See 05/1913 for other proposed activities on this site.
Described as a “Farmhouse” and most certainly looking like one, it would seem from the small area of land and also from what was said in connection with 05/1913, that it is no longer a full-time farm holding and therefore there can be no agricultural justification for a new dwelling.
So we are looking at a proposal for A NEW DWELLING IN THE COUNTRYSIDE, albeit a replacement.
The present house is an almost standard 2½ storey Manx farmhouse with a full-width lean-to outshut at the back. It look very fine, with its original small-paned sash windows, chimneys and porch (that perhaps not original, but quite fitting nevertheless) and one could make out a case to oppose demolition on the basis that it is a building worthy of preservation.
As against that, for the moment anyway, there remains a fairly good representative collection of such houses and they are not exactly ‘scarce’. An even more telling argument is the Surveyor’s Report which, despite my somewhat extreme optimism in wishing to save and restore old buildings, I have to say is pretty damning.
Reluctantly therefore, I feel the Society must raise no objections providing the replacement dwelling remains in scale with its predecessor.
One of a pair and in the Conservation Area. The insertion of a balcony above the shop window sadly unbalances the pair (I agree they are not very well balanced now, at this level, by the loss of the hipped-roof above the bay). However these alterations will make it worse, and unless the owners of Number 1 can be persuaded to erect a similar balcony, then the Society must OPPOSE this application. The bay should really be restored to its former design.
This has been going on for ages and we have seen and opposed several applications (including 99/0671 & 0772), usually rather badly put together, involving parts of such a scheme. We have never fully understood what it is really for and even though this is a much better presented application and at least tries to tell the full storey, we still find it difficult to imagine how the cost (and environmental disturbance) of all this earth moving can be justified merely to graze sheep? There was also an application to build stables (98/1996) which, unlike the others, was Approved and another for Composting facilities (04/1725) which has recently been Approved on Appeal. How are these other developments going to tie in with the present proposal? There is no clear indication on the drawings.
No doubt the Developer has a very clear idea of what he is intending, but unfortunately he finds it difficult to put his ideas into words and plans and we sympathise!
At the very least we suspect that this is basically a way of getting permission to accept the tipping and disposal of builder’s rubble – are we correct? If so, we don’t think the flank of a mountain is the right place. The Society remains unconvinced and must therefore OPPOSE this application as representing severe disturbance to the landscape in a prominent location close to an important National Monument.
Should, on the other hand, there be a wish to approve this application, may we suggest that Conditions be applied to a) forbid the importation of any materials required as fill or for road making, and b) that only materials taken from the spoil heaps on site be used.
05/02015/A
Approval in principle for the demolishment and erection of a replacement farmhouse, Ballacunner Smeale Road
ANDREAS
05/01993/B
Installation and erection of new access steps, French doors and balcony to side elevation and new French doors and balcony to replace existing bay window to front elevation, 2 Southview Queens Promenade
DOUGLAS
05/02006/B
Repair and widening of existing / former tracks, and creation of new tracks, and repair to hedges, Fields 314585 314586 314583 314582 315141 315142 W Of Ballig Bridge And N Of Poortown Road St Johns
GERMAN
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
