**Document:** Planning Officer Report
**Application:** 11/01518/B — Demolition and replacement of existing dwelling including renovation of existing barns (Amendments to PA 11/00033/B)
**Decision:** Permitted
**Decision Date:** 2012-03-06
**Parish:** Braddan
**Document Type:** report / officer_report
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/1913-mount-rule-ballacaroon-farm-replacement-demolition/documents/1260450

---

# Planning Officer Report

Case Officer: Mr Ian Brooks Photo Taken: Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

### Officer's Report

THIS APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE RATHER THAN UNDER DELEGATED POWERS, AS THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION WAS DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE.

### The Application Site

1. The application site comprises the curtilage of a dwelling and number of redundant stone and pre-fabricated outbuildings at Ballacaroon Farm, Mount Rule, Braddan. The dwelling, which is currently unoccupied, is located directly adjacent to the road. To the north of site is the A23 (West Baldwin Road) and to the west of the site is Mount Rule Equestrian Centre. To the east of the site is an unmade access lane. The application site is approximately 0.5ha in area.

### Proposed Development

2. The proposed development comprises the demolition of existing and erection of a replacement dwelling and renovation of existing barns to form a single dwelling.

### Planning History

3. The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, a number of which could be considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:

4. Planning application 98/01235/A sought planning approval in principle for the erection of a replacement dwelling on the application site. This previous planning application was approved on the 24th November 1998. This planning approval was not implemented.

5. Planning application 99/00097/A sought planning approval in principle for demolition of buildings to create four building plots on the application site. This previous planning application was refused on the 14th June 1999.

6. Planning application 06/01535/A sought planning approval in principle for the erection of a replacement dwelling, renovation of existing stone barn and access improvements on the application site. This previous planning application was refused on the 3rd January 2006.

[Table omitted in markdown export]

7. Planning application 07/00540/A sought planning approval in principle for the erection of a replacement dwelling and renovation and extension to existing stone barn on the application site. This previous planning application was approved on the 13th July 2007.

8. Planning application 09/01154/REM sought planning approval for the reserved matters for the erection of a replacement dwelling and conversion of outbuildings to guest accommodation and garaging on the application site. The application was withdrawn.

9. Planning application 11/00033/B sought planning approval for Demolition of existing and erection of a replacement dwelling and renovation of existing barns to form a single dwelling. This application was granted on the 1st April 2011.

### Representations

10. Braddan Parish Commissioners have no objection to the planning application.

11. The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division have not commented on the application.

### Planning Policy

12. In terms of local plan policy, the application site is located within a wider area of land that is designated as open space (agricultural) under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Braddan Parish District Local Plan) Order 1991 – Plan No. 2.

13. Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: General Policy 3, Housing Policies, 4, 11, 12 and 14

14. Housing Policy 4 states:

"New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:

- (a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10;
- (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and
- (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14."

15. 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:

- (g) where practicable and desirable, re-establish the original appearance of the building; and
- (h) 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."

16. Housing Policy 12 states:

"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.

In assessing whether a property has lost its habitable status by abandonment, regard will be had to the following criteria:

- (i) the structural condition of the building;
- (ii) the period of non-residential use or non-use in excess of ten years;
- (iii) evidence of intervening use; and
- (iv) evidence of intention, or otherwise, to abandon."

17. 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, 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."

## ASSESSMENT

18. This application is seeking an amendment to an extant planning permission (11/00033/B), which was granted permission on the 1st April 2011. Firstly it is important to consider the case of the applicants, as this is finely balanced application.

Applicant's case

19. "The applicants are now wishing to make some amendments to the appearance of the main building. The footprint of the buildings remains largely unchanged. In respect of the floor space, this is proposed to be reduced from 584 square metres to 574 square metres. The original concept of maintain the form and appearance of a farm group has been maintained.

