Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/00390/B Page 1 of 14
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. 22/00390/B Applicant : Nigel & Susan Lewney & Clark Proposal Erection of new dwelling to replace existing dwelling and barn including improvements to existing entrance Site Address Ballahig Foxdale Road The Hope St Johns Isle Of Man IM4 3AU
Case Officer :
Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 04.10.2022
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. Prior to the undertaking of any works relating to the approved replacement dwelling including any demolition of existing structures, the tree protection measures and construction methods detailed in "DWG 1032-04 Site Plan as Proposed" shall be installed in full accordance with these approved details and retained for the full duration of the work. No tree shown as being retained shall be cut down, uprooted, or wilfully destroyed during the development phase and thereafter within 5 years from the completion date, except as may be permitted by prior approval in writing from the Department.
Reason: to ensure that all trees to be retained are suitably protected throughout the works.
C 3. The annexe hereby approved shall be used only for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of 'Ballahig' as a dwellinghouse. No separate curtilage shall be formed and the residential annexe shall at no time be used as an independent dwellinghouse.
Reason: The application has been assessed in terms of this restricted use and any other use may have an adverse effect on the character and amenity of the area contrary to relevant Polices in the Strategic Plan 2016 and its use as an independent residential unit would not comply with the Strategic Plan 2016 policies regarding new residential development in the countryside.
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/00390/B Page 2 of 14
C 4. The access works including visibility splays hereby approved shall be carried out in full accordance with those details shown on drawing number 1302-05, and visibility splays thereafter kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1050mm in height above adjoining carriageway level.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
C 5. Prior to the use of the access hereby approved the first 5m of the surface of the access measured back from the carriageway shall be properly consolidated/surfaced in a bound material (not loose stone or gravel).
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
C 6. The soft landscape planting including tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details as shown on DWG 1032-04 and shall be carried out in the first planting season following the first occupation of the replacement dwelling, or earlier if possible. Any trees or plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with the same trees or plants as originally approved, or alternative planting which will first need to be approved in writing by the Department.
Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.
C 7. The soft landscape planting including tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details as shown on DWG's 1032-05 and shall be carried out in the first planting season following the first use of the access, or earlier if possible. Any trees or plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with the same trees or plants as originally approved, or alternative planting which will first need to be approved in writing by the Department.
Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.
C 8. 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 development shall be undertaken in accordance with any of the following classes of Schedule 1 of the Order at any time:
Class 14 Extension of dwellinghouse Class 16 Fences, walls or gates, Class 17 Private garages and car ports
Reason: To control future development on the site in the interest of visual amenity and to prevent any separation.
C 9. All stone and slate from the buildings to be demolished shall remain on site and be re- used where possible including on the approved dwelling in accordance with detail shown on drawing number 1032-04 and retained thereafter.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and as outlined on drawing detail and in applicants supporting information, and in the interest of HP14.
N 1. The applicant is to be reminded of their separate obligations in respect of the S109(a) highway agreement, and protection of bats under the Wildlife Act 1990. Contact should be made with DOI Highways or DEFA Ecosystems in respect of either part.
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/00390/B Page 3 of 14
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. Although the proposal is considered to be contrary to Housing Policy 12 and undermining Housing Policy 11, the proposed replacement dwelling in this specific instance is considered to accord with the tests of Housing Policy 14 and to have no adverse visual impacts on the countryside in respect of Environment Policy 1, and on a fine balance is considered to be acceptable subject to a number of conditions relating to the access, annexe, revocation of PDO, tree protection, landscaping and re-use of materials.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
Photographic Records All date received 30/03/2022
Email from applicant and photographs dated 06/09/2022. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION IS FOR A REPLACEMENT DWELLING AND COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO PARTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
1.0 SITE 1.1 The application site relates to an existing farm house and two stone agricultural buildings situated in a setback position on the eastern side of the Foxdale Road and around 300m south of The Hope, St Johns.
