Loading document...
Application No.: 08/00510/B Applicant: Mr K Skinner Proposal: Erection of replacement cottage (comprising an amendment to approved extension, conversion of adjacent barn to living accommodation and erection of a link building 05 / 00375 / B ) Site Address: Ballacannell Earystane Colby Isle Of Man ### Considerations Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Expected Decision Level: Delegation ### Written Representations ### Consultations Consultee : Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose Consultee : Arbury Parish Commissioners Notes: No comments Consultee : Chief Fire Officer Notes: Smoke Detection Consultee : Inland Fisheries Development Manager Notes: No objection
The site represents an irregularly shaped piece of land which is situated at the end of the footpath and lane leading from Colby Glen Road (A27) to Earystane. Presently on site is a roofless stone cottage and intact stone barn which lies to the west. Access is presently via a rough, unmade lane which leads from a rough, but generally made up roadway which leads as far as Upper Ballayack. Works have commenced on the conversion of the property (see below).
The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as "white land" and within an area where development is considered unsuitable due to a potential for pollution of future or existing water supplies.
Planning permission was sought and granted on appeal for principle of the restoration of the cottage and the conversion of the barn, cumulatively to form one dwelling under PA 01/2533. Permission was subsequently refused twice for the details of this work under PAs 03/1330 and 04/0938. Permission was finally granted for the details of the conversion under PA 05/0375 which provided for a two storey link between the two buildings and an extension at the rear. In the application for the principle of renovation and conversion, the position of the Planning Authority was that the barn was of more interest than the cottage and in better condition and the cottage was described as having lost its residential use by abandonment. The Inspector who recommended that this application be approved noted that the cottage appeared to be in a "substantially ruined state". This permission was specifically for the renovation of the existing buildings and not for any replacement fabric.
Proposed now is the same scheme which was permitted under PA 05/0375 albeit with the reconstruction of the cottage. There is no supporting information provided in the application.
The applicant's agent has provided additional supporting information which suggests that the interest in the site is in the barn rather than the cottage and that the permission which has been granted includes a substantial extension at the rear which changes its character. The cottage is experiencing movement into the gables due to the pressure of the unrestrained stacks. As such, it is proposed to re-build the cottage to its existing size and proportions - the drawing is in fact the same as that previously submitted.
The Fire Prevention Officer requests the installation of smoke detection which is dealt with as part of the Building Regulations and as such is not a planning matter.
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Inland Fisheries Inspectorate recommend that there is no development within 8 m of a watercourse and during construction efforts are made to safeguard against water pollution. There does not appear to be a water course anywhere near this site which would be affected by the proposed works.
Arbory Parish Commissioners have no comment Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division do not oppose the application
The proposed re-building of the cottage is clearly contrary to the provisions of the original approval and Housing Policy 12 as the existing property has lost it habitable status through abandonment, the roof having been removed and the property not being capable of being occupied. The structure would, however comply with Housing Policy 13 for renovation although this policy clearly states that rebuilding is not acceptable.
However, in this case, the cottage is not the principal part of the scheme nor the more interesting of the two buildings and the Inspector commented in the previous application that the condition of the cottage was "substantially ruined". As such, it is not considered that the re-building of the cottage would be contrary to the terms or justification for the original approval. As such the proposal is recommended for approval.
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry raise issues which relate to material planning considerations and as such should be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 25.09.2008
N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
This permission relates to the re-construction of the existing cottage as shown in drawings 08/25/01, -02 and -03 all received on 12th March, 2008.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no extensions, greenhouses, walls, gates, fences, garden sheds, summerhouses, flag poles, decking, garages, or tanks for the storage of oil for domestic heating shall be erected (other than those expressly authorised by this approval.)
The windows must be timber framed sliding sashes as shown in the approved drawings and notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and COuntry Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005, may not be replaced without planning permission.
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular No 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control)
M. I. McCauley
Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown