Loading document...
Application No.: 17/00251/B Applicant: Mr David & Mrs Joan Crowe Proposal: Erection of detached dwelling with garaging to replace existing dwelling Site Address: Shenvalley Farm Foxdale Road St Marks Ballasalla Isle of Man IM9 3AL Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 23.11.2017 Site Visit: 29.03.2017 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 04.12.2017 _________________________________________________________________
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 application is for the replacement of the existing dwelling and not for a new dwelling.
condition, nothing shall be stored, placed or disposed of above or below ground, the ground level shall not be altered, no excavations shall be made, no mixing of cement or use of other contaminating materials or substances shall take place, nor shall any fires be lit, without prior written consent of the Department. The CEZ implemented in accordance with this condition shall be maintained in position until the development is complete.
Reason: To ensure that all trees to be retained are protected from development during construction.
Reason: To ensure the retention of the existing trees on site which are Registered under the Tree Protection Act 1993.
This approval relates to drawings 1, received on 2nd March 2017 and 2A, 3A, 4A, and 5A all received on 26th September, 2017.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
The correspondent whose contact details are given as Department Of Zoology, University of Oxford as they are not directly affected by the development. This person's address has been updated to Meadowcroft, Ballabooie Road, German.
_____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSALS AND THAT IT COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The application was considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting of 13th November, 2017 and a decision was deferred pending a site visit which took take place on 23rd November, 2017.
1.1 The site is the immediate residential curtilage of a proposed agricultural worker's dwelling sitting within the farm holding of Shenvalley Farm which is located on the eastern side of the B35 road which links the Eairy with St. Mark's. The site is currently a rectangular piece of land which lies to the rear of the existing farmhouse and the area is bounded by mature trees. The existing dwelling faces the farmyard on the southern side of the farm lane and has other farm buildings to the north and south east in a close group. The site presently has no structures upon it.
1.2 The existing farmhouse is unoccupied and was described in an earlier application, 10/01060/B as "dilapidated" although it still retains all its walls and most of its roof and could be occupied although some resources would need to be spent to make it habitable once more. The house is a five window quarterland style house with unpainted rendered walls and timber framed sliding sashes throughout. The front elevation faces inward to the farmyard and has its back to the approach to the farm from the public highway. A mature conifer sits directly in front of the house with the trunk some 4m from the front door. - 1.3 Whilst not shown on the drawings, an overhead electricity line runs through the site of the proposed development. - 1.4 The farm yard is partly utilised but with the majority of the buildings unused other than hay bale storage in one of the more modern barns on the southern side of the courtyard and the modern building on the left of the main farm lane opposite the northern gable of the house. The entrance walls have recently been rebuilt to provide better and safer access. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the construction of a replacement dwelling with the existing, main farmhouse to be demolished. The house is not the same as that proposed and approved under 10/01060/B and is not in the same position, being closer to the existing. The approved siting was on the roadside of a row of deciduous and coniferous trees, in the field to the west of the house and current proposed site whereas the current proposal involves a dwelling to the side of the current house, further from the road. - 2.2 The floor area of the existing house is 370 sq m including some accommodation in the roofspace and the house is 8.5m in height to the ridge with a two storey side annex which is lower. The proposed dwelling has a floor area of 328 sq m and has been modelled to reflect the profile and shape of the existing (the double pitch arrangement) although with a greater width (12.5m compared with 11.4m) and depth (12.9m compared with 9.8m) of building resulting in a slightly less vertical and slim general appearance than the existing with wider windows and less steep roof. The external finishes will be to match the existing - slate roofing and rendered walling and with traditional stacks. - 2.3 All existing trees are to be retained. Access to the new dwelling will be off the farm lane with two curved areas of walling leading into it. - 2.4 The existing dwelling is to be demolished and the space left used as a garden for the new dwelling. - 2.5 The applicant explains that the owners have recently acquired the farm, including its 140 acres and presently live elsewhere. The other farms, Upper and Lower Tosaby which were farmed with this site, are being marketed separately. The owner does not at this time have firm plans for the farm, as they are not farmers, and may lease it with the house, or lease the land and live in the house. They are also considering converting some of the range of outbuildings to other uses, possibly tourist accommodation, to diversify the income from the site. They suggest that whilst the house has lost its habitable status through lack of use for the last 20 years, it has no agricultural occupancy condition attached to it and so neither should the replacement house. - 2.6 They confirm that the electricity supply will remain as existing and will not be affected by the proposed works. PLANNING POLICY
3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South as not identified for a particular purpose and with an area of Registered Trees where the house is to be erected.
