Loading document...
Application No.: 16/00908/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Anthony Kneen Proposal: Alterations, erection of a porch and erection of a side bungalow extension and side three storey extension to create two additional dwellings Site Address: Upper Billown Farm Grenaby Road Ballasalla Isle Of Man IM9 3DP Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 24.08.2016 Site Visit: 24.08.2016 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is a small part of a larger farmholding on the western side of the Grenaby Road (B41). Included within the site is the farm access lane that extends some 1.2km through Ballavell Farm to the east and also past the easternmost of three Upper Billown Farms in the area: this one lies around 200m to the east but served by the same lane. The lane goes on to provide access to the northernmost Upper Billown Farm, while the final Upper Billown Farm - the subject of this application - sits to the south of the former and west of the latter. All three appear to be occupied and farmed independently - 1.2 The site includes a farmhouse, which is occupied, and a barn that lies around 16m to the west but is not the subject of this application. The farmhouse is three storeys in height albeit that the formal accommodation appears over the lower two floors: the uppermost storey is subdivided into five rooms, all of which are annotated as 'storage' on the Existing plans. - 1.3 The farmhouse is clearly an older building and in that sense has some character to it, but it has been extend to front, rear and one side - with one of the front extensions also extending beyond the otherwise un-extended side elevation, the dwelling has, arguably, been extended on all four sides. This has understandably reduced the quality and character of what was once probably quite an attractive rural dwelling. All the extensions are single storey in height but, because they are of different shapes and heights, and moreover one of the extensions is a conservatory, there is no particular uniformity to the form or massing of them, which is perhaps to the benefit of the dwelling in some small fashion. - 1.4 Much of the dwelling is finished in render, of differing eras, but the rear extension is finished in stone; some of the extensions are finished in brick while the conservatory is classically uPVC in finish. It has a pair of robust chimneys that bookend the main dwelling's gable walls. - 1.5 Also within the site are some farm buildings, while the wider landholding (edged in blue on the submitted drawings) lies to the west. Owing to the site's distance from adopted highways, and also its isolation (albeit less pronounced) from public footpaths, the farmholding will only be discerned from a really quite significant distance. There is a public footpath that connects Ballavell Farm with the other two Upper Billown Farms, but this bypasses the Farm the subject of this application site.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the removal of all the extensions bar the existing conservatory, and for the erection of a pair of side extensions and two porch extensions to the building, which together would provide for an additional two dwellings on the site. Accordingly, the existing farmhouse would be altered and extended to provide three dwellings. - 2.2 The largest of the two side extensions would match the massing of the existing farmhouse, and would extend it from just under 10m by another 6.2m. The larger extension would have a porch leading into the ground floor accommodation of kitchen / diner and living room. Above would be a home office and study and bathroom, and above this in the attic would be a pair of bedrooms. The extension would be connected into the existing farmhouse via a single door at ground floor level by the staircase. - 2.3 The other side extension is single storey in height and has the appearance of a bungalow. This would also have its own porch, leading into solely ground floor accommodation comprising a pair of bedrooms, a living room, a kitchen / dining room and a TV room. It too would be connected to the existing farmhouse by a single internal door at ground floor level within the TV room. - 2.4 The third porch would be attached to the existing farmhouse. - 2.5 Five rooflights are proposed for each roof plane of the extended farmhouse: the 'bungalow' extension would have two in each. Replacement windows with Georgian styling (either six-over-six or three-over-six lights, depending on the size of the aperture) are shown in the front elevation, while the more Victorian style at the rear would be retained - albeit that windows to match these are proposed afresh in the side elevations. - 2.6 Each of the porches, which would be faced with stone, would have doors in their side elevations.
place of work" can be an exception to the principle that development will not be permitted on land not zoned for it) and Housing Policies 7-10, inc., which together set out the justification required for the Department to support such a proposal, along with the design, form, location and agricultural tie that would be expected should such a justification be demonstrated. He states:
"The extension of the farmhouse is essential to house the family who work on the farm, continue to maintain the existing farming business, build up the current (Peter's) agricultural contracting business and re-house Mr & Mrs Kneen into more suitable accommodation for the aging years and ill health.
"The design works in accordance with Housing Policies 8, 9 & 10. Upper Billown Farm has been in the Kneen Family for a number of years and will continue to be part of the family's livelihood for a number of years to come, which is the sole reason to extend the current property for future generations of the family."
