Loading document...
Application No.: 16/00220/B Applicant: Mr Kris Killip & Miss Emma O'Shiel Proposal: Conversion and extension of redundant barn to provide a residential dwelling Site Address: Kiondroghad Barn Orrisdale Kirk Michael Isle Of Man Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
1.1 The site is a piece of land which accommodates a redundant barn at the north eastern end together with the vehicular access and an agricultural field to the south west. The majority of the area edged red on plan 15/2466/01 is agricultural field. The barn is currently roofless and having had planning approval for conversion to a dwelling (PA 10/01089/b and 15/00846/B) the site has had some work undertaken to implement that approval - some of the site being levelled, material being built up around some existing trees and on the site visit there were piles of stone, blocks and sand. - 1.2 The building has a footprint of 6m by 13.8m and an eaves level of 2.8m on one side and 2.35m on the other as the ground levels differ from front to rear. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the conversion of the building to a dwelling with an extension at the north western side. The scheme has been amended since originally being submitted following concerns raised by the Planning Officer in relation to Housing Policy 11 (see e-mail of 16/03/16). The scheme turns the existing building into an L-shape through the addition of a new element which is 12.5m long, projecting out past the frontage of the existing building by almost 7m. The window and door openings on the northern elevation are to be retained but made smaller and two existing apertures on the southern elevation are to be closed up and three new openings introduced. - 2.2 The new element will be finished in timber cladding - tongue and groove western cedar - to distinguish it from the existing, with a standing seam sheeted roof and this is to be linked to the barn by an aluminium framed glazed two storey height section. - 2.3 The applicants' agent supports the application, stating that the scheme meets the requirements of HP11 other than the extension which is not modest and subordinate although they consider that the proposal does not adversely affect the character or appearance of the existing barn. They have designed the scheme such that the new respects the old but is distinguishable from it with the glazed element breaking this up by providing a step between the two. As the extension is further from the road than is the barn, then the latter will remain the dominant element in the group. Furthermore, the height of the existing roadside hedges will effectively hide the extension from view other than perhaps from a few points along the road. They suggest that the buildings in the vicinity
3.1 The site lies within an area designated on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as open space and High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance and the site also lies within an area of archaeological interest although there are no obvious features of interest on the application site. - 3.2 There is therefore a presumption against development as set out in General Policy 3 but there is provision for the conversion of buildings as follows:
Housing Policy 11: "Conversion of existing rural buildings into dwellings may be permitted but only where,
Permission will not be given for the rebuilding of ruins or the erection of replacement building of similar, or even identical form.
Further extension of converted buildings will not usually be permitted, since this would lead to loss or reduction of the original interest and character."
REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services and Michael Commissioners indicate that they do not oppose the application (3rd and 8th March, 2016). - 4.2 The Forestry Officer of DEFA does not object to the amended proposal which will remove all of the mature trees around the building and their replacement by three new oak, elm or birch between
the building and the road and more trees in a similar line along the roadside boundary although he would like clarification of the exact position and species of tree (18.05.16).
5.1 The key issue in this case is whether the proposal complies with the provisions of Housing Policy 11 and if not, whether there are any material reasons why approval should be granted in this case. In looking at the latter, it is also important to consider what HP11 is trying to achieve. - 5.2 The scheme largely complies with the policy in terms of its treatment of the existing building and the two previous applications clearly considered that the building itself was worthy of consideration for conversion under this policy. - 5.3 However the previous applications also demonstrate that the building could be satisfactorily converted to a dwelling without significant extension. What is now proposed therefore cannot be considered essential for the success of the scheme but more to satisfy the personal requirements or aspirations of these particular owners. - 5.4 By virtue of the size and position of the extensions, the scheme is not considered to accord with the wording of HP11 as the extension is not considered modest or subordinate. - 5.5 The applicant has explained how they have attempted to distinguish the old from the new and how the use of materials is relevant. They have also drawn attention to adjacent buildings and their comparative mass and scale, considering that what is now proposed is not out of keeping. - 5.6 It could be considered that due to the position and finish, the proposed extension will not overwhelm the existing barn and it is considered that from the public vantage points, the character of the barn will be retained whilst providing a sizeable dwelling. In some ways, the addition of a sizable extension but distinguished from the main building by use of material can be more effective in retaining the character of the existing than by limiting the size and extent of extensions which can sometimes erode the character of the existing: in this case the main barn is being left alone to sit as it does in the landscape with the new fabric being added behind at the furthest distance from the viewer. Also in some ways the size of the extension, whilst considerable in proportion to the existing (almost the same size), this shows a respect for the size and proportion of the existing rather than trying to reduce the height, width or length which may then look out of keeping with the existing although this would inevitably be closer to the subordinate and modest requirement of the policy. - 5.7 The Strategic Plan, and policies before it which were enshrined in Planning Circulars make it clear that it is in the public interest to preserve and find a new use for interesting buildings in the countryside which are redundant for their original purpose and the subsequent guidance on how this is achieved is provided in Housing Policy 11 and also Environment Policy 16 both of which refer to the need to avoid loss or reduction of the original interest and character and not affecting adversely the character or interest of the building. It could be argued that if a scheme achieved this, then it could be said to accord with the spirit of the policy even if the size were not considered modest or subordinate. In this case, the building is a little set back from the highway and the proposed extension even more so. The visual impact of the scheme will be limited by the existing roadside hedges but perhaps of more importance is that when seen from the public perspective, the finish materials will enable it to take less visual priority than the main existing building which will be able to be seen as the original core of the scheme, virtually unchanged. - 5.8 The balance between according with the policy and demonstrating the harm from the proposal is a delicate and difficult one and it is considered that the benefits of retaining the existing virtually unchanged but providing an extension which would have little if any visual harm are concluded to marginally outweigh the contrast with what the policy specifically requires. Also of relevance is the potential interpretation of this positive recommendation as a message that the policy does not need to be accorded with in terms of size and that in many more cases, an extension which almost
PARTY STATUS 7.1 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: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 20.05.2016 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
REASON: the landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme and must be implemented as approved.
This approval relates to drawings 15/2466/01, 15/2466/02 received on 24th February, 2016 and 15/2466/03A, 15/2466/04A received on 20th April, 2016.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : …Permitted.. Committee Meeting Date:…20.06.2016
Signed :………S CORLETT…….. 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
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