1.2 The existing house is a traditional two storey Manx cottage with a central front door and three bay arrangement. It has two integrated gable stacks and a traditional cat slide to the rear with a smaller stack to one side. There is a small flat roof extension attached to the eastern gable and a smaller lean-to extension on the western gable both single storey.
1.3 The farm house sits between the two stone outbuildings, the building closest to the main road is single storey and finished with a crinkly tin roof, and the other is two storey and finished with a slate roof. The close proximity of the two storey building to the house means that some of the extensions abut up to it.
1.4 South of the house and over the farm yard are two larger agricultural buildings. Submitted detail indicates the landownership being approx. 8 acres.
1.5 Access to the property is via a private lane from the Foxdale Road, the entrance for which is currently bound on both sides by sod banking limiting visibility in both directions.
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/00390/B Page 4 of 14
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the demolition of the existing house and two storey barn and their replacement with a new dwelling with an attached two bedroom annex, and alterations to the existing access to increase visibility splays. The proposal also indicates some repair works to the existing single storey stone barn including new tin roof, re-pointing and new timber doors.
2.2 The proposed replacement dwelling is to measure 9.9m x 6.3m, and approx. 6.5m to eaves and 10m to central ridge. It is to have a three bay frontage design and two integrated gable stacks. At the rear is proposed a two storey extension projecting 4.95m to rear and 10m wide, and to have matching eaves and a central ridged stepped below the main ridge at 9.6m tall.
2.3 To the eastern side is proposed a single storey linked two bedroom annex measuring 6.3mn wide and projecting backwards 11.1m. Eaves measuring 3.2m and central ridge 6.1m. The frontage is to be finished in a mix of stone and timber style cladding and with bi-folding doors.
2.4 The proposed works are indicated to be finished in natural slate roofs throughout and mostly finished in a painted render with exception to the frontage of the annex and further cladding on the rear extension.
2.5 The site plan shows the proposal to be sitting on the same siting as the existing buildings and 43m from the high voltage overhead power lines. A construction exclusion zone is shown around trees to the rear of the proposal. A soakaway and klargester are proposed just west of the single storey outbuilding and new native trees are proposed to be planted along the existing rear sod bank.
2.6 Entrance works will see the entrance increased slightly to accommodate a wider splay and sod banks alongside each edge will be reduced in height to 0.9m where it is shown within the pink hatched visibility splay area. The entrance is to be resurfaced in tarmac nearest the road.
2.7 The application is provided with a structural report prepared by BB Consulting. This report assesses each of the three buildings outlining that each is readily identifiable on the 1870 OS map and at least 150 years old. There is also a well in front of the house which is identified on the old mapping and which should be located and made secure for health and safety reasons. The report then separate details each of the structures which have been summarised as follows:
2.7.1 Main Farmhouse; 2.7.1.1 Constructed in 550mm thick stone walls with extensive rising and penetrating damp in the external wall parts. Woodboring insect noted in first floor timbers and exposed roof timbers. Damp also in upper floors likely due to failing roof flashings. 3mm crack evident on left and right sides at the rear indicating minor and longstanding movement and some cracking in render with water ingress likely. The cement render throughout exacerbating damp by not allowing walls to release moisture. 2.7.1.2 Minimum works necessary to refurbish the building would be; new roof, new first floor, new ground floor incorporating damp proofing and insulation, re-rendering inside and out, renewal of windows and doors, and structural repairs to cracked areas of masonry. 2.7.1.3 Works to incorporate insulation and damp proofing or to improve internal ceilings heights will necessitate underpinning/strengthening of existing footings. Improving insulation will either reduce internal room space or result in an enlarging of external envelope. 2.7.1.4 Page 4 summarises that refurbishment would be "extensive and costly", but "renovation of the building is possible", however "reconstruction is likely to be the most favourable economic solution."
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/00390/B Page 5 of 14
2.7.2 Tall Barn 2.7.2.1 Timber roof significantly sagging, right end gable is bulging outwards above the upper door and stone work is loose. Rear wall also bulging outwards and stone work loose. Internal inspection show cross wall and rear wall separation, the first floor has wet rot and woodboring insect with significant loss of section and strength. The roof structure similarly affected and is beyond repair. "Very significant propping of the retained front and gables walls would be required during any repair and the rear wall rebuilt. The cost of such temporary works is considerable". "Refurbishment of the building is not economically viable."
2.7.3 Single Storey Barn 2.7.3.1 The roof structure is suffering extension rot and woodboring insect. Main walls are reasonably straight and plumb. 10mm crack in end gable indicative of settlement of wall corner which can be repaired (some underpinning may be necessary). Building could be refurbished with new roof.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The dwelling has not been subject to any previous planning applications, although there was one application approved for the larger agricultural building to the south of the dwelling under 07/01167/B, although not considered material to this case.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area designated on the 1982 Development Plan as an area not specified for any particular purpose and also within an Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. The site is also situated close to a high voltage power line on the same 1982 plan. Below listed are the relevant policies including some in full wording.
Environment Policy 1 protects the countryside for its own sake
Transport Policy 7 notes that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards as set out in Appendix 7 of the SP. For a residential dwelling the requirement is for 2 parking spaces.
4.4 Paragraph 8.10 for the Conversion of Rural Buildings to Dwellings states that "throughout the countryside, there are examples of buildings which are no longer suitable or needed for their originally intended use, but which are of sufficient quality or interest to warrant retention and re-use" and that "conversion of such buildings into dwellings can make a useful
==== PAGE 6 ====
22/00390/B Page 6 of 14
contribution to the housing stock, ensure retention of our built heritage, and improve the appearance of what might otherwise become derelict fabric." Specifically in terms of replacement houses in the countryside, paragraph 8.11.1 and Housing Policies 12 and 14 are relevant. Paragraph 8.11.1 of the IOMSP states, with regard to Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside:
"There are in our countryside many existing dwellings, some of which contribute positively to its appearance and character, and some of which do not. A number of dwellings have been abandoned for many years; their physical remains being a reflection of agricultural and social change across the Island. They form features in the rural landscape which are often not unacceptable in their present state. It is appropriate to encourage change which would result in overall environment improvement, and to discourage change which would not. Where the building(s) concerned are of architectural merit or of local, historical or social interest demolition and replacement will be discouraged."
4.5 Housing Policy 12 states that, "the replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside will generally be permitted unless: (a) the existing building has lost its residential use by abandonment; or (b) the existing dwelling is of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation".
4.6 Housing Policy 11 states that: "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.
4.7 Housing Policy 14 states, "Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the "footprint" of the existing, and should have a floor area(1), which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally, the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91, (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in general, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building. Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact".
==== PAGE 7 ====
22/00390/B Page 7 of 14
Porches and Conservatories are noted as not being uncommon and where required their construction and form should be compatible with the vernacular style of older buildings 0 for example sensitively designed and detailed timber framed conservatories (Page 9)
4.9 A draft Landscape Character Assessment was commissioned by the Department in 2009 which set out a more sophisticated analysis of the rural areas of the Island. This draft identifies the site as within St Johns and states that the overall strategy should be to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the valley with its well-treed and enclosed valley bottom, its enclosed lanes and roads and its numerous sites of historic importance.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Patrick Parish Commissioners - no objections (29/04/2022).
5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - Do not oppose subject to condition (22/04/2022 and 09/09/2022) - 5.2.1 The existing vehicular entrance is to be altered in order to improve its layout and visibility. The existing visibility is 2.4m x 6-6.5m in right/left directions. The requirement for an entrance at this location is 2.4m x 90m. The existing visibility provision falls well below this requirement. The proposed visibility will be 2.4m x 20m (to the right on exit) and 60m (to the left on exit). This is still below standards but does represent significant improvement to the existing arrangement.
