Officer Planning Report

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:103681}} {{table:103682}} {{table:103683}} {{table:103684}} ### Considerations {{table:103685}} ### Written Representations ### Consultations {{table:103686}} {{table:103687}} ### Policy

Officer's Report

The application site is situated on the southern side of the A10. The site is located in within the open countryside. The site forms part of a wider landholding belonging to Keilthustag.

The existing building and curtilage are currently used for agricultural purposes. Circular 3/89 and Housing Policy 11 of the emerging Isle of Man Strategic Plan requires applicants to demonstrate that redundancy of the original use can be established by indicating the nature of the last active use of the building and the period that has elapsed since that use; and stating the reasons for the building being no longer suitable for or needed for its original use. Since, the existing building is still being used for agricultural purposes and the rest of the application site is used as a farm yard with the parking of a tractor on the hardstanding in front of the building. I do not consider the building to be redundant from its original use.

In respect of the impact on street scene of the A10, the front boundary of the application site has very limited landscaping features obscuring any views of the existing building. The building is constructed in stone. The proposed extensions are relatively small scale in nature. However, the proposed extensions would be very prominent within the street scene. The front extension would have a white smooth render finish. I consider this finish would look alien to the existing stone building. I also consider putting the front extension and the two front dormer windows together on this building would change the characteristic of the building to more of an urban characteristic. I also consider the use of white Upvc windows and the loss of original openings on the front elevation would further exacerbate the loss in character and interest of the building. The proposal would completely destroy the character of the building. I therefore consider the proposed extensions and alterations would adversely affect the character and appearance of the building which would cause demonstrable harm to the visual amenities of the locality.

In respect of the impact on Keilthustag, the building is situated to the east of the rear garden of Keilthustag. It is proposed to install roof light on the rear elevation of the building. These roof light sit a significant distance up the slope of the building so as to prevent any overlooking of the adjoining property. I therefore consider the proposal would not cause demonstrable harm from overlooking.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 13.05.2005

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal

• : Notes attached to refusals

R 1. The proposed conversion would be contrary to Planning Circular 3/89 and Housing Policy H11 of the emerging Isle of Man Strategic Plan in that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the existing building is redundant for its original use and therefore would be premature to consider this application of an alternative use.

R 2. The proposed extensions and alterations would be contrary to Planning Circular 3/89 and Housing Policy H11 in that the use of materials and the accumulation of extension and alterations would

adversely affect the character and appearance of the building which would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality.

Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...

P. C. Confirm initial revision (at review) on 9/12/05

CB Case officer