Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/00290/B Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/00290/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs Colin & Susan Mowle Proposal : Alteration and extension of existing dwelling to create 2 detached dwellings Site Address : Cronk-Ny-Shee Cordeman Road St Marks Ballasalla Isle Of Man IM9 3AJ
Planning Officer: Mr Toby Cowell Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 15.12.2022 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposed development is considered to result in substantial degradation to the historic and architectural character of the former farm buildings, whilst amount to further domestication and a reduction in character of the site's historic agricultural originals. The development is therefore contrary to General Policy 2 (b) & (c) and Housing Policy 11 of the Strategic Plan (2016). __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None. __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site comprises the residential curtilage and detached dwelling of Cronk- Ny-Shee, located at the far end of a private access track to the west of Cordeman Road. The dwelling formally comprised a collection of historic farm buildings subsequently converted in 2002/03. The building is effectively U-shaped around an open courtyard, and is simple in form and finish with only a small chimney which provides a hint of the residential status of the property. The building is in a courtyard arrangement with some large glazed areas which belie
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/00290/B Page 2 of 7
the residential use but from the public view from some distance away the property still resembles barns.
1.2 To the south is Upper Cordeman Farm, the house with which the application property was originally associated before being converted and separated therefrom. Likewise, a new agricultural building is located to the immediate north of the dwelling and falls within the application site. This building replaced a previous agricultural building following the grant of planning permission in 2020 (PA 20/00210/B) but is subject to a live enforcement investigation following concerns the development had not been undertaken in accordance with the approved plans. The building is now subject to a further planning application (PA 22/01273/B) which remains undetermined at present. Open fields in agricultural use surround the site to the west/north-west and south.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposals relate to the subdivision of the exiting 5-bedroom property into two dwellings; each of which would comprise 4 bedrooms. Works to the property to facilitate the subdivision include the removal of a 1.8m wide section of the property in its centre and erection of new gable end walls for the resultant two properties. The proposals also include the erection of a two-storey infill extension to the existing property's north-western corner (incorporating a ground-floor garage space), a first-floor extension above the existing spa area on the north-eastern corner (end of the northern wing), and erection of a mono-pitched porch off the aforementioned wing to provide a new pedestrian entrance for the resultant 'Unit 2'.
2.2 The existing courtyard would also be subdivided by a 2.1m high stone wall, lowered in height to 1.2m approximately two thirds along its length. The resultant area reserved for 'Unit 1' would remain as a cobblestoned yard/parking area, whilst the area for 'Unit 2' is described as 'garden'. It is unclear as to how this area would be treated. Various fenestration alterations to the existing property are also noted, including the creation of an integral garage and small lean-to extension in front for the resultant 'Unit 1', and the conversion of the existing two integral garage spaces and conversion of a lounge area for 'Unit 2'.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The application site has been the subject of the following previous planning applications which are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. Planning permission was originally granted for the conversion of the principle L- shaped farm building to a dwelling which included the erection of a conservatory in 2002 (PA 02/00988/B). A subsequent application was received and granted to convert the additional redundant farm building into a garage, recreation and guest suite in association with the previous approval for conversion of the principle farm building (PA 03/00040/B). The original permission was then subject to amendments and approved shortly after (PA 03/00164/B). Finally, a further application was approved in 2013 for the erection of a small extension off the southern elevation of the converted dwelling (PA 13/00828/B).
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The application site is identified in the Area Plan for the South as 'white land' within the countryside that is not zoned for development. The site is not within a Conservation Area or an area identified as being at risk of flooding.
4.2 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application;
Strategic Policy 1 Efficient use of land and resources 2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages 3 To respect the character of our towns and villages 5 Design and visual impact
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/00290/B Page 3 of 7
11 Housing needs
Spatial Policy 5 Development only in countryside in accordance with General Policy 3
General Policy 2 General Development Considerations 3 Exceptions to development in the countryside
Environment Policy 1 Protection of the countryside
Housing Policy 4 Exceptions to allowing new housing in the countryside 11 Conversion of rural buildings into dwellings 15 Extension of traditional styled dwellings in the countryside
Transport Policy 4 Highways safety
7 Parking
Infrastructure Policy 5 Water conservation and management
Community Policy 7 Designing out criminal and anti-social behaviour 11 Prevention for the outbreak and spread of fire
4.3 Residential Design Guide (2021) This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Malew Parish Commissioners - no response received at the time of writing.