5.2.2 The proposal would increase number of bedrooms however this is not expected to significantly increase the use of the access. As the proposed changes to the access represent a marked improvement to the visibility achievable with no significant intensification of use, the shortfall in visibility from the required standards is acceptable to Highways.
5.2.3 As existing, the access is unmade increasing the risk of loose material being brought onto the highway. The proposal would see a tarmacadam surface applied to the entrance to minimise this risk. This tarmacadam should cover a minimum of 5m back from the highway. The entrance radius proposals will ease in and out movements to the lane. No entrance gates
==== PAGE 8 ====
22/00390/B Page 8 of 14
are shown but if these were to be added they should be at least 5m back from the road. Surface water drainage is shown. The minor alterations to the highway, in the form of entrance radius changes, will require a Section 109(A) Highway Agreement to be made post planning consent.
5.2.4 Internally, there is sufficient hardstanding and turning space for parking. Bicycle parking should be provided for the site at the level of one space per bedroom, in a covered and secure area. The applicant should consider the provision of an electric vehicle charging point in order to support the islands sustainable travel goals.
5.2.5 The proposal raises no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues subject to two conditions and a S109(A) note: o Access arrangements, including visibility splays, to accord to drawing No.1032-05; and o The new tarmacadam surface at the entrance to extend a minimum of 5m back from the edge of the highway. o The Applicant is advised that a S109(A) Highway Agreement would be needed.
5.3 DEFA Forestry- No objection (21/04/2022) - The proposal does not involve tree removal, the applicant has shown how the retained tree on site would be protected during development and tree planting has been proposed. A condition requiring the tree protection measures being in place is requested.
5.4 DEFA Ecosystems - Initial comments indicated a high potential for bats at the site and a preliminary assessment being required prior to determination (26/04/2022). A Survey Report dated 18th June was submitted and updated comments received 23/06/2022 stating that the survey concluded no use of the barn by bats. If bats are found care should be taken and prior to demolition the house should be re-examined prior to any demolition in case there are any hibernating bats. Bat boxes elsewhere on the site would be an enhancement for bats.
5.5 No comments received from neighbouring properties.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The current application includes three key parts, the demolition of the main house and taller stone barn and their replacement with a new dwelling, modifications to the main highway access and refurbishment works to the lower barn. In terms of the latter two parts the refurbishment works are largely repairs which would see the existing building retained largely as is and with no adverse impacts on its overall visual quality and there are no changes to its use indicated. The proposed access works would somewhat alter the roadside appearance through vegetation clearance and sod bank reductions and would still be below the required highway standards, however the visual changes are considered slight in this case and when compared to the existing access the works would present a notable highway improvement both in terms of increased visibility and surface material finish nearest the road and would be acceptable.
6.2 The key matters of this application turn to the proposed demolition and replacement dwelling works, (i) the principle of which will first be tested against SptP5, GP3, EP1, HP12 and HP11 which ultimately seek to protect the countryside and its traditional buildings, or ii) whether there is sufficient evidence or justification to warrant an exception as to outweigh the test of these policies. If replacement is considered acceptable it must then be considered iii) whether the physical design proposals and their visual impact are sufficient to meet the tests of HP14.
Principle (SptP5, GP3, EP1, HP12 and HP11) 6.3 Paragraphs 8.10 and 8.11 of the Strategic Plan explain that there are many existing rural buildings that contribute positively to the character and appearance of our landscape and are a reflection of the agricultural and social changes of the Island's built heritage. Paragraph
==== PAGE 9 ====
22/00390/B Page 9 of 14
8.11.1 specifically states for existing rural dwellings that "it is appropriate to encourage change which would result in overall environment improvement, and to discourage change which would not. Where the building(s) concerned are of architectural merit or of local, historical or social interest demolition and replacement will be discouraged." HP12 supports this stance stating that replacement will generally be permitted unless the house has already lost its habitable status, or if the dwelling is of architectural or historic interest and capable of renovation. HP11 is synonymous to these principles in making clear that those rural buildings which are of sufficient quality or interest to be retained and re-used shall only be done so sensitively as to ensure the quality of the original building is retained and it explicitly states that "permission will not be given for the rebuilding of ruins or the erection of replacement buildings of similar, or even identical, form."