In assessing whether a property has lost its habitable state by abandonment, regard will be had to the following criteria:
"a) the building is substantially intact; this will involve there being at least three of the walls, standing up to eaves level and structurally capable of being retained; and
Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling which involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design and or siting, there would be less visual impact."
3.3 The Town and Country Planning Act 1999 Section 10(4) requires a decision maker to have regard to the Development Plan, all other relevant statements of policy, development orders or development procedure orders and all other material considerations. REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 Malew Parish Commissioners indicate that they have no objection to the application (15.03.17). - 4.2 Highway Services indicate that they do not oppose the application (30.03.17). - 4.3 The Forestry Officer, DEFA, expresses concern at the proximity of the trees to the proposed works, particularly the proposed entrance walling, referred to at paragraph 2.3 above and advising that the trees on site are Registered and suggesting that some of the trees have structural defects which may cause apprehension to future occupants and that they may be disturbed during the construction process unless properly protected. He requests a tree survey and protection plan and if these are not produced then he recommends that the application is refused (16.03.17). - 4.4 Following discussion between the applicant, the Forester and the planning officer and the submission of a tree protection plan by Manx Roots, dated 10th May, 2017, the Forester reassessed the proposal with his only concerns relating to the works around the proposed walling which the applicant would be happy to omit until an arboricultural report has been approved by the Department. - 4.5 A submission has been received from someone whose address is given as Department Of Zoology, University of Oxford who expresses concern at the loss of the existing farmhouse and how this conflicts with Housing Policy 12 which he considers has not been properly examined. He considers that this policy has not been mentioned by the reporting officer "for many years" and its inclusion in the current report is as a result of his suggestion (10.11.17). - 4.6 Following the site visit in November, the Conservation Officer, who was also present, has provided the following advice:
"Shenvalley does not appear to be listed on the original 1976, or the 1982 Provisional lists, which is somewhat surprising having visited the site. Shenvalley as it appears today is a historically interesting building and farm group. The old house, the subject of this application, is a five bay fronted farmhouse. That is to say that there are five windows across the frontage of the property which is a historic window format that is considered a 'status symbol' in the Island's vernacular buildings. That status is also evident in the rather interesting stone surround and projecting lintol to the front door. The property also as a steeply pitched roof, a suggestion of an early (certainly 18th century) building.
Geologically located as it is, the farmstead has the benefit of the ready availability of upland feldspar, a granite found in this area. This is evident in the quoins to the house, just visible where the render has fallen off and obvious in the surrounding buildings. The addition of the quoins offers the buildings in the farm group a visual solidity.
The house as it appears today illustrates numerous phases of development, whereas the 1869 County Series Map shows a single, but substantial rectangular footprint. Addressing the frontage of the property, the window format to the left hand side of the building is closer together than that on the right, where the windows are set slightly further apart. The chiollagh or principle fireplace, is evident on the right hand side given the size of the chimney stack and the distance between the gable end and the first window. This might suggest that the right hand part of the property is the older/original part.
To the rear, a two storey rendered addition has been added to the full width of the property and a one and a half storey addition to the left hand (southern) gable. The rear extension could not be considered to have been a positive impact upon the building. That left hand (southern) gable of the earlier house illustrates evidence of previous alteration which may be the remains of stones inserted into the main house gable. These may be the remains of stone
'throws' above the junction of a former thatched roof with the gable. In addition, there are small patches of tile hanging, which may be the infilling of former window openings.
Internal inspection is unfortunately dangerous given the very poor condition of the building, but also fascinating. The house is odd in that it appears that the occupiers just walked out and left their belongings in place, such as the clothes left in the wardrobes. Unfortunately, due to the removal of the roof coverings, the floors have rotted through and collapsed meaning that access to the upper floors is dangerous at best. The detailing to the interior is as you would expect of a house of this age, in that it has various clear additions from various periods including a fire place to the front room that appears clearly from the 1960s, early 1970s and what appears to be 'peg board' to the ground floor gable wall on the opposite gable.
The existing staircase to the first floor landing appears 1940s/50s in detailing and there is a very interesting timber screen forming a further floor with no obvious means of access. Door types vary from six panel Georgian pattern (albeit cut down and re-hung upside down), four panel Victoria pattern to simply five board ledged doors with very rudimentary wooden latches.
Unfortunately, the roof has been removed and the weather has ravaged the building, rotting out floors to the point where a number of them have fallen through. In doing so, the integrity of the building both structurally and in terms of its architectural/historic interest is considered to be compromised as if retention of the building was deemed possible, it is highly likely that the roof structure would need to be removed as well as the majority of the internal structural timberwork and therefore detailing would be removed as part of it. What would remain would be the stone shell. As Conservation Officer, advocating the loss of a building such as this goes very much against the grain, but given the foregoing, it is difficult to consider that this building could be brought back into meaningful habitation without substantial finances and it has to be said, will.
