05/92220/BRefused

3 May 2006 · Delegated - Director of Planning and Building Control (M.I. McCauley, M.R.T.P.I.)

Conversion and extension of outbuilding to form a dwelling

The Old Rectory, The Cronk, Ballaugh, Isle Of Man, IM7 5ax

Received21 Nov 2005

Validated25 Nov 2005

Decided3 May 2006

5 months

Received21 Nov 2005

Validated25 Nov 2005

Decided3 May 2006

5 months

Why was this refused?

highway safety from substandard access visibility
non-compliance with Circular 3/89 on extensions and porch
intrusive Velux rooflights harming character
detrimental residential amenity/noise to Old Rectory
lack of defined curtilage/poor living conditions
proposal as independent dwelling not ancillary

The proposal involved converting an existing outbuilding (currently a store/workshop) within the grounds of The Old Rectory into a dwelling, with a 3.5m x 4m extension (3.1m ridge height), lean-to porch, Velux rooflights, and matching materials.

Refusal Reasons

✗The proposed conversion of the existing outbuilding into a dwellinghouse will result in the use of the existing vehicular access being intensified. The intensification in traffic movements from a sub-standard access which does not provide adequate visibility for vehicles leaving the site would be prejudicial to highway safety.
✗The proposal would be contrary to Planning Circular 3/89 'Renovation of Buildings in the Countryside' in that the proposal includes an extension of the existing building which is resisted in Planning Circular 3/89 unless it is for essential facilities. Whilst the agents for previous application (03/00226/A) had indicated to the Planning Authority that the existing building is large enough to refurbish internally to provide all the living accommodation that may be required without the need to extend the building, no evidence has been submitted by the applicant to demonstrate that the facilities can not be provided within the existing building.
✗The inclusion of a lean-to porch on the southeast facing elevation of the building is regarded as a non essential facility and therefore is resisted by Planning Circular 3/89.
✗Furthermore, the proposed use of velux rooflights on the conversion would be intrusive and out of keeping with the character and appearance of the building. The proposed extensions and alterations would not preserve or enhance the appearance of the building as it presently appears and would be contrary to Planning Circular 3/89 which requires renovations to re-establish the original appearance of the building.
✗The use of the access road would by reason of its close proximity to the existing dwelling of the Old Rectory would be detrimental to the residential amenity of the occupiers of that property from noise and general disturbance.
✗The proposal by reason of its location and substandard amenity space provision will result in the creation of a poor residential environment for the future occupiers of the dwelling to the detriment of their living conditions.

Documents (12)

Find Similar Applications

Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.

⚖️

Compare this application

See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.

Search for an application to compare with

Decision & Reasoning

Refused3 May 2006

The officer assessed the proposal as a new self-contained dwelling rather than ancillary accommodation, despite applicant's claims of family use linked to The Old Rectory, because plans showed no depe…

Policies Assessed (3)

3/89

Planning Circular 3/89 Renovation of Buildings in the Countryside

Requires renovations to re-establish original appearance using matching materials; modest extensions only for essential facilities if impracticable within existing building and required by Building Byelaws. Officer found extension/porch unjustified (no evidence vs prior agent's claim building sufficient), Velux intrusive/out of character, failing to match original appearance; lean-to not essential.

GP3

General Policy 3

Listed in report but not explicitly assessed.

HP15

Housing Policy 15

Listed in report but not explicitly assessed.

Public Comments (6)

SupportMr A Jessopp BSc (Hons), PMCS(public)

I considered this another potential windfall site and have no objection to the proposal.

SupportResident of Port Soderick(public)

considers this is another potential windfall site and has no objection to the proposal.

SupportIoM Fire and Rescue Service(statutory consultee)

recommends installation of domestic smoke detectors

SupportIoM Water Authority(statutory consultee)

for changes in supply applicant should contact IoMWA Byelaws Inspector

ObjectionHighways Division of DoT(statutory consultee)

ObjectionS.P.M.C. & E.(public)

View on map →

People

Ian Brooks, Planning Officer

Case Officer

Ellis Brown

Agent

Key Information

Reference: 05/92220/B
Decision: Refused
Date: 3 May 2006
Parish: Ballaugh
Property: 🏡 Detached
Year: 2005
Type: Full Planning Application
Category: Conversion
Scale: minor

Property Details

Property Type: dwelling
Proposal Type: conversion
Context: rural

Sale History

£196,000

May 2007

Property Planning History (5)

06/02206/BApproved2006

Conversion of barn to ancillary living accommodation

05/92220/BRefused2005Viewing

Conversion and extension of outbuilding to form a dwelling

03/01815/BApproved2003

Alterations and extensions to dwelling including conservatory

03/00215/AApproved2003

Approval in principle for the conversion of redundant cottage to living accommodation

03/00226/AApproved2003

Approval in principle for the conversion of existing garage and store rooms to living accommodation

Why was this refused?

highway safety from substandard access visibility

non-compliance with Circular 3/89 on extensions and porch

intrusive Velux rooflights harming character

detrimental residential amenity/noise to Old Rectory

lack of defined curtilage/poor living conditions

proposal as independent dwelling not ancillary

Refusal Reasons

✗The proposed conversion of the existing outbuilding into a dwellinghouse will result in the use of the existing vehicular access being intensified. The intensification in traffic movements from a sub-standard access which does not provide adequate visibility for vehicles leaving the site would be prejudicial to highway safety.
✗The proposal would be contrary to Planning Circular 3/89 'Renovation of Buildings in the Countryside' in that the proposal includes an extension of the existing building which is resisted in Planning Circular 3/89 unless it is for essential facilities. Whilst the agents for previous application (03/00226/A) had indicated to the Planning Authority that the existing building is large enough to refurbish internally to provide all the living accommodation that may be required without the need to extend the building, no evidence has been submitted by the applicant to demonstrate that the facilities can not be provided within the existing building.
✗The inclusion of a lean-to porch on the southeast facing elevation of the building is regarded as a non essential facility and therefore is resisted by Planning Circular 3/89.
✗Furthermore, the proposed use of velux rooflights on the conversion would be intrusive and out of keeping with the character and appearance of the building. The proposed extensions and alterations would not preserve or enhance the appearance of the building as it presently appears and would be contrary to Planning Circular 3/89 which requires renovations to re-establish the original appearance of the building.
✗The use of the access road would by reason of its close proximity to the existing dwelling of the Old Rectory would be detrimental to the residential amenity of the occupiers of that property from noise and general disturbance.
✗The proposal by reason of its location and substandard amenity space provision will result in the creation of a poor residential environment for the future occupiers of the dwelling to the detriment of their living conditions.

Policies Assessed (3)

3/89

Planning Circular 3/89 Renovation of Buildings in the Countryside

GP3

General Policy 3

Listed in report but not explicitly assessed.

HP15

Housing Policy 15

Listed in report but not explicitly assessed.

Public Comments (6)

SupportMr A Jessopp BSc (Hons), PMCS(public)

I considered this another potential windfall site and have no objection to the proposal.

SupportResident of Port Soderick(public)

considers this is another potential windfall site and has no objection to the proposal.

SupportIoM Fire and Rescue Service(statutory consultee)

recommends installation of domestic smoke detectors

SupportIoM Water Authority(statutory consultee)

for changes in supply applicant should contact IoMWA Byelaws Inspector

ObjectionHighways Division of DoT(statutory consultee)

ObjectionS.P.M.C. & E.(public)