Officer Planning Report

Application No.: 06/01482/R Applicant: Mr & Mrs Marshall Proposal: Retention and completion of work to complete new holiday cottage Site Address: Goldies Loughan Jurby East Isle Of Man IM7 3EZ ### Considerations Case Officer: Mr Ian Brooks Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee ### Written Representations ### Consultations Consulttee: Highways Division Notes: Consulttee: Jurby Parish Commissioners Notes: No objection Consulttee: Chief Fire Officer Notes: Smoke Detection Consulttee: S.P.M.C. & E. Notes:

Officer's Report

Site

• The application site is a site of a former byre, which is located to the east of the main dwellinghouse of Goldies Loughan at Jurby East.
• The site is situated on the southern side of the B3.
• The site is within an area not zoned for development
• To the east of the application site is a single storey stone built outbuilding

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

• The application is seeking retrospective planning permission for the retention and completion of work to complete a new holiday cottage.
• The building when completed would be 14.7m in length and 4.4m in width.
• The height of the building will be 4.2m to the ridge.
• A 2.5m x 3.4m outrigger would be constructed on the east facing elevation of the building.
• The height of the outrigger will be 3.8m to the ridge.
• The new building comprises one gable end of the original building.
• The holiday cottage is to be constructed to look as original as possible and to be in keeping with the main house, outbuildings and surrounding area.
• A new 3.6m wide vehicle access has been constructed on the B3

PLANNING STATUS AND RELEVANT POLICIES

• Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982
• Planning Circular 3/89 – Renovation of buildings in the countryside.

PLANNING HISTORY

• 04/01517/B – Conversion of existing byre to holiday accommodation – granted 21st September 2004
• 06/00983/R – Creation of a vehicular access – withdrawn.

REPRESENTATIONS

• Jurby Parish Commissioners – No objection.
• SPMCE have made the following comments :
• A typical case of insufficient care being taken during supposedly restoration works! Enforcement action seems to have been taken. The Society sees no advantage in being left with a ruin, but they must be told to be much more careful next time. Structure in transition should be propped against storms. No objection.
• IoM Fire Rescue Service recommends the installation of mains wired smoke detectors

ASSESSMENT

• Paragraph 2 of Planning Circular 3/89 states that "In general, it is considered that it would be not only appropriate but also beneficial to public amenity to renovate, and if necessary, find alternative use of redundant buildings in the countryside which
• (a) are Registered or worthy of Registration; or
• (b) are otherwise of particular architectural, historic, or social interest; or
• (c) contribute beneficially to the character of the countryside as viewed from highways, footpaths, or other places accessible to the public

Such buildings must be substantially intact, and structurally capable of renovation.

• Paragraph 4 of Planning Circular 3/89 states that "Renovation must
• (a) where practicable and desirable, re-establish the original appearance of the building: and
• (b) use the same materials as those in the existing building or buildings.

• Paragraph 7 states that "It is incumbent upon the applicant to ascertain that the building in question is structurally capable of renovation. Permission will not be given for the construction of replacement buildings of similar or even identical form (unless no change of use is involved).

• In 2004 an application (04/01517/B) was submitted for the conversion of existing byre to holiday accommodation. No structural report was submitted with the application. The planning officer at the time noted that the outbuilding appears substantial in construction. It was further noted that the conversion would be sympathetic, replacing a corrugated steel roof with a natural slate roof. Accordingly it was recommended that planning permission be granted. This recommendation was accepted by the Director of Planning and Building Control and planning permission was granted with conditions on 21st September 2004.

• The applicants have stated that the renovation of the building commenced in May of this year. While removing the existing concrete floor to prepare for laying the slab, the central section of remaining front wall collapsed due to having no foundations. Consequently, this has lead to the demolition of the remaining wall as it was unstable to build on.

• The applicant has now stated to building a similar building in the same location as the previous byre. The applicants have been advised to stop work and seek retrospective planning permission for the works already carried out as it falls outside the scope of the existing planning permission.

• This current application is therefore seeking permission for the retention and completion of a new building for holiday accommodation along with the retention of a vehicular access. The new building uses a gable end of the previous structure. This structure is in effect a new building within the countryside, which is contrary to the Department's established policy. There is no justification for allowing the retention of the new building in the countryside as it will undermine all established policies.

• Furthermore, the development can also be regarded as being tantamount to the creation of new dwellinghouse in the countryside in which Planning Circular 1/88 resists such development unless exceptional circumstance can prevail over normal planning considerations.

• Turning to the issue around the unauthorised access. This access was created to allow direct vehicular access for the new holiday cottage. Having assessed the new holiday cottage is unacceptable in policy terms there is no particular need for a new access into the site. I consider the access should be blocked up and reinstated back as part of the original hedge line along the front boundary. Its retention would harm the visual amenities of the area as it would be seen as an unnecessary access onto the public highway and impact on the character and appearance of the locality.

Recommendation

I therefore recommend that planning permission be refused for the above reasons.

Party Status

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.

Whilst IoM Fire and Rescue Service represents a statutory authority, the points raised in correspondence relate to Building Control matters and not planning and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.

It is considered that all parties who made representations to the planning application comply with the requirements of Planning Circular 1/06 – Determination of Interested Party Status with exception of the SPMCE.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 13.10.2006

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 retention of a new holiday cottage in this location is tantamount to the creation of a new residential dwelling in the countryside which would be contrary to the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 in that:

• (a) the proposed development is not zoned for residential development;
• (b) its residential development is contrary to the provisions of Planning Circular 1/88; and
• (c) the construction of replacement buildings of similar or even identical form is contrary to Planning Circular 3/89.

R 2. There is no justification to retain the access as its purpose is to serve an unauthorised building in the countryside. The retention of the access by reason of its siting and design in this prominent location would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area and be detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality.

Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date : 20/01/06