Loading document...
Application No.: 17/01034/B Applicant: Ms Eileen Isobel Alice Carrington Proposal: Alterations to convert former Methodist Chapel to residential dwelling Site Address: Croit E Caley Methodist Church Croit E Caley Colby Isle of Man IM9 4AR Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 24.08.2016 Site Visit: 24.08.2016 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 20.11.2017 _________________________________________________________________
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 approved development works will if implemented take place on / in an ecclesiastical building and the retention of as much of the character of this building is important to control in the public interest. The assessment has shown that the works approved are already in balance as to their acceptability and so any further alteration to the dwelling or within its curtilage should be properly considered and managed through the planning process.
The development hereby approved relates to Drawings 2017/33/01, 2017/33/02, 2017/33/03, 2017/33/04 and 2017/33/05, all date-stamped as having been received 29th September 2017.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
None. _____________________________________________________________________________
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON GROUNDS THAT A CONDITION REQUESTED BY HIGHWAY SERVICES IS NOT CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO MAKE THE APPLICATION ACCEPTABLE IN PLANNING TERMS.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the almost rectangular-shaped curtilage of an existing, extended chapel situated on the northeastern side of Croit-e-Caley Road, the highway running south from the Ballagawne Road that runs east-west through Colby. The building has a core of what looks like a traditional modest chapel but which has been extended at the front and side. There is a small flat roofed garage on the southeastern end which is not part of the application site and which sits behind a grassed parking space. - 1.2 The building has as its lawful use a church with a kitchen, toilet facilities and open area on the first floor. - 1.3 There is a small area of hardstanding alongside the extension and, given the adjacent garage does not form part of the application, this provides for the single off-road parking associated with the chapel. - 1.4 With the exception of the access for the hardstanding, which is entirely open, the site is separated from the highway with a low but robust wall. It is comprised of a mixture of natural stone and smooth render, complete with particularly handsome pillars, as well as some apparently wrought iron railings between those pillars. This wall connects onto another wall, within the ownership of the adjacent dwelling, and reflects something of a characterful feature within the streetscene inasmuch as walls fronting onto the highway and at a similar height are common on Croit E Caley Road.
2.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 2.1 Approval was granted for the change of use of the chapel to a residential dwelling under PA 15/00521/C. However, this application contained no internal floor plans and proposed no change other than the use. Accordingly, the approval issued was something akin to a combination of an Approval in Principle and an approved change of use. - 2.2 Within that application, the applicant explained that there has been a contraction in the size of the congregation at the church with the average attendance being 4 to 6 people. The process for the cessation of a church facility depends upon approval from the Methodist Church and this is influenced by the decision of the sitting council of the church itself made up from its local congregation. The church has since been closed. The facility has been advertised throughout the Island as a local community but no interest has been expressed in taking the
"Proposed now is the formal conversion of the chapel. The proposed floorplans show, at ground floor, three bedrooms (one en-suite), two additional bathrooms, and a kitchen/dining/living room with utility room attached. There is also a porch. On the proposed mezzanine floor is shown a snug / study, which would occupy the entirety of that floor albeit that the floor itself occupies perhaps just 40% of the footprint of the original part of the chapel in which it sits. The mezzanine would be within the newer addition and therefore the floor would not 'cut across' any windows.
"Proposed to the exterior are a number of rooflights and three window / door changes. There would be five rooflights within the rear pitch of the original chapel; three measuring 1.0m by
"In the northern side elevation of the extension to the chapel a window and door is proposed to be replaced by a set of French doors in one of the proposed bedrooms. In the front elevation a picture window, to match an identical unit, is proposed in place of a window and door that presently sit within the extension to the building. Finally, to the rear, a single small window within a small flat-roofed, en-suite bathroom would be replaced with an enlarged, but not floor-to-ceiling, window.
"The final element of the proposal relates to the creation of a second parking space. This would be provided via the partial removal of the stone wall fronting onto the highway. The access would be 4.2m in width and the parking space 5.7m at its longest (4.6m at its shortest)."
2.6 The associated approval notice carried the following condition in addition to the standard time limit condition:
"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 extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling hereby approved shall be carried out, no windows shall be replaced and no additional rooflights shall be installed or inserted on the dwelling hereby approved, no roof-mounted solar panels or satellite dishes shall be installed on the dwelling hereby approved, and no sheds or summerhouses or greenhouses or polytunnels or fences or walls or gates or standalone solar panels or domestic fuel tanks shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby approved, without the prior written approval of the Department.
