Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/01435/B Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/01435/B Applicant : Mr James Cryer Proposal : Conversion, extension and alteration of existing barn to form a new dwelling Site Address : Briarfield Grenaby Road Ballasalla Isle Of Man IM9 3DP
Planning Officer: Mrs Vanessa Porter Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 18.04.2023 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. Overall whilst the proposal would comply with a majority of Housing Policy 11, the proposal fails on a major part and does not comply with Housing Policy part (d) and sub paragraph (a), as the proposal is seeking to add an unsympathetic extension to the proposal which is inappropriate in terms of its design, mass and appearance. The proposed extension would have an adverse impact on the existing structure which is a traditional barn, especially when accounting the fact that views are likely of the proposal when traveling South to North. Ultimately the proposal falls down upon Housing Policy 11 and would also fail to comply with Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan 2016.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is within the curtilage of Briarfield, Grenaby Road, Ballasalla which is a site situated to the Western side of Grenaby Road, at its Southern end near to its junction with the A3 Foxdale Road.
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/01435/B Page 2 of 8
1.2 The site accommodates a dwelling, Briarfield, and its car port together with, to the South, a stone outbuilding and to the North another stone outbuilding with more recent outbuilding and stable immediately to the North of the house.
1.3 The barn which is the subject of the application lies to the South of the main dwelling and is a linear form, constructed stone building which has its front gable on the roadside with the fenestration detailing of a rendered with a door at first floor level and a garage door underneath.
1.4 Due to the siting of the barn, three of the elevations are visible from Grenaby Road.
THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The application seeks approval for the conversion of an outbuilding within the site to a separate dwelling. The proposed dwelling will be two storey in nature with a single storey extension and is to provide a kitchen/dining room, utility room, WC, living room, porch and study to ground floor and two bedrooms with an en-suite to first floor level.
2.2 The proposed living room extension is to measure 4.32m by 5.840m with an overall height of 4.486m of which the attached porch measures 2.05m by 2.269m with a cat slide roof which encompasses the porch and an uncovered area which measures 1.65m by 2.05m. No materials have been provided for the proposed extension.
2.3 The application also proposes the removal and re-building of the road side elevation 0.8m further back from the road "to achieve correct line of sight." The removal and rebuilding of the wall will also facilitate the removal of the existing garage door and installation of new window to ground floor level. The proposal is to re-use the existing stone to rebuild the gable wall.
2.4 There is proposed to be two dedicated parking spaces within the overall site to the West of the barn and the bin/bicycle and fuel storage will be situated within a small outbuilding, located to the South West of the barn.
2.5 The proposed barn is also to have an increase in height, whilst it is hard to ascertain what height this is from the drawings received, the most relevant detail comes out at a height increase of 0.55m. Other alterations include the installation of double doors to the South elevation, roof lights and replacement roof structure and replacement welsh slates.
2.6 A Structural Report is provided which highlights a number of constraints: the condition of the roof, a lean in the rear gable wall, the condition of the roof purlins supported on the west gable, the timber inner lintels, cracking to the external walls and the timber wall plate at first floor level together with limited head height at first floor level. The suggested remedial work to address the structural issues include the replacement of the timber lintels, the application of concrete stitches to tie the walls together and the remaining voids filled with cementitious grout, the replacement of the wall plate in short lengths and the resulting void filled with slate bedded in sand lime mortar.
2.7 The structural report within its conclusion also states in part that the "The western gable peak should be removed to first floor level and the cracked stonework stitched and grouted...The raising of the building should be accompanied by casting a concrete ring beam on top of the exposed walls and the ring beam should wrap around the perimeter walls resulting in the demolition of both gable peaks albeit the eastern gable is structurally sound."
2.7 The application is also accompanied by a bat survey, dated 6th July 2021 and a tree survey and report, dated 5th May 2020.
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/01435/B Page 3 of 8
PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 There are several applications on the site of which PA21/01462/B and PA19/01409/B are the relevant;
3.2 PA21/01462/B was for "Conversion of existing barn to form new dwelling with associated parking" which was approved with several conditions.