The client felt that the quality of the design of the main building in PA 11/00033/B did not adequately reflect the overall size of the building. The re-design of this element has been based on the same profile as the typical extended farmhouse as illustrated in Design Circular 3/91 as an acceptable example of a design of house in the countryside. There are numerous examples of both new and old five windowed extended farmhouses (photographs submitted with the planning application) on the Isle of Man with many of them having been recently constructed.

It has also been agreed subsequent to the consent of PA 11/00033/B that the design of the main building in this previous consent didn't particularly adhere to Design Circular 3/91 as it was neither a three nor a five windowed farmhouse, being the two examples contained with the design guideline.

We were of the opinion that the proposed changes would be straightforward and viewed favourably as they more rigidly follow the principles set out in 3/91 and arguably produce a more attractive development.

The response received back from the Planning Officers was that they were unhappy with the increase in the size of the main building and considered the new proposal "too grand" and were concerned about the visual impact of the proposal.

A meeting with Officers and the Director of Planning was held and some further amendments to the proposal were made namely the introduction of a gable feature on the eaves to break up the longitudinal mass of the building and changing the cladding of the main building from render to stone finish further reducing any visual impact.

Exchanges in correspondence however indicate that the Officers still have concerns over visual impact and have asked us to demonstrate compliance with current Planning Policies."

20. The agents have then gone on to demonstrate compliance with current policies and guidelines. They have made the following statements, which are taken from their design statement.

"The relevant Policy guidelines relating to this site are Housing Policy 14 of the Island Strategic Plan and Planning Circular 3/91"

"Firstly it is important to review the Planning History on the site and recognise that the permission granted in April 2011 is still live and can therefore be implemented. Under UK Planning, whilst an expired permission is "relevant consideration", an extant permission is considered to be "vitally material consideration" (Spackman v SOS 1977)."

"As mentioned above the Planning Officer recognised the significant weight attributable to the expired Outline Consent in 2007 when recommending approval of my Client's previous permission."

"Thus the existence of an extant permission relating to a site of a proposed development is particularly important consideration for two reasons:

a) That the development for which permission has been given could be implemented should any later permission be refused. b) Natural Justice: It is not fair administration to all one permission and then subsequently deny permission for something similar."

"Failure to take into account development which could take place even if a current planning application were refused has been a matter upon which the UK courts have ruled on several occasions and there are numerous case law such as Chichester 27/03/08. The erection of a dwelling of classical design in the AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) was allowed as the Inspector noted the fallback position of an extant permission for a dwelling."

"Planning Consent 11/00033/B obtained Approval in April 2011 and was judged to be compliant with all aspects of Housing Policy 14 and Design Circular 3/91. This existing consent is of a material consideration when determining this submission. It is therefore contended that if this Application doesn't materially differ from the previous consent, which we believe it doesn't, and is of a dwelling of very similar scale and massing then there is no reason for this Application to be refused.

There are only three changes to the consented scheme 1) The overall length of the elevation has been reduced to    by reducing the size of the replica barn structure; 2) the size of the main building within this overall elevation has been increased by    [officer's measurement -   ]; 3) the removal of the lobby to the front elevation and balcony to the rear elevation."

"We are of the opinion that these do not amount to any material difference between these two applications."

Size

"Housing Policy 14 is primarily concerned about the permissible size of the replacement dwellings in the countryside."

"As mentioned above the site had the benefit of an Outline Consent in 2007 for a replacement dwelling of 670 square metres. Furthermore by virtue of PA 11/00033/B the site has an existing Detailed Consent for a building of 584 square metres."

"Our current proposal is for a dwelling of 574 square metres so a reduction from both previous consented schemes. Therefore, bearing in mind the previous consents, and in particular PA 11/00033/B, the proposed size of the house cannot be an issue".

### Massing and Visual Impact

#### Housing Policy 14 states:

"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"

"Once again we would draw your attention to the fact that PA 11/00033/B was judged to be compliant with Housing Policy 14 and was approved. We consider the minor proposed changes do not depart substantially from the previous Application and do not materially change the mass or visual impact from the consented scheme and consequently comparison between the current application and PA 11/00033/B is highly relevant in determining the acceptability of this application."