"Reason: The approved development works will if implemented take place on / in an ecclesiastical building and the retention of as much of the character of this building is important to control in the public interest. The assessment has shown that the works approved are already in balance as to their acceptability and so any further alteration to the
dwelling or within its curtilage should be properly considered and managed through the planning process."
2.7 In his assessment, the case officer commented as follows:
"The proposed use is consistent with the land use designation of the area. Moreover, the principle of residential development with respect to the loss of the community facility and also the amount of amenity space that would be provided with the building has also been accepted. While the highways arrangements have also previously been found acceptable, the current application proposes something different in the form of the additional space and, accordingly, fresh assessment of this is needed. The only other matter that remains for consideration is that of the physical alterations.
"In terms of these, the installation of five rooflights - and large ones at that - will be the most noticeable element of the proposal. The desire to bring additional light into the building is wholly understandable. Its windows are small and low and the mezzanine floor will reduce even further the amount of natural, ambient light within the property. This is a reasonable expectation and if the Department had specific concerns in this respect then it would ideally have been raised in the consideration of the initial application. That it was not does not prejudice this decision, and in many ways pre-empting such a need would have been difficult. It is further noted that no condition restricting the installation of rooflights (or, indeed, restricting any permitted development rights) was attached to the approval notice.
"The rear of the site cannot be seen from nearby; it can, however, been seen from The Level highway, and the new rooflights would all be fitted facing this direction. The glass would reflect sunlight and this would increase the prominence of the building as seen from this direction and, given the flatness of the land around here, potentially from further beyond as well. This would be unfortunate as the rooflights proposed are large and will be a dominating roof feature. However, it must be remembered that the building is already existing, already visible, and sits against a backdrop of, and alongside other, dwellings, some of which also already have rooflights.
"Consideration was given to seeking a standard size of rooflight across the roof plane, but the distance at which they will be seen is such that the visual impact from the asymmetry is, again, not such as to be fundamentally objectionable. It is moreover welcomed that each of the rooflights would sit directly above, and be narrower than, the existing and attractive ecclesiastical windows. Moreover, the protection of the prominent front elevation is welcomed, and fewer rooflights at the rear may require additional rooflights to the front roof plane, which would be most unfortunate. As such, it is considered that the rooflights are not a dominating feature to an adverse degree, and accordingly could not be said to conflict so significantly with parts (b) and (c) of General Policy 2 so significantly as to warrant a refusal.
"What the above serves to demonstrate is the importance of the appearance of the building at present. It does have, admittedly, a particularly unfortunate front extension that wholly unsettles the traditional ecclesiastical frontage, and this is to be lamented. However, it remains clearly of ecclesiastic appearance and use and this character should, it is considered, be protected lest further inappropriate alterations be made. With this in mind, conditions removing permitted development rights in respect of the following are recommended to be attached to any approval notice issued:
"The previous application was approved without any additional parking on the site. This was judged acceptable; it is considered that this situation remains not just acceptable but preferable to the current proposal, which seeks to provide an additional space via the removal
'"The additional space is something the client is quite keen on having even though we noted from the previous application that the current one parking space was deemed acceptable.
'"This road has become busier over the years and as such there seems to be far more on road parking which we do not want to increase. From studying the area it is quite common for vehicles to be parked directly in front of the area we are proposing to have the second space. Whilst I understand your view that it could interrupt the views of the original part of the chapel, this is already the case given the on road parked vehicles. We feel it in fact would actually be more beneficial to the property especially once renovated for this space to be present so that the chapel as a whole could be enjoyed by everyone in the surroundings."'
"While the final sentence is disputed, the thrust of the agent's argument is understood. It is also to be noted that the wall is frequently interrupted by accesses for dwellings and also has the appearance of being interrupted along its length because of higher posts interspersed. While the loss of the stone finish is regrettable, in view of the strong support of Highway Services and also the somewhat limited visual harm that would result, it is concluded that to resist the application on this basis alone would be difficult. It is a balanced conclusion and not one reached lightly, but equally it is considered a reasonable and fair one."
2.8 That approval remains both extant and unimplemented.
3.1 Full planning approval is again sought for the conversion of the chapel, but with slight amendments to the design approved last year.
