Planning Officer Report

1. The site comprises the curtilage of "Prastin" (formerly Ballawarkish Beg), and bungalow which adjoins the south side of the Grenady Road approx. 1 km north-east of Ballateg. 2. The occupancy of "Prastin" is limited by planning condition to agricultural workers. 3. The five small fields around the dwelling are "blue-lined". 4. The site is in the countryside. The land falls gently to the south. The existing dwelling is easily seen in the landscape as viewed from the south and east. Planning Report on 06/1905 THE SITE 1. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 5. The application proposes that the bungalow should be extended. The existing building is of simple rectangular form, approximately 16 x 9 m. There would be added to the western gable an extension, some 17 m long, set at right-angles to the existing building. There would be under-building on the southern end, such as to accommodate a storage room. The roof would be hipped at the southern end, and would be clad to match the existing roof. The external walls would be finished in render, with Manx stonework to the under-building at the south-west corner. PLANNING HISTORY 6. There is a recent planning history associated with this dwelling to which regard should be had in considering the current application: MEL (a) PA 04/426: This application was refused after Appeal, but that decision is the subject of a stayed Petition of Doleance. (b) PA 04/622: Refused, initially and at Review for reasons relating to landscape impact, design, and the change in size and nature such as to make the building less suitable for its permitted purpose as an agricultural worker's dwelling. (c) PA 05/92268: Approved (d) PA 06/137: Refused for the single reason that "The change in the size and nature of the dwelling would be such as to make it unsuitable for its permitted purpose, both in terms of its value and its size." This decision was subject to Appeal, which had been stayed pending consideration of the current application, but the Appeal has now been withdrawn. (e) Agricultural Activity: The Dept has now determined that Mrs. Letch's agricultural activity is such that there is not a breach of the occupancy condition. 7. In assessing this application REPRESENTATIONS 7. The gist of the written representations received by the Dept is as follows: (a) Highway Authority: conditional approval, including retention of parking space and a turning area, and provision of visibility sprays. (b) Local Authority: "No comments". (c) Fire Safety Dept: Installation of smoke detectors recommended. (d) Mr. Didham of Hawthorns: Extension still very large; if approved, tree planting should be required. 8. Since the proposal is similar to, but a little more modest than, that refused under reference PA 06/137, the appropriate approach is too expensive (a) to examine the differences between the two; (b) to consider the space needs of the applicants (now that their occupation of the dwelling has been determined to be legitimate in planning terms); and (c) having regard to "(a)" and "(b)", to judge whether the reason for refusing PA 06/137 has been addressed satisfactorily. 9. The differences between this and the previous application are (a) omission of the projecting, conservatory-like extension to the hall/dining-room; and (b) retention of the integral garage as such. There would be a modest decrease in 12. Having regard to the conditions suggested by the DoT and Mr Didham, I can comment as follows:- (a) Retention of parking space and a turning area is a reasonable requirement, but I doubt that the requirement to improve the visibility on to the highway would be warranted by any increased traffic arising from the dev't; I have added a note suggesting consultation; and (b) Mr. Didham has suggested tree-planting, but there is very little space within the curtilage, and using the sn a part of the agricultural land for amenity planting would be counter to the purpose of the dwelling. landscape impact and overall floor area, and, presumably, less (or no) need for additional garaging. 10. The applicants occupy the dwelling in accordance with the conditions attached to the planning approval. They have, I understand, four children living at home. As proposed, the dwelling would have four bedrooms and a small study, in addition to the living-room, dining-room, and kitchen/breakfast-room. It thus appears to me that the size of the extension is warranted by the reasonable space requirements of the applicants. 11. Having regard to the above paragraphs, I conclude that the application should be approved. 12. See next page INTERESTED PARTY STATUS 13. The Highway Authority, the Local Authority, and the Fire Safety Dept should be accorded interested-party status, but Mr. Bidham's dwelling, "Hawthoms", is not close enough to the site to warrant accepting him as an interested party. RECOMMENDATION 14. I recommend that the application should be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) 5C1 (4 years) (2) The extended house dwelling shall remain subject to ~~the approval granted in respect of~~ the following condition, which was attached to the original approval for the dwelling:— The occupation of the dwelling must be limited to persons whose employment or latest employment is or was employment in agriculture and including also the dependants of such persons as aforesaid. (3) The roof of the extension must be finished externally to match that of the existing dwelling. (4) There must be retained within the site three parking spaces and a vehicle-turning facility. Note: The applicants are recommended to consult the DoT's Highway Division to discuss improvements to the visibility when emerging from the existing access on to the public highway. Notes (1) SN 16 (smoke detectors) {{table:288813}}