Housing Policy 11 Justification

From: Corlett, Sarah Sent: 11 May 2011 11:44 To: Graham, Kevin Subject: RE: RE: Proposed scheme at Ballakewin Farm, Ballasalla

Dear Kevin,

Thank you for your client's comments on the proposed scheme.

The proposal has to comply with all of the provisions of the policy and I'm not sure that it does.

Redundancy. Whilst your client suggests that she has no need for a triple garage, there is no information about what other under cover parking is available on the site (there looks as if there is plenty of space for outside parking but if the existing garage were to be converted, would there be a request for a further garage for the main dwelling plus parking for the new residential units? In fact once the garage is no longer available, a further garage could be built under the provision of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005 without the need for an application, unless it is suspended as part of any approval for the conversion of the garage. It doesn't look as if the building is empty in the photographs and only one of the doors is open so I can't see what the rest is presently used for. Even if it is used for domestic storage, those items will have to be put somewhere.

As such, whilst your client may not need all of the garage, I think she needs to demonstrate that no part of the garage is required and that there would not be a further demand for garaging later on.

I am quite happy that the building appears to be structurally sound in accordance with paragraph 2.

Your client has indicated that part c is not applicable - I'm afraid it is. In order to qualify for consideration under the policy, the building must be of architectural, social or historic interest and if it isn't, then we won't consider it for conversion to another use. The building has already been changed through 92/01349/B where the front wall was moved forward and the building re-roofed in slate.

The building clearly isn't large enough to form two dwellings as it is being extended both sideways and in front. I am not sure why or if there is a need for two dwellings but the building clearly isn't large enough for this. The proposed extensions represent more than 60% of the existing floor area so in terms of size alone the proposal would not represent a "modest, subordinate" extension as required by the Policy. In addition, the proposals add to the length of the building, which changes its basic proportions and add a modern conservatory on the front which cannot fail to alter its character - neither a barn nor garage would have such a feature. Also, that large plastic framed patio doors are not characteristic of a building of any significant age or character.

I'll be honest and say that I think you may struggle to satisfy the Planning Committee that the proposal complies with the Policy for all of the reasons set out above and this is in the absence of any justification for the additional dwellings. I doubt very much that you could make a case for two additional dwellings on site.

One way forward may be to consider converting the building to a single dwelling but this would only achieve approval if you can satisfy parts a and c of the Policy and where any extensions are truly subordinate - not extending the basic dimensions or adding modern conservatories.

I hope this is helpful.

Sarah

From: Graham, Kevin Sent: 09 May 2011 16:23 To: Corlett, Sarah Subject: RE: Proposed scheme at Ballakewin Farm, Ballasalla

Hello Sarah,

I spoke to the Applicant and showed them Housing Policy 11 as abstracted from the Strategic Plan.

She has asked me to forward a copy to you which she has annotated with her comments.

The Applicant’s mother owns Ballakewin Farm and is now elderly and on her own. The Applicant would like to convert the redundant garage into living accommodation so that she can move in to it and keep an eye on her mother.

Regards,

Kevin

Housing Policy 11 – Conversion of existing rural buildings into dwellings may be permitted, but only where: (a) Redundancy for the original use can be established. The occupier of the main property is elderly and no longer requires the use of a triple garage. (b) The building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation. The building is usable with all external walls and roof intact and weatherproof. (c) The building is of architectural, historic, or social interest. Not applicable.

(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.

The proposed modifications to the existing property with a small extension to create two one bedroom single storey dwellings. This will not adversely affect the character as existing openings will be utilised and the extension will be built to marry in with the existing external features.

(e) Residential use would not be incompatible with adjoining established uses or, where appropriate, land-use zonings on the area plan.

The proposed dwelling would remain a single storey dwelling and would be used for residential purposes in keeping with other properties in the area.

(f) The building is or can be provided with satisfactory services without unreasonable public expenditure.

The main property has all necessary services electricity, water, septic tank etc. the services required for the proposed dwelling would cause little or no unreasonable public expenditure due to services already being in place.