Officer Report

Application No.: 16/00133/B Applicant: Mrs Lara Loader Proposal: Alteration and conversion of part of outbuilding to a dwelling, extension to outbuilding to create tack/store room and installation of replacement windows Site Address: Upper Garth Farm Garth Road Crosby Isle Of Man IM4 2HB Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 03.03.2016 Site Visit: 03.03.2016 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is irregularly shaped parcel of land that includes a large, detached dwelling of fairly recent construction along with associated farm- and equestrian-related buildings. The site is known as Upper Garth Farm but does not appear to be in active agricultural use. - 1.2 Of particular relevance to this application is the collection of barns to the northeast of the dwelling. There are three barns, all of stone-built construction, and all are in equestrian-related use. They are joined to one another but do not appear to be connected internally. Together they form an upside-down L-shape and bound to the south and west a grassed area. To the east of the northernmost stable is a small area of concrete hardstanding bounded by blockwork and with a larger and mature tree alongside. The submitted plans show that the middle section of the L-shape is a single barn, much larger than the others, but in reality there has been a modern extension to this part of the building. It is possible that the two are connected internally but the buildings are evidently of very different eras. The southernmost element of the L-shape is the sole two-storey element of the stone-built barns. At the rear (west), there is a set of steps and the apparent vestige of a one-time single-storey element to the building, though this has long-since been removed and its appearance and purpose could only be guessed at. - 1.3 Elsewhere within the site is a modern agricultural building to the north, a recently constructed manege and associated parking and hardstanding with the dwelling. The driveway in is fairly sweeping and attractively planted; the manege is nearest to the Garth Road to the southeast, with the stable buildings to the north of this. The site enjoys wide and open views, and though there is a hedgerow lining the highway - which sits lower than the application site - this is broken in places and so much of the site is visible in parts and to degrees from the highway.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for two distinct elements: firstly, approval is sought to convert the upper storey of the southernmost of the barns to a one-bedroom dwelling. Secondly, a small extension is sought to the northernmost of the barns to provide a tack room. This extension would have a stone frontage, pitched roof and single door and window; it would sit roughly 0.2m lower than the roof pitch of the stable to which it would be attached and would measure 5.7m by

• 3.5m in plan, and would fill the abovementioned area of concrete hardstanding.

2.2 It is understood that the dwelling to be created will in the first instance be used by one of the applicants' children. It will measure just under 50sqm when measured externally. In addition to the internal works, a new decking is proposed to the rear of the barn and would follow the line of the visible connection where the one-time lean-to extension would have sat. This will be 1m wide for the majority of its length with a shorter area of 2m in width; the whole would be constructed of timber and provide for an area of storage below; a steel and glass balustrade would run along the edge. - 2.3 No specific garden is shown as being associated with the barn. Cars are shown in the wider area of hardstanding that connects the barn complex with the existing large dwelling. No residential curtilage is shown on the drawings. - 2.4 The application as originally submitted sought to replace the existing timber-framed windows with uPVC sliding sash units. The case officer suggested that timber casements would be more appropriate in a barn conversion, but the amended drawings submitted now show the retention of the existing lights. These drawings were placed online for information. - 2.5 Rooflights - three to the eastern roof pitch, four to the western - are also proposed. These would be conservation-style and, other than the fourth on the western roof pitch, which would sit slightly higher, all six follow a consistent line. - 2.6 The application has been submitted with a structural report, which concludes that "It is our opinion that the existing outbuilding can accommodate the proposed conversion work." They continue: "The structure has been well maintained over its past life and is relatively defect free."

"The stonework is well bonded, the mortar is in good condition and substantial corner stones have been employed at the corners."

The Report also notes that the most significant change proposed is that of the double doors: "We are of the opinion that the existing structure can accommodate this door however we would recommend that a steel beam be employed over the opening on the inner portion of the wall".

2.7 Also sought was a bat survey, which was forwarded directly to the Senior Biodiversity Officer for his comments.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The wider site has been the subject of some fairly notable planning approvals in recent years (the construction of the manege (PA 08/00125/B) and the construction of a replacement dwelling (PA 06/02135/B)), but none of these is considered specifically material to the assessment of the current proposal. - 3.2 The two modern agricultural barns already discussed were approved in 1986 and 1996; the latter approval relates to the barn attached to the stone barns the subject of this application. It is not known when farming ceased on the site.

- 4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

4.1 The site lies within an area of 'white land' not zoned for any particular kind of development on the 1982 Development Plan. - 4.2 In view of this zoning and the nature of the proposal, a number of policies of the Strategic Plan are considered material to the assessment.

4.3 Although General Policy 3 does presume against new development in the countryside, exceptions can be made in respect of conversions of existing rural buildings to either tourist or residential use where a number of criteria (as set out in other policies, listed below) are met; GP3 reads in part: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:

• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11)."

4.4 Environment Policy 1 reads in full: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. 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." - 4.5 Environment Policy 4 reads in full: "Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect:

• (a) species and habitats of international importance:

• (i) protected species of international importance or their habitats; or
• (ii) proposed or designated Ramsar and Emerald Sites or other internationally important sites.

• (b) species and habitats of national importance:

• (i) protected species of national importance or their habitats;
• (ii) proposed or designated National Nature Reserves, or Areas of Special Scientific Interest; or
• (iii) Marine Nature Reserves; or
• (iv) National Trust Land.

• (c) species and habitats of local importance such as Wildlife Sites, local nature reserves, priority habitats or species identified in any Manx Biodiversity Action Plan which do not already benefit from statutory protection, Areas of Special Protection and Bird Sanctuaries and landscape features of importance to wild flora and fauna by reason of their continuous nature or function as a corridor between habitats.

"Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward."

4.6 Environment Policy 34 reads in full: "In the maintenance, alteration or extension of pre-1920 buildings, the use of traditional materials will be preferred." - 4.7 Housing Policy 11 reads in full: "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.

"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."

4.8 In terms of the proposed stable extension, Environment Policies 19 and 21 apply:

"Development of equestrian activities and buildings will only be accepted in the countryside where there will be as a result of such development no loss in local amenity, no loss of high quality agricultural land (Classes 1 and 2) and where the local highway network can satisfactorily accommodate any increase in traffic (see Environment Policy 14 for interpretation of Class 1 and 2)."

"Buildings for the stabling, shelter or care of horses or other animals will not be permitted in the countryside if they would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside in terms of siting, design, size or finish. Any new buildings must be designed in form and materials to reflect their specific purpose; in particular, cavity-wall construction should not be used."

- 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Marown Parish Commissioners offered no objection to the scheme in comments received 23rd February 2016. - 5.2 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure offered no objection to the proposal on 16th February 2016. - 5.3 The Environmental Health Manager was contacted given that the other stables here are proposed to remain in use. He advised on 22nd April 2016: "We don't have any standards in relation to distance for dwellings from stables or barns etc. The developer should be encouraged to consider the likelihood of complaints from occupiers of the dwelling to noise (early starts) and odour (mucking out). We may become involved should we receive a complaint regarding either." - 5.4 The Senior Biodiversity Officer was contacted for his views on the submitted bat survey, although no concern was raised in this respect. On 29th June 2016 he commented as follows: "Bats present but not roosting. This one is fine to tick off with regard to changes in the buildings."

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 Of key importance is the assessment of the proposal are (1) whether or not the existing building is of sufficient 'interest' to warrant a conversion of the nature proposed, (2) are the changes proposed acceptable, (3) is the access acceptable, (4) is there sufficient amenity provided, and (5) is the access adequate? - 6.2 The first issue goes to the heart of the scheme. The existing set of stables is in active use and the Structural Report is clear that they are all in good, working condition. Moreover, they are barns that retain a fairly typical Manx character through the use of traditional materials along with

• its general form and positioning within a (once) agricultural environment. Parts (a), (b) and (c) of Housing Policy 11 are therefore satisfied.
• 6.3 The size of the dwelling that can be achieved within the building is sufficient under the Housing (Standards) Regulations 2013 to actually enable two persons to lawfully reside therein, while there is no reason to consider that services could not be provided to the new dwelling given its proximity to an existing dwelling. Parts (d) and (f) of Housing Policy 11 are therefore satisfied.
• 6.4 Part (e) of Housing Policy 11 causes a little more concern given the view of the Environmental Health Manager. However, it is noted that the intention (at least in the short-term) is for a family member to reside in the property. Any future occupant will of course be aware of the use of the site and so will need to bear this in mind; the stabling is unlikely to cause such a significant nuisance as to warrant the application's refusal, though it would be worth - if the application were to be approved - identifying by way of an advisory note that there is a potential issue here for the applicant should they decide to let or sell off the barn separately from the use in future. (Though it must be said it would be somewhat unlikely that the upper floor of the barn would be occupied independently from the main farm at any point in the future, and extremely unlikely that the upper floor would ever be sold or let separately from the stables themselves.) Part (e) of Housing Policy 11 is therefore satisfied.
• 6.5 Turning to the changes proposed, these would be really quite small-scale and not inappropriate to a building of this period. The decking relates well to the existing building by reflecting the previous existence of an extension of some form in its location; the use of clean, contemporary materials to this end is welcomed. The installation of French doors is both the most significant intervention and also perhaps the most concerning. HP11 is clear that conversion proposals should not need to rely upon significant alteration in order to provide a satisfactory dwelling. In this case, however, while it is clear that the French doors are the most significant alteration proposed, this of course is a relative term: the existing barn is to be otherwise almost entirely retained in form and appearance. The French doors would provide a neat counterpoint to the other doorway - which itself relates to that now-removed extension and therefore could be said to be inappropriate - and moreover could only be observed from within the site. The impact on the character and appearance of the building from this intervention would therefore be suitably limited.
• 6.6 Generally speaking, Manx barns have a somewhat random pattern of fenestration; therefore it might generally be preferred if rooflights would be similarly random. However, in this instance, the windows at first floor level in the barn have a clear rhythm and so rooflights to reflect this rhythm are not inappropriate.
• 6.7 The fact that no changes are now proposed with respect to the windows is interesting. The retention of the original features is to be very much welcomed, and from the site visit they did appear to be in good condition and more than capable of renovation as is now proposed. However, should the current application be approved, this would result in the barn becoming a dwelling and thus benefitting from permitted development rights, which would still enable the windows to be replaced. This would undermine entirely the benefit accrued from the welcome retention of the existing windows and, while there would be a number of windows that would be appropriate here, it is right and proper that the Department retains control over what windows are fitted. Accordingly, a condition removing permitted development rights with respect to replacement windows and doors is recommended.
• 6.8 The new dwelling would not have any specifically identified outdoor amenity space. This does not in itself present a problem: most apartments do not benefit from this by their nature, and equally many apartments are (a) smaller and (b) have a less open and attractive outlook compared with the application site. There is the possibility that in future the small grassed area might become associated with the dwelling, while during the period it would be used by an applicant's family member it is highly likely this would occur (if not, there is ample garden space associated with the main dwelling at present in any case).

6.9 The existing access does not provide particularly good visibility, but equally it does not have poor visibility by any means. Highway Services have not objected. There is no reason to object to the proposal on this ground. - 6.10 While a condition requiring the bat survey would have sufficed in this instance, it is particularly welcome that this has been provided at the earliest stage. Given the lack of concern raised regarding the proposed works in both the survey itself and by the Senior Biodiversity Officer, it is considered that Environment Policy 4 is met. - 6.11 In view of all the above, it is considered that the proposed barn conversion scheme represents a well-judged approach, complies with Housing Policy 11, and is supported as a result. - 6.12 Turning to the more minor element of the scheme, on site the small area of hardstanding adjacent the northernmost barn was actually quite unsightly even though it was clearly of solid construction and care had been taken with its maintenance. The proposed extension would be subordinate in scale and appropriate in appearance / finish, and would be most welcome in 'finishing off' what has the feeling of an incomplete corner of the site. It therefore complies with both EP19 and EP21.

- 7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 In view of the favourable conclusions as outlined above, it is considered that the proposal should be approved subject to the condition discussed. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• o The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• o The Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; and
• o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

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.

8.2 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application. - 8.3 In this instance, it is considered that the following persons do not have sufficient interest and therefore should not be awarded the status of an Interested Person:

• o The Environmental Health Manager, who sits within the same Department as the Planning & Building Control Directorate, and
• o The Senior Biodiversity Officer, who also sits within the same Department as the Planning & Building Control Directorate.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 15.07.2016 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. 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 Class 38 of schedule 1 of the Order at any time. Reason: To control future development on the site.

The development hereby approved relates to the 1:2500 and 1:5000 site plans, both date-stamped as having been received 8th February 2016; to drawings 1325.1, 1325.2 and 1325.5, all datestamped as having been received 8th February 2016; to the Structural Report date-stamped as having been received 8th February 2016; to the drawings 1325.3 Revision 1 and 1325.4 Revision 1, both date-stamped as having been received 13th June 2016, and to the bat survey received electronically on 29th June 2016.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Permitted Date: 22.07.2016 Determining officer

Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer

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.