"The proposed dwelling sits on the same footprint as the approved scheme and the overall length of the main elevation has been reduced by 1.5m. Furthermore the main building in the consented scheme was finished in white render whereas the main building is now to be finished in stone. Both of these two changes will serve to reduce the visual impact of the building."

"As you will note in Appendix 3, the comparison of the elevations of the consented scheme and this application clearly demonstrate that there has been a net reduction in the overall mass of this application of some 5.3 square metres and hence a reduction in the visual impact."

"In addition to this and the reduction in the overall floor area, there is also a reduction in the whole footprint of the development which again must go towards reducing visual impact."

"Planning Officers usually assess impact in relation to publicly accessible vantage points. Due to the former use of the site as landfill, the ground has been artificially raised to the south and east. Any views of the rear of the building group are therefore restricted to distant views from the Lhergy Cripperty as the artificial plateau closes sight lines from the lower ground levels to the site."

"At Appendix 4 we have attached a photo montage of the view from Lhergy Cripperty which clearly demonstrates that the rear of the group of buildings is invisible from the only public vantage point. This has been accepted by the Planning Officer that this demonstrates that the building would have little impact on the countryside when viewed from this point."

"Clearly the only other view of the group of buildings is from the A23 Strang Road which runs along the front boundary of the site. The existing derelict farmhouse sits immediately adjacent to the Strang Road with the rear wall sitting directly on the boundary of the road."

"The existing house is therefore very prominent and visually intrusive and by setting the main area of accommodation back off the road this considerably lessens the visual impact when compared to the current position of the existing farmhouse."

### Design Circular 3/91

"Design Circular 3/91 sets out the design principles for rural dwellings including their proportion and form and as PA11/00033/B was approved it can be reasonably assumed that the Department and Committee felt that the application not only complied with 3/91 but offered a significant improvement over the existing dwelling and outbuildings as justification to the significant increase in floor area over the existing dwelling."

"Our proposal for the main building is the same profile of a typical farmhouse as illustrated in Policy 4 of the Design Guide as an acceptable example of a design for a house in the countryside. The original concept of a farm group is unaltered."

"There are numerous examples of both new and old five windowed farmhouses throughout the Isle of Man and we have attached at Appendix 5 a number of examples. To state that this form of design is inappropriate is both inconsistent and at odds with all the relevant Planning Policy."

### Planning Officer's Case

21. The planning application seeks planning approval for the erection of a replacement dwelling and renovation of existing barns to form a single dwelling. The proposal was the subject of pre-application discussion with the applicant's agent.

22. It can be seen that in terms of principle there is provision for the replacement of existing dwellings and conversion of redundant buildings in the countryside through planning policy contained with the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. As such, the general principle behind the proposed development is acceptable and therefore the main purpose of the planning application is to assess the site specific impact and acceptability. In terms of these the two main planning policies to consider are Housing Policy 11 and Housing Policy 14.

23. In respect of the renovation of the existing barns it is considered that this part of the proposed development accords with the provisions of Housing Policy 11. These buildings are clearly redundant, they are substantially intact, they are of architectural interest, and they are large enough to readily convert. The application is not accompanied by a structural engineer's report; however, the previous application included a report, which suggests that although it may be costly to do so there is no reason why the existing buildings proposed to be retained could not be renovated in accordance with the proposed development. The incorporation of the buildings into a residential development would not be harmful to surrounding properties and there is no known reason why services could not be readily supplied.

24. When assessing the proposed replacement dwelling it is necessary to have regard to the provisions of Housing Policy 14. A key part of this policy is the increase in size that a planning application proposes. In this instance the existing dwelling has a floor area of approximately 225 square metres and the proposed dwelling a floor area of approximately 574 square metres, with the new dwelling linked to the converted barns to form one overall dwelling. It should be noted the previous application (11/00033/B) proposed a dwelling with a floor area of 584 square metres. This application is a slight reduction on the previously approved scheme.

