involves alteration to the access, creation of 5 parking spaces, changes to site levels, new electricity, water and telecommunications services. Rainwater to soakaway and new foul created to new septic tank. Trees within 15m of site but no watercourse within 9m.
2.3 The Design & Access statement highlights the contribution the proposal would make to the Visit Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2020-2023. It states,
"5.1.1 The Ballaoates site has been in use for many decades and has come to the end of its life with many of the buildings falling into depolation and needing refurbishment.
5.1.2 Permission is sought for Phase 2 with intention of material change of use of the existing outbuildings. It is anticipated upon completion for the units to be used as holiday accommodation during the high visitors season and short period rental during the low holiday season if and when required.
5.1.3 One of the existing annexes is to be demolished adjacent to improve vehicular access - Planning Application Ref: 20/01485/B".
2.4 It also states,
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/01463/B Page 3 of 8
"6.2 The appearance of the proposed structures is influenced by agricultural buildings and therefore is consistent with the architectural area.
6.3 Due to the low-density nature of the proposed development, there will be very little impact and no detrimental effect to the quality of life of any nearby residents".
2.5 The applicant was contacted on 04.03.22 to highlight concerns with the application and that it may be helpful to provide additional information in relation to levels, landscape, bat survey, confirmation of why redundant, information to demonstrate structurally capable of renovation (structural report by a qualified person), information as to why of architectural, historic or social interest. The applicant confirmed on 25.04.22 that they wished for it to be determined as submitted.
3.0 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 purpose and within an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. The site is not identified as being at high risk of tidal or river flooding, although some of the site has low-medium surface water flooding risk.
3.2 As such, there is a presumption against development here and where the protection of the character of the landscape is the most important consideration as set out in General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan.
Transport Policy 7 (Parking Provision)
3.4 Environment 16 states,
"The use of existing rural buildings for new purposes such as tourist, or small-scale industrial/commercial use may be permitted where:
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/01463/B Page 4 of 8
a) it is demonstrated that the building is no longer required for its original purpose and where the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation; b) the reuse of the building will result in the preservation of fabric which is of historic, architectural, or social interest or is otherwise of visual attraction; c) it is demonstrated that the building could accommodate the new use without requiring extension or adverse change to appearance or character; d) there would not be unacceptable implications in terms of traffic generation; a) conversion does not lead to dispersal of activity on such a scale as to prejudice the vitality and viability of existing town and village services; and f) the use of existing buildings involves significant levels of redevelopment to accommodate the new use, the benefits secured by the proposal in terms of impact on the environment and the rural economy shall outweigh the continued impact of retaining the existing buildings on site. Proposals to convert rural buildings to residential accommodation will be considered along with the advice given at Section 8.10 of this document"
3.5 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 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".
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The following applications are noted:
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 DOI (Highways) (16.12.2021) - Do Not Oppose. DOI (Drainage) (26.01.22) state that they, "Do not oppose subject to condition that if the buildings are converted, then surface water runoff from them is retained within the site and is not discharged onto the highway".
5.2 DEFA (Ecosystems Policy) (22.12.22) highlights potential for bats and nesting birds and request that prior to determination of the application a preliminary assessment for roosting bats be undertaken on the property by a suitable qualified ecological consultancy. Goes on that, "If evidence of roosting bats is found then further surveys will be required and a report detailing the findings with appropriate mitigation measures to ensure their protection during and after development, should be submitted to Planning for written approval".
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/01463/B Page 5 of 8
5.3 DEFA (Forestry) (02.03.22) indicate that that, "didn't have any concerns to raise. There are some trees in close proximity to existing building, on the bank to the north-west, but we would probably issue a licence for these to be removed if they applied due to risk of damage and their poor relationship to the buildings...".
5.4 DEFA (Registered Buildings Officer (09.03.22) commented that,
"The proposals are for the conversion of existing outbuildings for use as tourist accommodation. I agree with the issues raised by Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society (IOMNHAS) made in their comments of 29th January 2022 and raise the following points; whilst I support the principle of reusing historic farm buildings I have concerns regarding the proposals in their current form.
I have concerns that the current proposals do not sufficiently preserve the appearance or character of the barn. The raising of the roof and the introduction of timber cladding and enlarged window openings and dormers will fundamentally change the appearance of the barn which will appear overly domestic lacking a rural or agricultural appearance.
I also have concerns that the proposed replacement structures of the existing cattle sheds will overly dominate the stone barn which is the building of interest. There are numerous best practice guidance documents about the conversion of farm buildings including Historic England's guidance
https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/adapting-traditionalfarm-buildings/
This scheme should also be considered in its context with proposals for the farm house and other agricultural buildings, whilst I understand that a recent scheme for a replacement dwelling has been withdrawn, it is important the development of the site is considered as a whole. Given the concerns I have for the proposals in their current form, I would advise that proposals are revised which demonstrate a more sensitive adaption of the barn and that also relates to other proposals for this site".