The Committee have had the benefit of a site visit to view the property for themselves and of course to have considered the merits of the proposals. Having done so, if the Committee are minded to approve the demolition of the building, then a full photographic survey in line with our highest standards should be sought. Whilst unusual, it might also be a consideration to request archaeological input to monitor and record the building during the process of demolition.
Given the conclusions on the main house, the remainder of the farmstead should be further investigated. There is a large well-made barn to the south east of the house which the 1869 map shows having a horse walk on its southern longitudinal wall, unfortunately no longer evident. It is substantially built and even has granite kneelers on the gables, a further detail suggestive of status. To the east of the house is a stone building that the owner of the farm suggested was the original house with bwid sugganes to the gables which demonstrates that the building was formerly thatched. To the south of the house is a small similarly well-built building that may well be the thie veg (Manx for 'little house'), a privy.
The farmstead needs fuller investigation and recording with perhaps the output being that one or more of the buildings should actually be added to the Protected Buildings Register, or recorded at least, before the entire farmstead is lost." (29.11.17)
5.1 The most recent application on the site, 10/01060/B is the most relevant although there have been other approvals granted in 1999, 2005 for new agricultural buildings on the site, demonstrating that the farm was agriculturally active in relatively recent times. - 5.2 10/01060/B proposed the erection of a new dwelling and whilst not explicit in the application itself, was approved subject to the demolition of the existing farmhouse, effectively
making the application one for the erection of a replacement dwelling. In the assessment of that proposal, it was noted that
"The blue area includes Shenvalley Farm which includes a dwelling, as well as Upper Tosaby and Lower Tosaby - farm groups, including dwellings, to the north west. The site extends to 295 acres which is owned and a further 500 acres are rented on short term arrangements. Stocking amounts to 75 dairy cows, 25 replacement dairy heifers, 15 young dairy calves, one dairy bull, 70 suckler cows, 5 breeding bulls, 125 young stock (under 1 year), 110 finishing stock (1-2 years). In addition, the holding accommodates sheep - 450 breeding ewes, 10 stock rams, 40 replacements with all lambs provides sold finished. The business is viewed by Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA)as a full time agricultural business with a labour requirement of 5.68 units."
5.3 That approval was subject to three pertinent conditions and a note:
NOTE The applicant is advised to consult the Manx Electricity Authority in respect of the existing overhead electricity supply and working practices in relation thereto.
6.1 The applicants have clearly indicated that the proposal may not be used for agricultural use, but that their future plans are not clear and, given the nature and location of the site, it is certainly possible that any replacement dwelling would be occupied by those involved in agriculture or management of the remaining buildings and land on site, whatever their use, and may facilitate the use of surrounding farmland. The applicant clearly has two options available to him in terms of the future of the site: he could demolish all of the unusable buildings (or indeed all of the buildings) on site and apply to develop a modern farm which purpose built structures suitable for modern farming methods. Alternatively he could pursue a scheme which attempted to retain or recreate the character, history and interest of the older buildings through finding a new use for them in renovated or rebuilt form. The condition of some of the buildings makes it highly likely that any scheme for restoration would involve at least some re-building. Any restoration scheme would be based upon trying to retain or recapture the interest of the evolution of the farm, from the random rubble buildings through to the better constructed and larger buildings and its success would very much depend upon the detail of the finish materials, right down to the coursing and type of stonework. The way forward for the applicant is not yet clear but whatever the route, having a dwelling on site is likely to be beneficial if not essential.
6.2 The application can therefore be assessed in two ways: as a potential agricultural dwelling and/or as a potential replacement dwelling (which may or may not be connected to agriculture).
"The advice from DEFA is that the dwelling is agriculturally justified and the application is supported. The applicant currently lives in St. John's and the majority of the farming centres on the farm buildings adjacent to the proposed dwelling. The existing dwelling is not considered
suitable to be occupied - too large for the applicant's purposes and right in the farmyard. They would prefer to retain the farmhouse for storage purposes but would reluctantly agree to its demolition, if a condition preventing its future use as residential were not considered appropriate.
Even in the absence of the agricultural support, if the existing dwelling is demolished, the proposed dwelling represents a replacement in accordance with Housing Policy 14 - the proposed dwelling is smaller than that which is to be demolished and in a more practicable position within the farmyard for occupation.