3.3 PA19/01409/B was for "Conversion and erection of extension to barn to provide ancillary living accommodation, which was refused for the following reasons;
Refusal 1: Not only would what is proposed not comply with HP 11d and sub paragraph a (it would not re-establish the original appearance of the dwelling which is considered desirable in this case as if it were not, then the proposal would fail paragraph c), what is proposed would have a harmful impact on the character of the area due to the unsympathetic alterations to the building which are not in keeping with its current simple form in terms of the new dormers, modern extension with inappropriate doors and canopy and the modern form of glazing in the roadside gable. The proposal therefore also contravenes Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan.
Refusal 2: The proposal would result in an intensification of substandard existing accesses and would result in a detrimental impact on highway safety, contrary to General Policy 2h and i of the Strategic Plan.
PLANNING POLICY
4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as "Not zoned for a particular purpose" on the Area Plan for the South, Map 3 - Proposals. The site is not within a Conservation Area nor a Flood Risk Zone.
4.2 Given the designation of the site and the nature of the development it is relevant to consider the following policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in the assessment of this application, General Policy 3 (b) in association with Housing Policy 11, both of which are for the conversion of rural buildings to dwelling, Environment Policy 1 for the protection of the countryside, Environment Policy 42 which seeks that new development takes into account the character and identify of the surrounding area, General Policy 2 for the general standards towards development, Transport Policy 7 with regards to parking standards, Strategic Policy 3 which requires that proposals should have regard to the use of local materials and character in their design and Strategic Policy 5which seeks that new development should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island.
4.3 It is also necessary to assess the proposal against Planning Circular 3/91 - Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside.
4.4 The recently released Residential Design Guidance 2021 is also a material consideration and whilst focused on dwellings within settlements, does offer advice in relation to the impacts on neighbours.
4.5 Furthermore consideration shall also be given to Community Policies 7 and 11 in respect of reducing outbreak of fire and preventing criminal activity and Infrastructure Policy 5 in respect of water conservation.
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 The following representations can be found in full online, below is a short summery;
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/01435/B Page 4 of 8
5.2 Highway Services have considered the proposal and state in part, "The driveway widening as proposed under PA21/01462/B has not been proposed for this application, despite pre- application advice suggesting such. The access is a width of 2.8m which is only sufficient for the movement of one vehicle at a time. Widening the driveway to 4.8m would allow dual access by pedestrians and vehicles and shared use with other on the side... All elements of the proposal are acceptable to Highways other than the width of the access. An increase in width to 4.8m would allow dual movement and shared use with other vehicles in the site, and result in a more favourable recommendation from Highways." (13.12.22)
5.3 Malew Commissioners have considered the proposal and have no objections. (12.12.22)
5.4 The Ecosystem Policy Officer has written in to state that whilst no evidence was found within the Bat Survey dated July 2021, there is still potential for a bat roost and as such checks should still be made for bats and they wish the applicant to consider erecting bat boxes on the outbuilding away from artificial lighting. (08.12.22)
ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;
6.2 PREAMBLE
6.2.1 Prior to the assessment of this application, it is relevant to note that there was a previously approved application under PA21/01462/B which approved the use as a dwelling. The main alterations with regards to this application is the removal of the front elevation away from the main roadside, the erection of the living room and porch extension and an alteration to the North elevation.
6.3 PRINCIPLE OF PROPOSAL / HOUSING POLICY 11
6.3.1 Turning towards the principle of the proposal, as per section 4 of this report, the site is situated within an area not designated for development, as General Policy 3 is the most relevant policy. When looking at the proposed barn conversion in relation to General Policy 3, we can see that the proposal fits within part b (conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11).
6.3.2 Housing Policy 11 has seven parts of which part a states that the structure must be redundant from its original use. Whilst no information has been provided to state that the structure is redundant from its previous use it can be seen that an application was received in 1998 which was for the erection of additional barn/stable block. It is also necessary to note that within the Appeal Inspectors report for PA19/01409/B, the inspector stated, "The barn is now surplus to requirements (and therefore redundant) as there are new stables, a car port and another stone barn within the curtilage of "Briarfield." It is therefore considered that redundancy has been established and the proposal conforms to Housing Policy 11 in this respect.
6.3.3 Turning towards part b) of Housing Policy 11 and whether the structure is substantially intact and capable of renovation. A structural report was received as part of this application, which states that the structure is intact and would be structurally suitable for the conversion to a dwelling. It was noted upon the previous application (PA21/01462/B), that the structural report stated there were issues with the West gable peak and that this wall might need to be re-built. The previous application did not show this wall being rebuilt and as such a condition
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/01435/B Page 5 of 8
was attached to make sure that a further application would be submitted. It is further noted in the supporting text of HP11 where the policy is explicit that; ”Permission will not be given for the rebuilding of ruins or the erection of replacement buildings of similar, or even, identical, form”. As such the alteration to the gable elevation would not be supported.
