Loading document...
Application No.: 08/00777/A Applicant: Mrs Barabara Oates Proposal: Approval in principle for the conversion of existing redundant cottage to a dwelling Site Address: Ballafadda, Ronague Road, Ronague, Castletown, Isle Of Man ### Considerations Case Officer: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee ### Written Representations ### Consultations Consulttee: Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose Consulttee: Arbory Parish Commissioners Notes:**
The site represents two parcels of land which lie on both sides of a lane which leads from the A27 Corlea/Ronague Road to Earystane plantation and quarry. The parcel of land to the south west accommodates the remains of a small cottage: to the north east is another small parcel of land on which vehicles are parked and with some ruined walling. The cottage has all four walls but no roof and the windows have been boarded up. The building is right alongside the road.
Opposite the site are Ronague Chapel (now a dwelling which has been the subject of extension) and Round Table House.
The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as "white land", that is, Open Space not designated for development.
Planning permission was sought for the principle of alterations and extensions to the derelict cottage to create a new dwelling under PA 02/2434 and was refused on appeal. A subsequent application was
submitted for a similar scheme but the pc declined to consider the application as it was considered substantially the same as the previously refused scheme.
The reason for refusal related to the fact that the Inspector considered the existing building "in a substantially ruined stated" and in order to provide a first floor there would need to be a building up of the gable ends which would affect the character of the building. The proposed extension would be seen to add a significant new element to the property and the resultant accommodation would be so "meagre" as to lead to demand for further extensions. Finally, the cottage was not considered to have "any architectural or historic interest such as to override the strong planning objection".
Proposed now is the principle of the renovation of the cottage. No supporting information has been submitted with the application although the applicant has submitted, on request, a structural engineer's report. The report is dated 23rd May, 2003 and concludes that the building shows no signs of structural distress and are stable and it is feasible to retain the existing walling and extend the cottage as proposed. There is no proposal within the application to extend the property. The applicant's agent suggests by way of covering letter dated 26th May, 2008 that the structural condition of the building has not changed since the report in 2003.
Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division raise no objection to the proposal subject to visibility splays of 2.4 m by 80 m being provided. There is no indication of whether these visibility splays could be achieved or if so, the works which would be involved. In the previous appeal, the Department of Transport objected to the application on the basis that there were inadequate sight lines available to drivers of vehicles emerging onto the A27 and the Planning Committee representative noted that in order to provide the visibility splays required by Department of Transport, this would involve the removal of hedges and would be detrimental to the character of the area.
Despite the lack of supporting information with the application, it is pertinent to consider the scheme against Housing Policy 13 which deals with dwellings in the countryside which have lost their residential status through abandonment. This policy states the following: "In the case of those rural dwellings which have lost their former residential use by abandonment, consideration will be given in the following circumstances to the formation of a dwelling by use of the remaining fabric and the addition or new fabric to replace that which has been lost. Where a) the building is substantially intact; this will involve there being at least three of the walls, standing up to eaves level and structurally capable of being retained; and b) there is an existing, usable track from the highway; and where c) a supply of fresh potable water and of electricity can be made available from existing services within the highway.
This policy will not apply in National Heritage Areas (see Environment Policy 6). Permission will not be given for the use of buildings more ruinous than those in a) above, or for the erection of replacement buildings. Extensions of dwellings formed in accordance with the above may be permitted if the extension is clearly subordinate to the original building (ie. in terms of floor space measured externally, the extensions measures less than of that or the original)."
This differs from the policy against which the previous scheme was considered (Planning Circular 3/89) in that the policy no longer requires that buildings are substantially intact, which generally previously required that the building had a roof. Now, Housing Policy 13 requires only that the building has at least three walls standing to eaves level and structurally capable of being retained, which is the case here. The building is right alongside the road and has an existing access and water supplies and there are other properties very close to the site.
This policy also differs from the advice previously given in Planning Circular 3/89 in that there is no requirement for the dwelling to be of particular interest or merit and there is also provision for extensions up to 50% of the existing floor space measured externally whereas previously extensions were generally discouraged unless to provide essential facilities.
As such, there is justification for a conclusion on this application, which differs from that reached in respect of PA 02/2434 as the policy on this type of development has changed significantly since that decision.
Whilst in principle only, it is considered that the property complies with the requirements of Housing Policy 13 for renovation to permanent occupation. Conditions could and should be attached to ensure that the eaves level is not raised such that the character of the property is compromised or adversely affected and that if there is to be an extension, that it is subordinate to the principal cottage and does not exceed 50% of the existing property. As there are no internal walls or floors in the property, it would perhaps be more helpful to specify that any extension shall not exceed 50% of the size of the existing cottage footprint and the ridge height shall not exceed that of the main cottage.
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.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 29.05.2008
This approval is in principle only and will remain valid for a period of two years within which time no development may take place until such time as details of the reserved matters (siting, design, external appearance, internal layout, means of access, landscaping) have been approved by the Planning Authority. Such reserved matters should form the subject of a single application.
This permission relates to the principle of the renovation of the cottage and its use for residential purposes together with creation of associated parking area and installation of septic tank all as shown in drawing 0002 BO and the photographs all received on 16th April, 2008.
The application for approval of reserved matters must demonstrate that the renovation of the property does not significantly alter the character or appearance of the property: the eaves and ridge levels may not be significantly increased and any extension must be subordinate to the principal
29 May 2008 08/00777/A Page 3 of 4
cottage and not in size be more than of the footprint of the existing cottage with the eaves and ridge levels of any extension being be no higher than those of the principal cottage.
The application for reserved matters must also include the provision of at least two parking spaces within the site (including the area across the lane from the cottage) with sufficient paved space for parked vehicles to both park and turn around within the parking area.
Decision Made : Committee Meeting Date :
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown