Officer Planning Report

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:115966}} {{table:115967}} {{table:115968}} {{table:115969}} {{table:115970}} {{table:115971}} ### Considerations ### Written Representations ### Consultations ## Policy

Officer's Report

The planning application seeks approval for the alteration and extension of a previously converted outbuilding within the residential curtilage of a detached dwelling in Maughold. The proposed development comprises of the extension of the building and the addition of porch.

In terms of representations to the planning application comments have been received from Maughold Parish Commissioners, the SPMCE and the Fire Safety Officer.

Maughold Parish Commissioners object to the planning application on the grounds of the extent of the alterations.

The SPMCE appears do not directly object to the planning application but have made comment on the quality of the submission.

The Fire Safety Officer has made no comment on the merits of the planning application but recommended that, if approved, the applicant should install smoke detectors and consult them with regard to the provision of appropriate fire precautions.

In terms of assessing the planning application it is important to examine the planning history for the building. The outbuilding was converted into holiday accommodation through the approval of planning application 98/1333 on the 30th November 1998. A subsequent planning application, 04/00700/C, that sought approval to change the use to permit the use of the building as a residential unit was initially refused, approved at review and confirmed approved on appeal. The unit was approved as ancillary accommodation with an informative note attached to that review approval decision notice stated that “The Committee would advise that bearing in mind the history of the building and its previous concerns about the impact of the new use on the adjacent dwelling, further extensions of this property are unlikely to be consider favourably”.

I consider the extensions and alterations proposed by this planning application are relatively large in comparison to the original outbuilding. Planning Circular 3/89, which relates to the renovation of buildings in the countryside such as this outbuilding, states that extension of modest and appropriate scale may be permitted for the provision of essential facilities and emphasises that subsequent extension will not be permitted. I believe that the proposed development is contrary to the provisions of the planning circular and I recommend refusal on that basis.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 05.12.2005

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal

O : Notes attached to refusals

R 1.

By reason that the proposed alterations and extensions fundamentally change the character and design of this converted outbuilding the planning application is contrary to the provisions of Planning Circular 3/89 - Renovation of Buildings in the Countryside. Specifically, paragraph 4 of the Planning Circular highlights that only extensions required to provide essential facilities may be permitted and that subsequent extension will not be permitted.

Decision Made : ...

Committee Meeting Date : ...