25. It is considered that the acceptance of a larger dwelling on the application site established by previous planning applications carries significant weight on the assessment of the current proposal. On that basis there are grounds for allowing development of the size proposed by the current planning application, although it is still necessary to consider the design and impact on amenity.

26. The proposed development retains the design concept of previously approved scheme by creating a courtyard development. This design concept was considered to be an attractive and suitably traditional form of development within a rural setting that works well within the application site.

27. However, the design of the proposed dwelling has been subject of post-submission discussion with the applicant's and their agents, as the application has suggested a number of amendments to that previously approved.

28. There are four changes to the consented scheme 1) The overall length of the elevation has been reduced to  by reducing the size of the replica barn structure; 2) the size of the main building within this overall elevation has been increased by ; 3) the removal of the lobby to the

front elevation and balcony to the rear elevation. 4) the main building will be finished in Manx stone instead of painted render.

29. In respect of the front elevation, the approved dwelling was a painted render dwelling with a front projecting lobby area, which was to be finished in stone. The approved dwelling is fairly subservient in scale to the overall approved scheme. The current application is proposing a five windowed dwellinghouse to be finished in stone. The length of the main building will be marginal increased. The proposed dwellinghouse will appear grand in nature. However, the amendments suggested are an improvement on the approved scheme.

30. In respect of the rear elevation, the approved dwelling was a painted render dwelling with a balcony. The approved dwelling is fairly subservient in scale to the overall approved scheme. The window arrangement on the two storey side extension was irregular in nature. The current application is proposing a five windowed rear elevation, which is to be finished in stone. The length of the main building will be marginal increased. The extension to the side has been shortened. The windows have been designed to be regular, i.e. one window above another window. The rear elevation appears more domesticated compared to the approved scheme. The approved two storey extension to dwellinghouse appears more like a barn conversion. This elevation gives Officer's more concern. However, the rear elevation is not readily visible from any public vantage points. On balance, it is considered the proposal would not adversely affect the visual amenities of the locality.

31. None of the amendments proposed will cause any undue harm to the private amenity of surrounding properties.

### Recommendation

32. It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions in the attached schedule.

### Party Status

33. The local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.

34. The Highways Division is part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part of. As such, the Highways Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.

### Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted

Date of Recommendation: 14.02.2012

### Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval
N : Notes attached to conditions
R : Reasons for refusal
- : Notes attached to refusals

C 1.

The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

### C 2.

This permission relates to the demolition and replacement of the existing dwelling including renovation of existing barns as shown in drawing numbers SC1185-P/10/01 date stamped 28th October 2011, SC1185-P/10/03 Rev B date stamped 7th February 2012, SC1185-P/10/04 Rev B, SC1185-P/10/05 Rev B, SC1185-P/10/05 Rev B, SC1185-P/10/06 Rev B, SC1185-P/10/07 Rev B, SC1185-P/10/08 Rev A, SC1185-P/10/09 Rev A, SC1185-P/12/01 Rev B, SC1185-P/12/02 Rev B, SC1185-P/12/03 Rev B and SC1185-P/12/04 date stamped 2nd February 2012. Design statement date stamped 2nd February 2012.

### C 3.

No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and those works shall be carried out as approved. Details of hard landscaping works shall include boundary treatment, footpaths, driveways and hard surfacing materials. The hard landscaping works shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details within 3 months of the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted; and all planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details in the first planting and seeding seasons following that first occupation. Any tree or shrub which within 5 years from completion of the development dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of similar size and species, unless the Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005

Decision Made : ...
Committee Meeting Date : ...

Signed : ...
Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate

YES/NO

---

*Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).*
*Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/1913-mount-rule-ballacaroon-farm-replacement-demolition/documents/1260450*