6.4 The existing dwelling retains strong traditional form and proportion and includes many traditional defining features such as integrated gable stacks, rear cat slide, render and slate materials, solid to void ratios, small side gable window and exposed Manx stone on the rear elevation. Even though subject to previous extensions these are subservient to the main house and ensure its original quality remains focal.
6.5 The adjacent barn is also of original traditional quality retaining its form and proportion with mostly exposed stone but with a part rendered finish. Typical barn doors provide access at ground floor and a door in the upper gable provides access to what would likely have been a hay loft.
6.6 Both of these buildings and the other single story barn all feature on the historic 1870's mapping, and are inherently the typical buildings which the established planning policies seek to protect and retain.
6.7 The structural report provided with the application outlines a number of issues with each of the buildings (contained in more detail at 2.0) and summarises that renovation of each is possible although subject to considerably cost, and therefore reconstruction is likely to be the most favourable economic solution.
6.8 HP12 is clear that replacement dwellings will general be permitted unless the "existing dwelling is of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation". In this case the existing dwelling is considered to be of architectural and historic interest and is understood to be capable of renovation albeit subject to cost, and so on strict reading of this policy the proposal for works to the main house fails Housing Policy 12.
6.9 Turning to the works to the barn, HP11 states that conversion of rural building may be permitted but only where it "is of architectural, historic, or social interest" and "the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation". HP13(a) indicates that for a building to be considered substantially intact it will "involve there being at least three of the walls, standing up to eaves level and structurally capable of being retained". In the literal reading of both HP11 and HP13 the existing tall barn is considered to be of architectural, historic and social interest and minded that three of the walls (front and gables) standing to eaves and understood to be capable of being retained subject to propping works that the building is considered to be capable of renovation under HP11(c).
6.10 On this basis the demolition of the existing dwelling would be contrary to HP12, and the demolition and replacement of the tall barn would be contrary to HP11, and both proposals undermining the established principles including under SptP5, GP3 and EP1 which ultimately seek to retain these older buildings across the countryside.
ii) Evidence to outweigh retention of buildings 6.11 Supporting information states that the land and house have been tenanted and farmed by the family since mid-1950's, and in their full possession since 2016. Little upgrading and
==== PAGE 10 ====
22/00390/B Page 10 of 14
maintenance has been done over years and so the property has fallen into disrepair. The applicant's mother and late brother were occupying the house and it was becoming more unsuitable to cater for their needs (mother-aging and brother- ill health), and the proposal would allow for the applicant to relocate his family from Douglas to the farm to continue helping with the farming but also to provide on-site care and accommodation in an annex (with essential disable access) for his mother and brother. The proposal also allowing a long term plan for the building to remain in the family for future generations allowing space for their daughter to continue living there. A further statement indicates that since submitting the application the applicant's brother has sadly passed away.
6.12 The supporting information also indicates that redevelopment schemes had originally considered the re-use and integration of the tall barn into the reconstruction of the main dwelling by way of a link but that for this design to come within budget replied upon the barn being structurally sound. On receipt of the structural engineers report they concluded that refurbishment was not economically viable 'to them'.
6.13 'To them' is somewhat of a fundamental element here, as the same required refurbishment could be consider viable to another, and so viability is questionable in this respect and perhaps not a sufficient reason in its own right to outweigh the loss of the buildings.
