Officer Report 05/92144/B

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:121483}} {{table:121484}} {{table:121485}} {{table:121486}} ### Considerations {{table:121487}} ### Written Representations Mr A Jessop ### Consultations {{table:121488}} {{table:121489}} ### Policy

Officer's Report

Description Of Application Site

• The application site is a two storey building comprising of a garage and a store room located within the residential curtilage of Ballacorlett Beg accessed off the B10 at Barregarrow
• The site also comprises of a dwellinghouse and a single storey stone outbuilding.
• The site is within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
• To the north of the proposed works are agricultural fields
• To the east of the site is a private lane leading to Cronk Aashen Farm. The lane is accessed via the B10.

Proposal

• The proposal is seeking Planning Permission to convert the garage and store into a self-contained tourist/guest accommodation.
• A two storey extension will be built on built on northern elevation of the building.
• The side extension will project 4m to the side of the property and will be 9m in length.
• The height of the extension will be 7.5m to the ridge.
• The extension will be rendered and painted to match the existing property.
• A conservatory will be built on the rear elevation of the extension. This will be 3.9m in length and 4.3m in width.

Relevant Planning History

• 87/01564 - Extension to form bed/sitting room & toilet – Granted 14/10/87
• 83/17 – Extension to gable end of dwelling – Granted 4/1/83
• 38140 – Provision of bathroom and Septic tank – granted 19/8/74

Development Plan Policies

• Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan Order) 1982
• Planning Circular 3/89 – Renovation of building in the countryside
• Isle of Man Strategic Plan (Modified Draft) 2004; GP3, EP1, EP2, EP3, EP21, HP11, BP10, BP12

Statutory Consultation Responses

• DoT – The visibility from the existing access road onto the B10 is inadequate to serve the needs of the developments.
• Michael Commissioners – No objection

Public Responses

• Press notice were posted on 17/11/04
• Representations have been received from a resident of Port Soderick and Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and the Environment (SPMCE).
• The resident of Port Soderick has commented that there is an already an established tourist use in this area and sees the proposal complimenting the camping facilities [at Cronk Aashen]. Furthermore the application appears broadly in accordance with the policies of providing new tourist accommodation, and the reuse of redundant buildings in the countryside.
• SPMCE has commented that this is a conversion to quite a reasonable building and the final appearance will be reasonable too. But is it vernacular and thereby worth preserving?
• IoM Fire and Rescue Service recommends that the applicant should contact the fire safety department in order to discuss the means of escape within the premises in the event of a fire occurring.

Issues

• The applicant has stated on the application forms that the barn is used for garage. No evidence has been submitted with the application to support the barn is redundant from it original use.
• Furthermore, the applicant has not submitted a structural report to demonstrate the barn can be capable of renovation.
• It would be premature to determine this application without evidence of redundancy and a structural report.
• The proposal includes a buttress wall on the south elevation of the building. The agent has not provided any evidence to suggest why the buttress wall is needed. I consider this also questions the structural integrity of the building.
• I therefore consider this proposal does not accord with Planning Circular 3/89.
• Paragraph 4 of Circular 3/89 states that an extension of modest and appropriate scale may be permitted for the provision of essential facilities. The proposed two storey extension does not provide any essential facilities for the barn conversion and therefore approving the extension would be contrary to Planning Circular 3/89.
• Furthermore, the proposed extension would not preserve or enhance the appearance of the building as it presently appears. I consider this extension to be an incongruous addition to the building and unwarranted.
• The Dept of Transport are concerned that the existing access road on the B10 is inadequate to serve the needs of the development. This proposal will intensify the use of the road which currently serves the property of the Ballacorlett Beg and Cronk Aashen camp site. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to approve this application in the interests of highway safety.

Conclusion

I therefore recommend that permission be refused for the reasons stated above.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 30.01.2006

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

C 1.

The site lies within an area of countryside identified as having "High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance" on the 1982 Development Plan Order. As such, development is generally resisted unless it can be seen to comply with the Department's established Countryside Policies.

There is no evidence submitted to demonstrate that the stone barn is structurally capable of renovation and no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate the barn is redundant from its original use. This is contrary to Planning Circular 3/89 and therefore it would be premature to determine this application without this evidence.

Furthermore, the proposal includes an extension of the existing building which ~~is not supported~~ required in Planning Circular 3/89 unless it is for essential facilities. Such would be an incongruous addition to the existing building and would not preserve or enhance the appearance of the building as it presently appears.

C 2.

The proposed development would intensify the use of an existing access road onto the B10 where visibility is considered to be inadequate to serve the needs of the development and therefore the proposal would prejudicial to highway safety.

I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)

Decision Made : Refused Date : 11/2/06 As amended Signed : M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control