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 There is an extant planning approval for the conversion of the stone barn within the application site into three separate dwellings: PA 14/00988/B expires on 3rd December 2018. It is understood, from correspondence received from the architect prior to the application's submission, that the approved conversion works have become uneconomical and difficult to predict and manage. - 3.2 Separately, and roughly 200m to the northeast of the application site (but still within land controlled by the applicants), PA 11/01442/A was submitted seeking Approval in Principle for the erection of an agricultural worker's dwelling. This was refused under officer delegation, a decision subsequently confirmed at appeal. The two reasons for refusal read as follows:
"The applicant is encouraged to consider an extension to the main dwelling to provide accommodation which would be suitable for his and his wife's present and future needs without creating a completely separate dwelling."
This advice, if heeded, does not appear to have been acted upon to date.
3.4 Although officers clearly were sympathetic to the health issues affecting the elder Mr Kneen, the Inspector's view was that personal circumstances "rarely outweigh more general planning considerations" (his paragraph 22). He also note that, while there is provision under Strategic Plan Housing Policy 7 and paragraph 8.9.3 to take account of retiring farmers' ability / intention to help with the operation of a farm when the Department assesses applications seeking new agricultural workers' dwellings, the age and declining health of the elder Mr Kneen made it "very unlikely that the level of help which would continue to be available for the holding from the prospective occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be sufficient" (his paragraph 20) to satisfy that paragraph and policy provision.
3.5 With regards the essential need for a new agricultural worker's dwelling in this location, he noted that Upper Billown Farm supports only 0.25 labour units, albeit that this increased to 1.77 labour units when including the agricultural contracting business. The Inspector agreed with the view of another Inspector considering a similar proposal elsewhere on the Island in reaching his view that, while convenient, an agricultural contractor business should not be considered "as contributing to the housing needs on a farm holding [since] the labour requirement involved in contracting is associated with other land elsewhere…and so there is no essential link between the contractor's work and any need to live on the holding" (his paragraph 18). - 3.6 Finally, he agreed with the Department that, while a secondary consideration (since the essential need for a new dwelling had not been demonstrated), the proposed siting for the dwelling failed to comply with Housing Policy 8 - and, he also noted, Environment Policy 15 - which together require new development be located near to existing building groups. - 3.7 The application was refused on 2nd December 2011, meaning it is potentially within the Department's remit to refuse to consider the new application on grounds that it might be considered 'substantially the same' as PA 11/01442/A - however, on the grounds that the application sites are different (even if the land controlled is not) and now proposed are two dwellings rather than one, it is considered it would be unreasonable to take such an approach.
4.1 The site lies within an area zoned on the Area Plan for the South as 'open space' and therefore is not designated for any particular purpose. As such, there is a presumption against development as set out in Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3. - 4.2 As noted, though, there is provision for the erection of new agricultural workers' dwellings where the workers have to live close to their place of business under part (a) of the latter policy and, thereafter, as set out in Housing Policies 7-10 inc. It is worth noting those policies in full:
4.3 It is worth, in this case, also considering a couple of Strategic Policies:
Strategic Policy 2: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be
permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3" (which is General Policy 3).
Strategic Policy 10: "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:
"This proposal is to extend an existing farmhouse to become 3 dwellings. The farm is served by a long farm track that serves several properties and for part of its length is a public right of way. There will be an increase in the number of vehicles using the access and the lane increasing the risk of collision to existing pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
"Highway services recommend deferral of this application until details of any improvements that may be required to the visibility at the access to the highway and the provision of passing places along the lane are provided."