5.2 Highways Services - Development would have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking, whilst noting that the lane is privately managed. The Applicant is advised to consider the provision of electric vehicle charging points. There is existing on-site storage that could be used for bicycle parking (25.03.22)
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are as follows:
6.2 PRINCIPLE 6.2.1 The site falls within the open countryside and an area not zoned for development within the Area Plan for the South. There is a general presumption again development in the countryside with development to be focussed towards defined settlements in accordance with Spatial Policy 5. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with the exceptions outlined in General Policy 3, two of which include the 'conversion of redundant rural
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/00290/B Page 4 of 7
buildings which are of architectural, historic or social value and interest' and the 'replacement of existing rural dwellings'.
6.2.2 Environment Policy 1 advises that the countryside will be protected for its own sake, and development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms.
6.2.3 The site falls outside of a defined settlement boundary within the open countryside, is not designated for residential development with the proposals not according within one of the defined exception criteria outlined in General Policy 3. The Strategic Plan is effectively silent on the subdivision of existing dwellings in the countryside, and therefore consideration needs to be given to other relevant policies of the Development Plan, including those relating to visual and landscape impact.
6.2.4 The proposals include various extensions to the existing dwelling to further facilitate the subdivision as proposed. The existing property is considered to be of a traditional style and therefor Housing Policy 15 is considered to be of relevance. This policy and its supporting text do include provision for extensions to traditional styled dwellings within the countryside, provided such additions respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. Only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions which measure more than 50% of the existing building in terms of floorspace.
6.2.5 Furthermore however, whilst the building has previously been converted to a dwelling, Housing Policy 11 is also considered to be of relevance in this instance, which states that the conversion of redundant rural buildings into dwellings may be permissible, subject to various criteria. This includes the requirement that the existing building is of architectural, historic or social interest. 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.
6.2.6 In the case of such proposals, whilst the Strategic Plan is silent on the subdivision of dwellings in the countryside, it is considered that the principle of development could be found acceptable, provided the resultant development would be acceptable from a visual standpoint, would not result in a degradation of the historic or architectural character of the existing property, and would ensure a high standard of living for future occupants. Such matters will be covered in the forthcoming sections of this report.
6.3 DESIGN AND VISUAL IMPACT 6.3.1 The proposals include various alterations and extensions to the existing property to facilitate the subdivision, which includes the physical separation of the property. The current dwelling comprises former stone agricultural buildings associated with the original farmhouse (Upper Cordeman Farm) to the immediate west, which now forms a separate property. The original farm buildings are present on historic mapping of the Island from the 1860s and, whilst planning permission to convert the buildings was done so under the guise of a previous development plan, the conversion of the buildings to residential use today would still likely be deemed appropriate in accordance with Housing Policy 11 of the Strategic Plan (2016).
6.3.2 As part of the 3 permissions from 2002/03, various extensions and external alterations were permitted to facilitate the conversion of the buildings, and in particular to integrate the northern outbuilding with the L-shaped stone building to form a single enlarged dwelling. The resultant dwelling is now a single U-shaped building with effectively 2 wings, and is noted as having been further extended to create the sun lounge off the southern 'wing' following the grant of planning permission in 2013. At the time, the additional extension to the property was not considered by the case officer to significantly alter or undermine the character of the property with the as then residential curtilage having lost little of its agricultural feel through low walling and gardens. The development was therefore not considered to be contrary to the spirit of Housing Policy 11.
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/00290/B Page 5 of 7
6.3.3 By contrast however, the current proposals relate to further additions and alterations to the property, which include the 'squaring off' of the dwelling to complete the physical connection between the former L-shaped barn and northern agricultural building. Likewise, the proposals include further built development at the far end of the northern wing and a porch which amounts to additional outward built development outside of the original form and layout of the buildings. Likewise, the addition of a garage door and front extension, the physical separation of an historic building and subdivision of the front courtyard further alter the character of the original buildings.