6.3.4 When looking at the removal of the wall in respect of this application, the agents have put on the drawings that the removal of the wall is to facilitate the visibility splay from the entrance and exit of the site and this can be seen by the reduction in the overall length of the barn itself. Whilst Housing Policy 11, does not provide any assistance in what "substantially complete" is, Housing Policy 13 which is for rural dwellings which have lost their former residential use and states that substantially intact means, "this will involve there being at least three of the walls, standing up to eaves level and structurally capable of being retained..."
6.3.5 With the above in mind, and from the information provided, you can clearly see that there is proposed to be three walls up to eaves level within the structure and as such it would comply with part b) of Housing Policy 11.
6.3.6 When looking at whether the proposal complies with part c) of Housing Policy 11, it can be seen that the structure is a relatively unspoilt example of a Manx outbuilding and as such is of architectural merit. The retention of the structure would be a benefit for the overall Manx countryside and as such it would comply with part c) of Housing Policy 11.
6.3.7 Turning towards part d) of Housing Policy 11, which requires that the structure should be large enough to form a satisfactory dwelling. The main difference in the proposal within this application and the previously approved PA21/01462/B is the proposed side extension. The previously approved application proved that the structure could provide a suitable dwelling without extensions.
6.3.8 Housing Policy 11 part d) does state "or with modest, subordinate extension which does not affect adversely the character or interest of the building" which is then followed by "Further extension of converted rural buildings will not usually be permitted, since this would lead to loss of reduction of the original interest and character" further down the policy.
6.3.9 With the above in mind it is necessary to also note the beginning half of paragraph 8.12.2 which is very relevant and states, "As there is a general policy against development in the Island's countryside, it is important that where development exists, either in a historic or recently approved form, it should not, when altered or extended detract from the amenities of the countryside. Care therefore must be taken to control the size and form of extensions to property in the countryside. In the case of traditional properties, the proportion and form of the building is sensitively balanced and extensions of inappropriate size or proportions will not be acceptable where these destroy the existing character of the property..."
6.3.10 Whilst there is currently policies and guidance within the Isle of Man System for the extension of traditional properties within the countryside, there is nothing which would lend advice to the extension of traditional barns as such, Paragraph 1.6.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 becomes relevant which states in part, "Accordingly, where unusual matters arise, or where there is no Manx guidance, it will often be appropriate and helpful to have regard to legal judgements or advice published in the UK or the EU."
6.3.11 With this in mind guidance has been lent from Historic England, Adapting Traditional Farm Buildings and Historic England, The Adaptive Reuse of Traditional Farm Buildings. Both of which lend guidance and advice on how traditional farm building can be extended whilst keeping the original character and appearance of the structure in place, as per Housing Policy 11.
==== PAGE 6 ====
22/01435/B Page 6 of 8
6.3.12 Page 37 of Historic England, Adapting Traditional Farm Buildings, section 3.11 New extensions and buildings states the following, "Overtly domestic extensions such as porches and conservatories are alien in character and can rarely work successfully within the context of historic farm buildings. However, a carefully designed extension or a new structure might be considered alongside a farm building if this will safeguard the significance of the main structure."
6.3.13 The above is in tune with what Planning Policy Statement, 3/91 states where it states, "Outbuildings and detached garages should be given as much consideration in their appearance as main buildings. They should match the main structure by the use of similar external materials and building forms and be directly linked if possible to external boundary walls."
6.3.14 Overall the previous proposal showed that the site could be a functioning dwelling without the need for an extension. The proposal within this site is adding in an overly domestic extension in the form of a porch and an addition to the porch in the form of additional living which wouldn't have been originally upon a traditional barn. With the proposed appearance of the extension not being in keeping with the overall appearance. There are many ways to extend a traditional barn which would be in keeping with the overall structure whilst not detracting from the overall appearance. The proportion, scale, size and materials are all unacceptable and out of keeping for the proposal. This ultimately would mean that the proposal would not comply with Housing Policy 11 part d).