5.2 Malew Commissioners have not responded to the application. - 6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 At the outset, it is important to repeat the statement of the case officer considering PA
6.2 However, it must also be remembered that personal circumstances rarely override general planning considerations. This was a clear point made by the Inspector in consideration of that 2011 application, and endorsed by the Minister in his refusing the application on the grounds recommended by the Inspector. - 6.3 This is an unusual application for a number of reasons. Firstly, proposed here is the extension to an existing property to provide additional dwellings, albeit that these would have a single connecting door to the existing dwelling. As such, it is not appropriate to assess the proposal against either Housing Policies 15 or 16 as would normally be the case in such circumstances. Secondly, the agent to the application has based his argument on essential agricultural need for not
6.9 The application does not propose new dwellings in detached buildings, and the application also argues that there is a need for the families to reside close by to one another for physical and emotional support. To some people, this might seem a more acceptable way forward than one or two new, standalone dwellings as it appears to propose what is often erroneously considered 'ancillary accommodation'. That the proposed drawings show doors connecting the three units of accommodation is a red herring. Each unit is a separate dwelling in its own right: no occupants of any of them would be reliant upon another one for their day-to-day needs. It would be unreasonable, unlawful and consequently inappropriate to conclude that the two extensions comprised anything other than two additional Planning units - i.e. new dwellings in the countryside. It is perhaps worth stating that the concerns raised with the submitted application would be essentially identical were the application to propose a standalone detached bungalow and a standalone detached dwelling with home office. Though the physical works on the site would be different, the impacts arising from them - setting aside design considerations - would be identical. - 6.10 There is no more justification for this application than there was for that submitted in 2011. That the new dwellings would be linked to the existing farmhouse does not outweigh the fundamental principles outlined in the Strategic Plan that seek to ensure sustainable patterns of development (Strategic Policies 2 and 10) or those that seek to protect the countryside for its own sake (Environment Policy 1; General Policy 3). It is therefore concluded that the application represents unwarranted development in the countryside and should be refused on this ground accordingly. - 6.11 It remains appropriate to consider the design of the extensions proposed. Since the extensions are dwellings in their own right, consideration of their design must be done in the context of General Policy 2. While this policy does only refer to land zoned for development, it outlines key criteria for design assessment and is the only Strategic Plan policy to do so. As such, setting this policy aside would leave no policy to assess the application against. - 6.12 The existing dwelling has been much-altered and, while it clearly benefits from some positive features - robust chimneys, stone facing, a strong and robust central form that remains somewhat distinct from the piecemeal extensions - it has lost much of its character. The extensions proposed would, it is considered, have a beneficial impact on the building's overall appearance. The removal of the existing extensions and conversion of the building to one that would more obviously (though by no means archetypally) reflect the rarer, 'five-bay' dwellings found in the Manx countryside and illustrated in Planning Circular 3/91 is welcome. - 6.13 The design of bungalow extension is perhaps less welcome but is by no means unacceptable in and of itself; it is appropriately subordinate to the main body of the building and, although not benefitting from a slight setback as might normally be expected, has a porch that would extend forwards from the main elevation and this would help reduce its prominence as a result. - 6.14 Stone finish on the porches is appropriately distinct from the render of the main building and although there could be some reservations with regards their size, position and number relative to the building's windows, any such concern is considered to be fairly minor and insufficient reason alone to object to the application - particularly in light of the otherwise acceptable nature of the design proposed. - 6.15 In terms of the highway safety implications, it is noted that the access onto Grenaby Road is acceptable and there is more than sufficient parking across the site to accommodate all the dwellings (both those approved and those proposed).
7.1 The favourable findings in respect of design and highway safety, and the personal circumstances of the applicant, cannot outweigh the harm identified in terms of the principle of the proposal and, accordingly, it is recommended that the application be refused. As such, the
application proposes what is concluded to be unwarranted development in the countryside and, irrespective of the acceptable impacts in highway safety and visual impact terms, it remains fundamentally contrary to Strategic Policy 2, Strategic Policy 10, Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan, which collectively seek to promote sustainable patterns of development and to protect the Manx countryside for its own sake.
7.2 It is worth bearing in mind that no agricultural worker tie could be attached to any of the two dwellings here proposed. Neither is intended to be occupied by someone whose current employment is in full-time agriculture, and so any such condition would be breached the moment either dwelling was occupied - should they be occupied by the people named in the application. Accordingly, and as noted throughout this report, were the recommendation to be overturned this would represent an approval being issued to two new dwellings on land in the countryside. - 7.3 This conclusion is without prejudice to a further application seeking approval for a modest extension to the existing farmhouse in a manner that could be considered as 'ancillary' to it in Planning terms.
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 05.09.2016
R 1. Notwithstanding the continued sympathy for the applicant's personal circumstances, the application fails to clearly demonstrate an agricultural or other justification for two new dwellings in this location and, as such, proposes unwarranted development in the countryside. Irrespective of the acceptable impacts in highway safety and visual impact terms, the application remains fundamentally contrary to Strategic Policy 2, Strategic Policy 10, Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, which collectively seek to promote sustainable patterns of development and to protect the Manx countryside for its own sake.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Interim Director of Planning and Building Control in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 12.09.2016 Determining officer
Signed : J CHANCE Jennifer Chance Interim Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