6.14 GP3 and EP1 outline some exceptions to development in the countryside and the countryside is considered to be all land outside of settlements and not designated for development such as this site. EP1 states that "development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative". There are two matters to consider here, the interpretation of 'adversely affect the countryside" and "need". In terms of the latter it is quite clear, while there might be a personal need by the applicants, there is no demonstrated national need to warrant its exception.
6.15 Turning to "adversely affect", we know that established policies seek to protect the countryside. The pre-amble before EP1 puts weight on the openness and appearance of the countryside, and where development is proposed it "should be designed in such a way which helps preserve the rural character of the open countryside". It was from these Environment Policies which Housing Policies evolved to address specific types of development such as replacement dwellings. There is perhaps no one defining reason to sufficiently outweigh the loss of the buildings thus far, but at this stage it would be appropriate to consider other matters of the proposal such as its visual and environmental impact when judged against HP14.
iii) Visual Impact (HP14 and EP1) 6.16 Looking to the pre-amble before HP14 we know it encourages change which would result in overall environment improvements, and discourages change which would not, and where the buildings are of architectural merit or of local, historical or social interest demolition and replacement will be "discouraged". Where a replacement is permitted it is important that they "relate closely to the buildings they replace in terms of siting and size" and "that the resulting visual impact is appropriate for the countryside", it also encourages re-use of traditional stone and slate materials.
6.17 The current proposal sits on the same footprint as the existing dwelling and barn. The design of the new dwelling is a modern interpretation of the original cottage having a three bay arrangement albeit its proportions now enlarge likely due to modern building regulation needs. When calculating only the existing house (124sqm) for new house (191sq m) footprint there is a 54% increase which is greater than the 50% specified in HP14. When incorporating the footprint of the barn (45sqm) the calculation of the existing buildings footprint (169sqm) and new dwelling (191sqm) this results in a 13% increase. HP14 states that generally the design of
==== PAGE 11 ====
22/00390/B Page 11 of 14
the new building should be in accordance with 3/91 which it generally is. The policy also indicates that 'exceptionally' permission may be granted for innovative and modern design where this is of high quality although this proposal does not fall within this category it is not necessary given its design in line with 3/91. The applicants have indicated re-use of materials where possible some of which to be used on the new dwelling and the rest used to re-build farm walls.
6.18 HP14 finishes by indicating that "consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact." We know that on a strict reading of the dwelling footprint is over the 50% (although when factoring in the reality of it engulfing the barn the proposal is 13%). There is no interpretation of "poor form" in the Plan, 8.12.1 states "it may be preferable to consider the redevelopment of non-traditional dwellings or properties of poor form with buildings of a more traditional style" and that increases to size may be justified where it results in overall improvements to the appearance of the property. It also specifically indicates visual poor quality in this paragraph stating that "in the case of non-traditional properties, where these are of poor or unsympathetic appearance, extensions which would increase the impact of the property will generally not be acceptable". This somewhat could be interpreted that 'poor form' could be a combination of both poor visual quality and also of poor environmental quality such as its thermal efficiency or structural state of repair.
6.19 It is clear from earlier paragraphs of this report that the structural quality of the existing house and barn is far from ideal, and its thermal efficiency is perhaps typical of such a 150year old building. It is understood however that both buildings could be brought back into a better state of repair although this would be subject to cost. It would not be unreasonable to say that in their current standing the buildings are somewhat of 'poor form' and therefore in turning to the final part of HP14, it could be considered that the 54% increase here results in the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form, while it does not result in 'more traditional character' the design being in line with 3/91 could be considered to reflect and provide a continued traditional character. Lastly, while the proposal might not technically result in 'less' visual impact, but it is not expected to result in any increased visual impact particularly minded that it's set back a considerable distance from the road, is relatively screened from any prominent public view and clustered amongst other agricultural buildings. For these reasons the proposal would be considered to fall in line with the requirements and principles of HP14 when judged in isolation.