6.3.15 Turning towards whether the proposal would comply with part e) of Housing Policy 11. The proposed conversion of the barn is not considered to be incompatible with the adjoining established use of "Briarfield," which can be seen as residential. The proposed residential use of the barn would not have adverse impact upon "Briarfield" in terms of overlooking, loss of light or overbearing impact. Therefore, there is no reason to assume its use for residential purposes would be incompatible with adjacent uses; although the additional comings and goings associated with its use would be more impacting than the current redundant use.
6.3.16 With regards to part f) of Housing Policy 11 and whether the proposal supplies satisfactory services without unreasonable public expense. Whilst the proposal within this application proposes to keep the original entrance and exit from the site, they have proposed to assist the sight lines by the removal and re-building of the front of the structure. Whilst Highway Services have requested an increase of the site to 4.8m to allow dual access, the existing site is historic and this application is not ultimately proposing to make worse the entrance, as such it is deemed to comply with part f).
6.3.17 Lastly with regards to Housing Policy 11, which requires that conversions should: (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.
6.3.18 Firstly with regards to the main structure itself, it can be seen that there are alterations which include the installation of doors and windows within the structure, with no reference to state what the materials or even the openings which would be in place, apart from the fact that the rooflights would be heritage typed.
6.3.19 Turning towards the proposed extension, whilst no details have been provided upon the opening and materials of the windows or doorway, what can be seen is that the proposal would be roughcast render and the roof would be slate. The addition of a slate roof is an acceptable material for the proposal. The proposed roughcast render would not be an acceptable covering for the proposal and would be out of keeping with an extension upon a traditional barn.
==== PAGE 7 ====
22/01435/B Page 7 of 8
6.3.20 Overall based on the information above, when accounting the lack of information upon the application and the inappropriate use of roughcast render, the proposal would not comply with the last part of Housing Policy 11, and when accounting for the fact that the proposal would not account for part d) of Housing Policy 11 ultimately it would not comply and the principle of the proposal isn't accepted.
6.4 IMPACT ON HIGHWAYS
6.4.1 When looking at the impact towards Highway Safety, DOI Highways state, "The driveway widening as proposed under PA21/01462/B has not been proposed for this application, despite pre-application advice suggesting such. The access is a width of 2.8m which is only sufficient for the movement of one vehicle at a time. Widening the driveway to 4.8 would allow dual access by pedestrians and vehicles and shared use with other on the site."
6.4.2 Overall when looking at the impact to Highways, the proposal within this application, whilst removing part of the structure to assist sight line, the proposal is less than what was previous approved. Whilst this is the case, the proposal within this application is acceptable.
6.4.3 Using the barn as an additional dwelling on the site will have no additional impacts to Briarfield with regards to Highway Safety, firstly as there are two designated spaces for the barn, in accordance with Transport Policy 7 and secondly the proposed works to the entrance will assist in the whole site being afforded better manoeuvring into and out of the site.
6.5 RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES FOR FUTURE OCCUPANTS
6.5.1 The internal accommodation of the proposed dwelling consists of living room, kitchen/dining room with utility room and toilet to ground floor level and two bedrooms with en-suites to first floor level. It is considered that the internal accommodation would be an acceptable size, and all primary rooms would have adequate level of outlook and light
6.6 OTHER MATTERS
6.6.1 When looking at the other matters, the proposed replacement dwelling will not create any issues with regards to criminal activity or the spread of fire and could potential reduce it by not having an empty building in an easily accessible place. The proposal whilst adding height is not increasing any surface area, with all water run off going into the existing soakaways. Whilst the proposal will add more water usage due to the increase in bedrooms, this is weighed up with the use of a derelict building which would be an advantage to the surrounding area.
CONCLUSION
7.1 Overall whilst the proposal would comply with a majority of Housing Policy 11, the proposal fails on a major part and does not comply with Housing Policy part (d) and sub paragraph (a), as the proposal is seeking to add an unsympathetic extension to the proposal which is of an inappropriate in terms of its design, mass and appearance. The proposed extension would have an adverse impact on the proposed structure which is a traditional barn, especially when accounting the fact that views are likely of the proposal when traveling South to North. Ultimately as the proposal falls down upon Housing Policy 11 it would also fail to comply with Environment Policy 1.
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);
==== PAGE 8 ====
22/01435/B Page 8 of 8
(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: 19.04.2023
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