3.2 Proposed on this occasion is a fourth bedroom within the mezzanine area (in place of the approved snug), which would add internal floorspace without resulting in a change to the exterior of the building - 3.3 Also proposed on the mezzanine level is the installation of a bathroom, to be en-suite to a bedroom within the main chapel building. This would require the addition of another, sixth rooflight on the northeast elevation's roof plane. This additional rooflight would be by far the smallest of the six, and would also be situated within the extension to the chapel rather than its main body where the approved five rooflights would be situated. - 3.4 The other difference on this scheme to the building's exterior is the proposal for replacement windows throughout. These would be uPVC-framed, although the opening style is not defined. A photograph included within the submitted Supporting Information Statement of the Chapel from what is believed to be the 1930s shows windows with two horizontal glazing bars in the same position as those proposed for insertion here. (And, it is noted, similar to
4.1 The site within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 as Residential.
4.2 While the Strategic Plan does contains a specific policy on the loss of community facilities (Community Policy 3), the loss of the chapel from its lawful use has been firmly established through the grant of successive applications in 2015 and 2016 for its conversion to residential use. - 4.3 Being mindful of the nature of the development proposed and the applicable zoning, the proposal should be assessed against the general development criteria of General Policy 2, as well as Housing Policy 6 and Environment Policy 42.
5.1 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services indicated that they did not object to the application on 19th October 2017, subject to the imposition of a condition. They commented (in part) as follows:
"This [application] is very similar to a recent approval PA 16/00788/B and there are no significant changes in circumstances to warrant refusal.
"Appendix 7 of the IoMSP 2016 requires that a typical dwelling is provided with 2 off road car parking spaces; the proposal is for a substantial 4 bed detached property and cannot be considered to be typical; the policy allows for a reduction in car parking provision under certain circumstances none of which apply to this application.
"Highway Services does not oppose this application subject to the following condition: "1. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the garage, car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided and remain free from obstruction thereafter. "Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety."
5.2 Rushen Parish Commissioners have not commented on the application at the time of writing (20th November 2017). - 6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 Though each application should be assessed on its own merits, the extant approval is a clear material consideration. The success on this application will therefore turn on whether or not the amended elements remain acceptable against the relevant policy context.
6.2 The additional rooflight is small enough to be unobtrusive, while its siting on a different roof plane to those already approved provides it with some separation. This is an important point since, as noted in the assessment of the 2016 scheme, there is a sense that the building's northeastern roofing is being dominated by rooflights. However, its diminutive size and distinct positioning renders this concern minimal.
6.3 The proposed replacement windows will, it would appear, replicate the style of the windows in the 1930s and which may well have been the original windows for the Chapel itself. This is to be welcomed, with the trefoil feature's retention in certain apertures especially so. Also of great benefit will be the retention of the rose window. - 6.4 Notwithstanding the above conclusions, a condition limiting the permitted development rights along the lines of that attached to the 2016 application remains wholly appropriate. This is a sensitive and unique building, and it is considered appropriate that the Department retain an element of control over future alterations as may be desired for the building. - 6.5 The retention of the front wall is judged to be an improvement over the extant scheme. Its retention will allow the building to better contribute to the streetscene in which it sits by ensuring vehicles will be kept away from its elevations as much as possible. The lawful use of the building is still such that, while the comments of Highway Services are noted, the Chapel's parking requirement would be far in excess of the two required of a residential dwelling and, therefore, no objection is raised on this ground. If the Planning Committee were minded to require the additional parking space be provided, this could be done by way of the condition sought by Highway Services since the submitted drawings show where and how the additional parking space would be provided.
7.1 Subject to restricting the permitted development rights as outlined, it is concluded that the application defines an improved scheme relative to the extant approval. Were the condition as requested by Highway Services attached to the approval notice, it is considered that the development proposed under this application represents a materially similar outcome relative to that for which extant approval exists. It is not considered that the condition requested by Highway Services would make the application unacceptable. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:
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: 27.11.2017 Signed : A Morgan Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional condition was required YES/NO See below
Application No. : 17/01034/B Applicant : Ms Eileen Isobel Alice Carrington Proposal : Alterations to convert former Methodist Chapel to residential
dwelling
Site Address : Croit E Caley Methodist Church Croit E Caley Colby Isle of Man IM9 4AR Presenting Officer : Miss Abigail Morgan Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The officer recommended that an additional condition be placed on the application as no colour details were given in respect of the roof lights.
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 approved development works will if implemented take place on / in an ecclesiastical building and the retention of as much of the character of this building is important to control in the public interest. The assessment has shown that the works approved are already in balance as to their acceptability and so any further alteration to the dwelling or within its curtilage should be properly considered and managed through the planning process.
The development hereby approved relates to Drawings 2017/33/01, 2017/33/02, 2017/33/03, 2017/33/04 and 2017/33/05, all date-stamped as having been received 29th September 2017.
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