The Commissioners' concerns relate to the security of the farmholding, referring to the other land owners and partners in the farm. There are other interests and these relate to existing dwellings within the farm holding and these are referred to by the Agricultural Adviser in his report. These properties are further from the agricultural accommodation (approximately five minutes) and could not compensate for on-site accommodation as is proposed and as was provided for in the form of the original farmhouse. The proposed siting is amongst the farm buildings and least of all three properties associated with the farmholding, to be separated from the holding due to its location.
The farmhouse should not be retained. Whilst current proposals are to use it as storage, once used, it could be argued in the future, if its suitability for such purposes becomes unviable, that it is redundant and its residential use restored as happened as Ballacashin in Onchan (PA 02/0986)."
7.1 On balance it is considered that the proposal is capable of being supported by Housing Policy 7 (agricultural need) although it is noted that this relates to new agricultural dwellings (i.e. where the proposal increases the number of houses in the countryside). Although the attachment of an agricultural tie is required by Housing Policy 8, because the proposal is not a new house and the existing house does not have a tie it is felt that these other material considerations outweigh the policy.
7.2 It is likely that if not already, the house is fasts approaching being abandoned, but if it has it would appear to be capable of being renovated within the context of HP 13. Therefore on balance it is considered that Housing Policy 12 (part a) would not prevent a replacement dwelling. However, it is difficult to conclude that the proposal complies with Housing Policy 12 (Part b) given that it is clearly old and is identified as worthy of consideration for Registration in the Area Plan for the South. There are a number of matters to be taken into consideration in assessing whether the building should be allowed to be replaced including the previous comments that the existing house is too large for the applicant's purposes and right in the farmyard, its location narrowing the width of access into the farmyard at this point. Whilst the proposed house is not small, it has all its rooms with full height ceilings and will positioned out of the way of the main access into the farmyard. It is undoubtedly the case that renovation of the existing would be the preferred option. However, it is clear from the Conservation Officer's independent conclusion that "it is difficult to consider that this building could be brought back into meaningful habitation without substantial finances and it has to be said, will". It is also relevant that if the remainder of the farm complex were to be renovated and converted to a new use, that this is likely to be a costly project with any significant financial benefit not immediately achievable. Essentially, the renovation of the house would be a very, possibly prohibitively costly project which would result in very little of the original house being retained and still in an inconvenient position relative to the farm activities.
7.3 The previous approval is a material consideration in this case and the principle of the replacement of the existing farmhouse is considered acceptable although that approval has now lapsed. What is proposed now is also better proportioned and detailed than what had approval although not an exact replication of what is to be lost. Arguably, a replication could be a desirable visual outcome, this would be trying to convey that the house had always been in the position now proposed rather than a more honest reflection of what is now desired by the owner. A photographic survey as suggested by the Conservation Officer is recommended. Also,
the development should be implemented in accordance with the tree protection information as set out in the Manx Roots report and conditioned accordingly, with reference to the proposed walling.
7.4 The matters for consideration have been considered and after a fine balance, application is supported. PARTY 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:
8.2 The decision-maker must determine:
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
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: 11.12.2017 Signed : Miss S Corlett Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required YES/NO See below PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 11.12.2017
Application No. : 17/00251/B Applicant : Mr David & Mrs Joan Crowe Proposal : Erection of detached dwelling with garaging to replace existing
dwelling
Site Address : Shenvalley Farm Foxdale Road St Marks Ballasalla Isle of Man IM9 3AL Presenting Officer : Miss S E Corlett Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The Committee approved the application at its meeting of 11th December, 2017 with additional conditions to require that the windows to be installed are sliding sash irrespective of material, in condition 3 to add the Conservation Officer's advice about archaeological recording and monitoring of the existing buildings and that this includes all of the stone farm buildings, not just the house. They also required the attachment of a condition which would suspend the Permitted Development Order in respect of any works which would alter the character of what was approved.
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 application is for the replacement of the existing dwelling and not for a new dwelling.
level shall not be altered, no excavations shall be made, no mixing of cement or use of other contaminating materials or substances shall take place, nor shall any fires be lit, without prior written consent of the Department. The CEZ implemented in accordance with this condition shall be maintained in position until the development is complete.
Reason: To ensure that all trees to be retained are protected from development during construction.
Reason: To ensure the retention of the existing trees on site which are Registered under the Tree Protection Act 1993.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed dwelling is sufficiently well detailed in relation to its position within a group of old and historically interesting buildings.
This approval relates to drawings 1, received on 2nd March 2017 and 2A, 3A, 4A, and 5A all received on 26th September, 2017.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