5.5 Isle of Man Natural History & Antiquarian Society (29.01.22) state that the society,
"fully supports the principle of converting the barns to tourist accommodation. However, particularly as the proposal is only for tourist accommodation, the Society would have preferred to see a solution that did not involve so much raising of the roof of the barns and the introduction of a third different material in the walls in order to do so. Given the approved demolition of some of the barns fronting the roadside, together with the change of materials of window and doors from the traditional timber, the Society considers this would make the site much more upstanding in its surroundings than is desirable.
The Society also notes that there are trees very close to the buildings' walls and is concerned that no detailed tree survey has been submitted with the application to ensure that these trees can be retained. There is also no structural survey to evidence that the buildings are capable of sustaining the conversion and heightening work proposed. The Society considers that submission of such surveys together with detailed proposals on how the trees will be protected during conversion works is essential before any decision can be made on this application. In the absence of such surveys Isle of Man Natural History & Antiquarian Society has to object to the proposals.
5.6 DfE were consulted on 02.03.22 and asked the questions below. No response has been received at the time of writing. "1. Are there any adopted and published strategies that set out the requirements for self- catering accommodation?
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/01463/B Page 6 of 8
2. Do these strategies give any indication of type/location/quality and would this proposal align with those? 3. Any other comments you may wish to make, in particular about the standard of proposed accommodation".
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 It is considered that the main issues are:
6.2 The economic benefit of the proposal 6.2.1 The proposal would create tourist accommodation and so have some level of economic benefit, which weighs in favour of the application.
6.3 Landscape Impacts 6.3.1 The site is well landscaped and so the development is unlikely to have a significant impact on the wider landscape. However, the site is adjacent to the road from The Hope to Archallagan and as such is clearly visible from public view, which is relevant for the consideration of design (below).
6.4 Environmental Constraints 6.4.1 No concerns are identified in relation to trees or flooding are identified that would justify a refusal.
6.4.2 It is considered that insufficient information has been provided in relation to site levels (no details provided although states existing levels will be graded within the site and spoil used elsewhere on the site) to properly assess this aspect of the application (Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 requires site plans for full applications to show, "where changes are proposed to site levels, existing and proposed levels".
6.4.3 The comments from DEFA (Ecology) are noted and on that basis it is considered that the application contains insufficient information to assess the impact in terms of protected species (bats and birds) and as such is contrary to Environment Policy 4.
6.5 Compliance with Environment Policy 16 and Housing Policy 11 6.5.1 The first issue is whether the building is no longer required for its original purpose (EP16a and HP11a). Although limited information is provided in relation to this, it has been accepted on a number of sites that older buildings are often of a size (and with smaller doorways) that make them un-suitable for modern agriculture.
6.5.2 The second issue is whether the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation (EP16a and HP11b). No structural information has been provided to allow this to be assessed.
6.5.3 The third issue is whether reuse of the building will result in the preservation of fabric which is of historic, architectural, or social interest or is otherwise of visual attraction (EP16b and HP11c). The comments from the IOMNHAS and the RBO are noted. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the building is of sufficient value/interest to warrant preservation.
6.5.4 The next issue is, if it is demonstrated that the building could accommodate the new use without requiring extension or adverse change to appearance or character (EP16c) and
==== PAGE 7 ====
21/01463/B Page 7 of 8
whether 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 (HP11d). A related issue is whether the conversion where practicable and desirable, would re-establish the original appearance of the building; and use the same materials as those in the existing building (HP11). Given the scale of changes proposed, it is not considered the proposal passes these aspects of the policies.
6.5.5 No concerns are identified in relation to;
6.5.8 Finally, in terms of whether the use of existing buildings involves significant levels of redevelopment to accommodate the new use, the benefits secured by the proposal in terms of impact on the environment and the rural economy shall outweigh the continued impact of retaining the existing buildings on site (EP16f), it is not considered that the economic benefits outweigh the concerns identified.
6.6 Highway/Parking Matters 6.6.1 The comments from DOI (Highways) are noted and relied upon. No concerns are identified which would justify a refusal.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Generally, traditional Manx stone barns are the type of buildings which are considered to be of "architectural, historic, or social interest". In this case the existing barns have only a small amount of original stonework and consist mainly of more modern day brick. In terms of their design, appearance, form and finish it is difficult to see how these would meet test of being "architectural, historic, or social interest". The proposal also result in sections of the existing being demolished and completely re built which is considered to be against policies HP11 and EP16.
7.2 In design terms, if it is held that the barns are worth/capable of renovation then the design approach must be to retain as much of the fabric of interest and also the character. The design appears to lose much of that fabric and also to require a large infill extension which not only increases the size (as does the increase in height) but also loses the character of the buildings as being an L shape.
7.3 Overall, it is not clear either what aspects of the original are important to preserve (which would be the justification for retaining/concerting) or how those aspects are preserved by the proposed design. What appears to result is a loss of much of the existing fabric and substantial extension both of which suggest that the barn may not actually be worthy or capable of conversion.
8.0 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; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
==== PAGE 8 ====
21/01463/B Page 8 of 8
(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 above 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 : Refused
Committee Meeting Date: 23.05.2022
Signed : S BUTLER 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