Summary 6.20 It is clear that we have two buildings here which are considered capable of being retained and renovated to an improved standard, but that this would be subject to considerable cost and one which is uneconomically viable to the current applicant. In isolation there are different policies in the strategic plan which would specifically cover works to a replacement dwelling (HP12 and HP14) and works to a barn (HP11). One key matter is whether the starting buildings are of any architectural, historic and/or social interest to warrant their protection, and it is clear that these two building would fall within this category warranting retention. Stepping outside of this, not only in acknowledging that the scheme is for the demolition of two structures which have a combined level of built development on the site, but in recognising the wider objectives of EP1 and HP14 in seeking to ensure that the visual quality of the countryside is not harmed and that development which results in an environmental improvement should be encouraged, it would be reasonable to conclude that the proposal would not adversely increase the visual impact of the site beyond the existing level of development on the site and that the replacement structure would likely have an improved environmental performance beyond the existing structures solely through its need to comply with current building regulations and standard thermal insulation requirements.
==== PAGE 12 ====
22/00390/B Page 12 of 14
6.21 It is undoubtable that it could be argued that there have been other rural barns in the countryside that have been in far worse condition than those before us now, and which applicants have fought tirelessly to justify their structural capability to warrant their retention and conversion subject to significant repair and reconstruction works so as to create new dwellings in the countryside. Comparatively in this case, the starting position is not for the creation of a new dwelling in the countryside but for a replacement and one which would allow the applicants family to continue living at the site and farming and operating the land.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The application has been very difficult to determine, in weighing up the pro's and con's between the retention of the structures in respect of those policies which seek to retain older buildings, and when judged against the support given to encouraging change which results in environmental improvements and proposals which do not result in any adverse visual harm to the wider rural landscape and countryside.
7.2 On a very fine balance, it is felt that the proposal falls within the tests of Housing Policy 14 and having an acceptable visual impact on the countryside both in terms of the latter part of Housing Policy 14 and Environment Policy 1 and tilts the balance in favour of support. While the loss of these two historic older buildings is regrettable and in years to come may be considered a real shame, until such a time that any other overriding policy is actioned, these applications must be weighed against the current Development Plan policies, and the specific situation of this site and merit of the application proposal which is not so unreasonable in terms of its overall size, scale and massing, and minded that the works will likely to go unnoticed to most of the public due to the position away from the road, that it would be perhaps unreasonable to reach any other conclusion than to support the application.
7.3 On this basis, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to a number of suitably worded conditions relating to the access works being carried out in accordance with the approved details, that bound material be installed nearest the main junction, that the annex remain ancillary and incidental to the main house and no separate use, that tree protection be installed prior to demolition and retained for the duration of the works, that landscaping be installed in first available planting season and that PDO shall be revoked for any further extensions, separate garage structures or fencing/walls so that these can be appropriately assessed in terms of principle, size and visual impact, and to safeguard no future separation of the site, that re-use of stone and slate materials on new building and site and notes reminding the applicant of their separate obligation sin respect of S109(a) and bat protection under the Wildlife Act 1990.
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
==== PAGE 13 ====
22/00390/B Page 13 of 14
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 can confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it 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: 10.10.2022
Signed : L KINRADE 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.
==== PAGE 14 ====
22/00390/B Page 14 of 14
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 10.10.2022
Application No 22/00390/B Applicant Nigel & Susan Lewney & Clark Proposal Erection of new dwelling to replace existing dwelling and barn including improvements to existing entrance Site Address Ballahig Foxdale Road The Hope St Johns Isle Of Man IM4 3AU
Planning Officer Miss Lucy Kinrade Presenting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer Report
Late representation received from the owner of South Cape, Laxey was verbally summarised and updated to the Planning Committee during the meeting. This representation did not change the recommendation being made other than clarification of the Interest Person Status (IPS) which would be updated to recognise the comment received and that they would not be granted IPS due to their location being outside of the 20m.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal