Loading document...
Application No.: 16/00680/B Applicant: Mr Roger Smith Proposal: Conversion and extensions to existing barns and out buildings to provide a watchmakers workshop Site Address: Outbuildings Claddagh Farm Sulby Bridge Sulby Isle Of Man Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is part of Claddagh Mill Farm, Sulby, which is situated to the east of Sulby Bridge and Sulby village itself. The site comprises the access road, which extends more than 150m into the centre of the farm, and also former stable buildings arranged in a horseshoe shape and a steel-framed blockwork and steel-framed barn of modern construction. The latter has, internally, two staircases providing access to two mezzanine levels at first floor level. The older buildings are in a relatively good state of repair despite their lack of active use; the modern building is perhaps unsurprisingly in very good repair. The access road is lined with mature hedgerows for the vast majority of its length, while there are some walls separating the site from the fields to the north and west. The site is not within a Conservation Area, and nor are any of the buildings here Registered. - 1.2 Also within the applicant's control, but outside of the application site (that is, within the land edged blue on the location plan) is a house and four fields that were associated with the farmholding when it was in active use. There does not appear to be an active agricultural business on the "blue land" currently, albeit that some sheep were seen grazing in the northern field at the time of the site visit. The house, which was built recently following demolition of the previous dwelling, does not have a condition restricting its occupancy to an agricultural worker.
2.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 2.1 The contemporary barn was erected following the approval granted to PA 07/01849/B. The replacement dwelling was constructed following the approval granted to PA 08/02251/B. - 2.2 Of most relevance is PA 14/00623/B. This sought approval for the conversion and linking of all the agricultural buildings for the purposes of a watch-maker's workshop. It is perhaps worth noting the case officer's assessment in respect of this application in full:
2.3 The Planning Committee approved this application on officer recommendation, with the following conditions added:
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: While the development hereby approved is considered acceptable in this location given the special circumstances of the applicant, this may not be the case in respect of any other future users of the site.
2.4 There were some post-approval issues raised with respect to discharging conditions 3 and 4 as the visibility splay that would ordinary be required by Highway Services could not be provided on land within the ownership of the applicant. However, the conditions were worded quite loosely and allowed for negotiation in respect of what visibility splays could be provided. The conditions were discharged, and it is understood that the work required to provide the splay has been undertaken. - 2.5 More recently, the agent contacted the Department, commenting as follows:
"Phase A was approved as a conversion of the existing steel portal frame barn to provide staff/workshop facilities for the manufacturing of the proposed watches and involved a first floor mezzanine level.
"Due to budget constraints our client has instructed us to look at amending this part of the proposed scheme so that it is all accommodated within a single storey level and omit the first floor mezzanine level. Due to the loss of floor area we have added a single storey extension to be erected off the existing west gable end of the main steel portal frame building."
2.6 The current application - detailed below - reflects these issues.
3.0 THE PROPOSAL - 3.1 Full planning approval is now sought for the conversion of the existing barns and outbuildings into a watch-maker's workshop: the newer and older barns would be linked via a glazed extension. The larger, newer agricultural building would have a single storey, gable-ended extension added to its west elevation. Other than these additions, there are limited physical alterations proposed to the buildings and surrounding site, with the main element of the proposal being the change of use of the buildings. - 3.2 As noted, two new link buildings are proposed; one would sit between the modern and older barns and have an almost square footprint; this would have a number of window panels and some dwarf walls faced in Manx stone to match the existing stonework on the barn. One set of double doors would sit in the two sides of the link extension, which would measure just under 25sqm. The second link building is perhaps better described as a small infill in the older barns; the sole entrance to the central courtyard is via a covered, gated entranceway. The infill would be created by the installation of two doors - one to the internal courtyard and one to the external of the barns. The windows and doors would be dark grey in colour and constructed of either: timber and cladded with aluminium, or be uPVC-framed. - 3.3 The other extension measures just under 50sqm in size and provides space for an office, canteen and meeting room. This would be finished in common with the overcladding scheme proposed for the remainder of that barn: a mixture of rendered walls and larch or cedar vertical timber boarding. - 3.4 A number of window changes are also proposed in both the modern and older barns. There is an existing rooflight in the older barns, and this is proposed to be increased to seven overall through the addition of six central pivot conservation-style rooflights within the courtyard-facing roof pitch to the northern 'wing' (four) and eastern 'wing' (two). Two existing non-opening windows in the east elevation, formed of 15 small panels each, are proposed to be removed and replaced with slightly larger casement units. Within the courtyard-facing walls, again only minor alterations are proposed: two of the existing eight timber doors would be replaced with floor-to-ceiling windows, while a small timber canopy with supporting uprights would be removed. All the windows proposed here would be dark grey in colour and be either timber and cladded with aluminium, or uPVCframed. - 3.5 Rather more extensive changes are proposed to the modern barn, but less so now than under the extant scheme. Currently, it has four windows, one pedestrian door and two roller shutter access doors (one in the gable end and one in the side elevation - the latter is by far the larger). The existing four windows and smaller roller shutter door would be replaced by a number of windows set within the timber boarding to be clad at the first floor all around the building's exterior, though the larger of the two roller shutter doors would be retained. All the windows would be double-glazed and have slate-grey frames. A small porch with steps up is proposed to the north elevation.
3.6 In regards to the proposed uses, it is proposed that the modern barn, along with the proposed extension, would be given over to a workshop and staff facilities. The older barns would effectively be split into three different uses: the western 'wing' would be largely given over to storage and would have no alterations made; the northern 'wing' would be used to greet clients and as a display area, and the eastern 'wing' would be converted to an office, kitchen and WC. The glazed link would provide a pedestrian entrance and link between the workshop and the display / client meeting area.
4.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'white land and woodland' not zoned for development under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area, but is within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. - 4.2 In terms of the Strategic Plan, it is considered that Environment Policy 16 is of the most significant relevance to the assessment of this application, albeit that a number of other policies and supporting elements are applicable, to include: the Economic Progress Aim, Strategic Policy 1, General Policy 3, Environment Policies 2, 4, 10, 13 and 38, and Business Policies 1 and 7.
5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure offered the following comments on 28th July 2016, noting that they did not oppose the application:
"The above proposed development was the subject of a previous application (14/00623/B) which was permitted in August 2014. The new application is as a result of changes to the previously proposed internal layout of the existing steel portal frame outbuilding and therefore has no impact on the previously agreed improved access arrangements on the A3 Lezayre Road.
"It is noted that the supporting documents include correspondence confirming that the visibility splays indicated on Penketh - Millar Drawing Number 14 1047 - 10 was considered to satisfy the requirements of Condition 3 of the previous approval.
"Recommendation: Having reviewed the supporting information, the Department of Infrastructure does not oppose this planning application. However, any highways related conditions attached to the previous consent that have not been discharged should also apply to this application."
5.2 Lezayre Parish Commissioners unanimously approved the planning application on 11.07.2016. - 5.3 During consideration of the previous application, two officers in separate Departments were contacted for their views.
"The range of stone buildings will be of little agricultural use being unsuitable for the housing of livestock or access by modern machinery."
flooding should not be severe and as the building is commercial and not a home we are less concerned.
"However the client should be made aware of the risk and we advise taking appropriate flood defence measures."
5.4 In respect of that same application, the Senior Biodiversity Officer of the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture indicated that an assessment of the site in terms of wildlife constraints - specifically bats and owls - should be undertaken. The applicant's agent was advised of this and a bat survey was conducted and duly provided to Dr Selman and the Planning Authority. This was prepared by Mr N Pinder, a licenced bat worker and member of the Manx Bat Group. This survey included a watch being kept for bats after dusk; two bats were noted feeding but had not emerged from the buildings on the application site. Mr Pinder concludes: "…there is no sign of use by bats or owls of any of the buildings under consideration and only very limited potential for use by bats as either a maternity or hibernation roost. Given the present layout of the buildings they ae unlikely to ever be used by owls". Dr Selman advised that he was content with the findings of the report and considered the matter closed. - 5.5 And, finally, again in respect of that same application, the Chief Executive of the Department of Economic Development commented in support. They advise that the applicant's business expansion make his current premises (in Ballaugh) inadequate. Their letter of support is summarised with the statement that: "positive determination of the planning application that you are considering will allow or encourage:
6.1 It is considered that the main issue to assess in this case are the extent to which the amended scheme would represent an acceptable way forward in the context of the relevant policies and also the extant approval. - 6.2 The extant approval is a good and well-considered scheme that makes good use of existing and redundant buildings. That it reflects a specific need for a clearly positive economic development use is particularly welcome. - 6.3 The amended scheme has elements to commend it: the reduction in windows relative to the extant scheme is a positive in reducing what might be considered a somewhat cluttered approach. The new porch would be a welcome 'break' in the north elevation as well, which despite the wellconsidered finishes might still have something of an undifferentiated and stark appearance. The additional extension, which is probably the main difference in appearance with the extant scheme, is also well-considered. It would be of similarly appropriate finishes and ones to match the existing building: it would also be set down from it and accordingly is suitably subordinate. From those positions from which it could be seen it would likely appear as an appropriate addition, and would help reduce the massing of the modern building. - 6.4 However, these are design considerations, and it must be borne in mind that Environment Policy 16 is clear that "it is demonstrated that the building could accommodate the new use without requiring extension or adverse change to the appearance or character". While the latter clause is clearly met, it is also true that an extension is proposed. It must therefore be considered whether there are material considerations that override this conflict with EP16.
6.5 As with the previous scheme, and as noted in paragraph 4.2 of this report, there are a number of other policies and Strategic Aims that either support economic development such as that proposed or do not presume against it where the impact on the character or appearance of the countryside will not be affected. In view of the continuing support of the DED, and also the positive conclusions in respect of the design and appearance of the newly proposed extension and also the site as a whole, it is concluded that the amended scheme is acceptable. Indeed, though on balance, it is considered that the current application, though proposing an increase in massing of the buildings, would probably reduce their visual impact such as this could be seen. - 6.6 In respect of highway safety, the plan submitted to discharge the condition attached to the previous application with respect to the visibility splay has been submitted on this occasion. The splay shown on the submitted drawings are, the agent has advised, what is achievable at present even if the splay itself is outside the application site and consequently outside the applicant's control. Highway Services have noted that the drawing showing the visibility splay was submitted in discharge of Condition 3 of the previous application, but that any condition not yet discharged should be re-attached on this occasion. Condition 3 has been discharged. However, some form of condition relating to the visibility splay would again be required for completeness albeit that the visibility shown on that drawing (110m to the north and 90m to the south) can be achieved at present. - 6.7 In respect of the above, a condition requiring the passing place be provided, and the visibility splay retained, both as shown on that plan, would be appropriate even if the control of the visibility splay lies outwith the control of the applicant.
7.1 In view of the favourable conclusions reached, it is recommended that approval be granted. A condition tying this approval to the applicant remains necessary given that the application is in many ways considered acceptable because of the specific nature of the applicant's circumstances, as is the condition discussed in paragraph 6.6 above. - 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:
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 01.08.2016 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: While the development hereby approved is considered acceptable in this location given the special circumstances of the applicant, this may not be the case in respect of any other future users of the site.
The development hereby approved relates to the following drawings and the planning statement, all date-stamped as having been received 16th June 2016: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5A, 6A, 7A, 9 and 10.
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:…08.08.2016
Signed : E RILEY 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
