Loading document...
| Consulttee: | Drainage Division |
| Notes: | No objection |
The site represents the curtilage of the remains of a former barn structure situated to the rear of an existing dwelling, "The Scheillings" and accessed via a narrow lane which runs to the north of the barn.
The barn has been demolished and all that remain are the stones from the former walling.
The site lies within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic or Coastal Significance on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982.
Planning permission has been sought for the following developments: PA 89/0602 - approval in principle for conversion of barn to dwelling - permitted PA 02/0362 - approval in principle for conversion of barn to dwelling and garage - refused on review. The reason for this refusal was that "Notiwthstanding the submission of a survey report by a structural engineer, it is judged that the barn is no longer substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation as required by Policy 2 of Planning Circular 3/89.." Reference was also made to the proposed changes and extensions to the property. PA 03/1783 - conversion of barn to a dwelling with garage - permitted on appeal and PA 06/0229 - conversion of barn to a private dwelling and garage - refused for the following reason: "The criteria for the conversion of redundant buildings in the countryside are clearly set out in Planning Circular 3/89. These cumulatively aim to preserve attractive buildings largely as they are and to prevent such buildings from being significantly changed either by alteration or extension or both. In this case, planning permission has already been sought and refused for a scheme which proposed extensions (PA 02/0362) albeit in a less traditional form than is now proposed.
In this case the extensions are not for what could be classed as "essential facilities" and as such the proposal fails to comply with the provisions of the circular in this respect (paragraph 4).
In addition, the proposed additions change the appearance of the barn from a relatively simple rectangular barn with two lean-to extensions on each side, to a barn whose northern annex is now almost as tall as the main building and with a ridge line parallel to this and at a consistent height: the building is also to be significantly extended at the rear, thus contravening paragraph 4a of the Circular."
The application proposes the demolition of the existing structure (which, in itself does not require planning permission) and the reconstruction of the barn in the form which has already been permitted under PA 03/1783.
The applicant is not the same as he who originally obtained either the approval in principle or the detailed permission for conversion and upon starting work on the approved scheme, discovered that the building as not as structurally sound as had been envisaged and after discussion with Health and Safety and Building Control, has been "forced to demolish the original structure for safety reasons".
The new building will be built on the same footprint as that which has approval through conversion under PA 03/1783 although the two schemes differ as follows:
There is to be a bedroom above the garage which is accessible only from an external staircase.
The occupants of Sunnyside, which lies to the south east of the site, fronting onto the main road express concern at the alteration to the originally approved scheme and that the lane has not been made up in accordance with the conditions of approval. This objection does not refer to the rebuilding of the structure.
Department of Transport Drainage Division recommend a number of conditions and notes, some of which are not material planning considerations and should not be referred to in the planning decision notice.
The occupants of Lhoob Dhoo objects to the proposal to enlarge the property but, like the occupants of Sunnyside do not appear to object to the re-building of the structure.
The occupants of Ballacallin Farm House which lies to the north of the site, express concern regarding the loss of the barn and the proposed loss of some of the features of interest of the original building - the external steps, changes to windows and the extension which could affect the privacy of other properties in the vicinity. They state that if permission is granted, what will be created is a "new building "in the style of a barn" without any of the Manx elements that made it attractive in the first place". If permission is granted, they seek assurance that there will be no change in the orientation or position of the building, that the stipulation regarding the making up of the access is enforced and that the matter of water supply is clarified as the supply appears to run through their property.
The parties in the process of purchasing The Scheillings object to the application as the application is essentially for the erection of a new dwelling, the new footprint is twice the size of that of the original barn, development would double the depth of development on this side of the village, there is a suggestion that one of the bedrooms is only accessible from an external flight of steps, suggesting that this may be let out. They also object as the building, being larger than the original will have a greater impact on their view, there will be greater excavation which will leave their property on the edge of a drop and may have implications for stability within their site, their privacy will be adversely affected from the external steps to the bedroom with also the potential for noise nuisance.
