Approval in principle for the re-establishment of redundant building to a dwelling

Refusal Reasons

• ✗Whilst the Department has a policy which encourages the renovation and re-use of redundant buildings within the Island's countryside (Planning Circular 3/89), this proposal is not felt to satisfy the requirements of that policy inasmuch as: the building is not substantially intact in that it has no roof structure (paragraph 2), no evidence has been provided to persuade the Committee that the building is capable of renovation (paragraphs 2 and 7) bearing in mind the condition of the building, the fact that the roof has been missing for some time and the water which collects at the back of the property and general dampness of the site, the Planning Committee is not persuaded that the servicing of the building is possible or achievable without damaging the character and appearance of the building and its environs (paragraph 4), the Planning Committee is not persuaded that the introduction of a new residential unit in this location is compatible with the redundant mining environment in which it would sit in terms of the living environment which would be available to the house, possible contamination and pollution of the ground through former mining activities and mineral deposits nor would the introduction of a new residential use here and the traffic associated with it, travelling up and down the public footpath be compatible with the farming activities existing on the land between the building and the nearest made-up road.
• ✗Notwithstanding the above, the provision of a satisfactory means of access to service the property, both in terms of the occupants of the property and those visiting for social and delivery purposes, would significantly damage the rural character of the area. In addition, the introduction of additional vehicular traffic such as would be generated by the residential use of the property, onto this public right of way would be detrimental to the enjoyment of the footpath by those rambling and walking in this area. If the provision of a vehicular access to the property would involve only minimal upgrading of the footpath (and it is not accepted that this would provide a satisfactory means of access to the property), the increased usage of this route would downgrade the footpath so as to make it less convenient for walkers to use it.
• ✗The works required to the building to bring it to habitable status would destroy the building as a habitat for choughs which are known to use the building for nesting. Choughs are protected by the Wildlife Act 1990. In addition, the area is known to accommodate hen harriers: the domestication of the site and surrounding area would be detrimental to the continued use of this area by this species which is also protected under the Wildlife Act 1990.
• ✗The renovation of the building and its occupation for residential purposes would change the character of both the building and the surrounding area. Presently the house and its environs appear as deserted features in a landscape which is dominated by its mining past. An occupied dwelling with its car parking, garden, parked vehicles and domestic paraphernalia would be completely out of place in this landscape which is historically important in reminding visitors to it of its history and purpose.