6.3.4 Such additions and alterations are considered to be significant and such that they would amount to a compete degradation of the original character of the historic buildings; contrary to both the spirit and wording of Housing Policy 11. Indeed, the physical subdivision of the property through an original section of the historic barn is particularly concerning, together with the subdivision of the front courtyard which furthers adds to the domestication of the site and loss of its original character.
6.3.5 Whilst the extensions to the property to facilitate the subdivision are not wholly unacceptable from a design standpoint in isolation, they are considered to be inappropriate from a cumulative standpoint, particularly in the context of the property's age, historic and architectural character, and the history of the site. Of further note in particular is the addition of a new porch for 'Unit 2', the size and footprint of which is significant in the context of the dwelling and such that it would further distort the original footprint and form of the former agricultural barn.
6.3.6 In light of the above, the proposals are considered to be unacceptable from a design and visual impact standpoint, and in particular further unduly alter and degrade the original character of the former barns. The proposals are further considered to be contrary to Housing Policy 11, which states that further extensions to former rural buildings since converted to dwellings will not normally be permitted as this would likely result in the reduction of their original interest and character. The current proposals are considered tantamount to such degradation of character which Housing Policy 11 seeks to prevent, with the resultant development considered to be far removed from the historic and architectural interest in the context of the original barns.
6.4 NEIGHBOURING AMENITY 6.4.1 The proposed subdivision of the existing property into two dwellings would have no greater material impact upon the amenities of the immediately adjacent property of Upper Cordeman farmhouse to the immediate west of the site, with no further dwellings in relative proximity to be materially affected.
6.4.2 Future occupants of the resultant two dwellings would be afforded a high standard of amenity with generous gardens, whilst the existing front courtyard would be subdivided by a 2.1m high stone wall for the majority of its length. The erection of such a wall, whilst of concern from a visual standpoint, would ensure a suitable degree of privacy for the resultant dwellings in respect of each other, with no realistic opportunity for mutual overlooking at ground floor level. No first-floor windows are proposed in the south-western elevation of 'Unit 2', with only the existing rooflights to be retained.
6.4.3 Likewise, only a small number of existing narrow windows would be retained at first- floor in the north-eastern elevation of 'Unit 1'. Two of these windows would serve non- habitable rooms or spaces (en-suite/dressing area), with a further acting as a secondary window for a bedroom. Consequently, the level of overlooking achieved with respect to the lounge of 'Unit 2' would be very limited and not to such an extent which warrants concern.
6.5 HIGHWAYS AND PARKING
==== PAGE 6 ====
22/00290/B Page 6 of 7
6.5.1 No objections have been raised by Highways Services with respect to the proposals, particularly in relation to the modified access for 'Unit 2' to be shared with the adjacent agricultural building, with each resultant unit being afforded realistic provision for in excess of 2 parking spaces.
6.6 OTHER MATTERS 6.6.1 The proposed works comprise the subdivision of an existing dwelling into two separate units facilitate by moderate extensions, and are therefore not considered to pose any issues with respect to respect of criminal actively or spread of fire. Whilst the proposals will be increasing the overall floor space and include the addition of a further dwelling, the development would be served by soakaways as per the existing situation, with an existing septic tank in addition to a new biodisc treatment tank to be used for foul sewerage. No concerns are therefore raised in this regard. Whilst the proposed works are increasing the floor area of the property relative to the existing with the addition of a further dwelling, it is not expected that the water usage of the dwelling will significantly increase, therefore there are no new issues in this respect.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposed development is considered to result in substantial degradation to the historic and architectural character of the former farm buildings, whilst amount to further domestication and a reduction in character of the site's historic agricultural originals. The development is therefore contrary to General Policy 2 (b) & (c) and Housing Policy 11 of the Strategic Plan (2016), and recommended for approval.
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; (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 __
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.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 16.12.2022
==== PAGE 7 ====
22/00290/B Page 7 of 7
Determining officer
Signed : J SINGLETON
Jason Singleton
Principal Planner
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