Patrick Parish Commissioners request a deferral of the application.
Whilst the proposed works refer to a former barn, the Department's policies on such development are set out in the Strategic Plan as follows:
The proposal is not for the conversion of an existing building and as such, the development does not comply with any of the provisions of this policy.
Housing Policy 11: It is pertinent that General Policy 3 states that development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development other than where it complies with the listed requirements and that Housing Policy 11 clearly states that permission will not be given for the erection of replacement buildings.
There are no policies which support the rebuilding of a former non-residential building within an area where development is not usually permitted.
Furthermore, the proposed building will not replicate the former barn - see above. The suggestion by the occupants of Ballacallin farmhouse sum up the impact of the changes - what is proposed is something which has some semblance of a barn but lacks some of the small detailing - the external stone steps, the visually subordinate side annexes and variety in roof shapes and ridgelines and the introduction of such elements as metal staircases, metal balustrading, large modern windows and very large patio doors - all result in a building which is very much a new building styled on an old one and which will have a different impact from what would have been produced from the conversion of the existing fabric.
Whilst the visual impact of the proposed dwelling may be similar to what was previously permitted, it does not utilise existing fabric and therefore does not involve any sustainable principles of using existing structures. Approval of this application would not only support new development in an undesignated and unsustainable location which is contrary to the principles of the Strategic Plan but would also undermine the Department's encouragement of the maintenance and re-use of fabric of interest in the Island's countryside. Replacement fabric seldom has the patina of age which converted buildings have acquired and as such, even with the best workmanship, the proposed building will appear as a new building, which in fact it is, without the features of interest which the former building had and several new, unsympathetic ones. Approval of this would undermine the efforts which many have made in the sympathetic and often expensive restoration of existing fabric in accordance with planning permission and Departmental policy.
The exception to policy which Housing Policy 11 provides should be regarded as a rare opportunity for the creation of a dwelling in the countryside, not an opportunity for building a new structure therein and if either the building proves to be less structurally sound than it was previously considered, or if work is not undertaken in a manner which will secure the fabric, this should then result in the loss of this opportunity, not the fall back position of simply building a new structure which is designed to look similar to the existing.
The Strategic Plan promotes sustainable development principally in existing settlements, encompassed in the Strategic Aim, Strategic Policies 1c, 2 and 10, Spatial Policy 5 and Housing Policy 4 and also protects the countryside for its own sake as set out in environment Policies 1 and 2. The proposed development would be contrary to all of these policies.
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
The occupants of Ballacallin Farmhouse and the prospective purchasers of The Scheillings are close to the property and would be directly affected by the proposal and as such should be afforded party status in this instance.
The owners of Lhoob Dhoo and Sunnyside are some distance from the site and whilst they can see it, are not directly affected by the proposed work.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 08.07.2008 9 July 2008 08/01082/8
The Strategic Plan promotes sustainable development principally in existing settlements, encompassed in the Strategic Aim, Strategic Policies 1c, 2 and 10, Spatial Policy 5 and Housing Policy 4 and also protects the countryside for its own sake as set out in environment Policies 1 and 2. The proposed development would be contrary to all of these policies inasmuch as it represents the erection of a new building in an undesignated and unsustainable area. Whilst the development is on the footprint of an existing barn, it does not involve the re-use or conversion of the existing fabric and as such fails to comply with Housing Policy 11.
Notwithstanding the above, the proposed new building does not replicate the existing or approved building insofar as it fails to retain some features of interest such as the external stone steps and variety of roof slopes and levels, adds some new features which are considered unsympathetic such as horizontally proportioned windows and large patio doors, metal railings and staircase and results in a proposal which would look like a new building rather than a sympathetically converted old building which would have been achieved through the conversion of the existing fabric.
The proposed building has the potential for an unnieghbourly impact on The Scheillings through the introduction of a new door and external steps as the only means of access to the accommodation above the garage: this door would be uncomfortably close to the rear boundary of The Scheillings.
Decision Made :
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
