Planning Committee Report

Department Of Local Government And The Environment ### Report To Planning Committee TO: Planning Committee FROM: Brian Sinden REF: BJS/KLB DATE: October 2005 SUBJECT: PA04/426 - Removal of agricultural workers tie on existing dwelling, Praslin Formerly Ballavarkish Beg, Grenaby Road PA04/622 - Alterations and extensions to dwelling, Praslin Formerly Ballavarkish Beg, Grenaby Road 1. The Planning Committee may recall that: a) PA04/426 was refused, on Appeal, on the 6th May 2005, but that this decision is the subject of a Petition of Doleance by the applicants against the Department; and that b) PA04/622 was refused on the 20th May 2005, but that a decision on Review has been deferred at the request of the applicants. 2. The applicants' advocate has now made a submission requesting that the Planning Committee determine whether or not his clients' current use of the dwelling complies with the "agricultural occupancy" condition (copy attached to this report). 3. Also, the applicants' architect has submitted draft plans of amended proposals for extending the dwelling, seeking an informal view thereon from the Committee. 4. I can comment as follows: a) Current use: the condition in question is "The occupation of the proposed dwelling must be limited to persons whose employment or latest employment is or was employed in agriculture and including also the dependants of such persons as aforesaid". It appears to me that the applicants' "employment in agriculture" is slight and insufficient to satisfy the condition. b) Extension: There were three reasons for refusal initially: 1) The existing building is prominent in the landscape, particularly as viewed from the south and the south-east; the extensions would add considerably to this visual impact, particularly having regard to their size and materials. 2) The extensions, which would more than double the size of the existing building, would swamp the bungalow and would themselves be of inappropriate from, style, and materials. 3) The change in the size and nature of the dwelling would be such as to make it less suitable for its permitted purpose, both in terms of its value and its size. In terms of landscape impact, the increase in size and the use of a 2 -storey element would both clearly still result in an increased landscape impact, but the omission of the garage and the use of tile-hanging on the upper level would reduce the impact. In terms of the building itself, the 2-storey element would still sit uneasily next to the existing bungalow, and the composite appearance would lack overall coherence. In terms of future use, the extended building is likely to be beyond the means of a farmworker. "Option 2" is better than "Option 1". Brian Sinden Senior Planning Officer