Loading document...
The application site is situated on the southern side of Leodest Road (B2). The site is located within the open countryside.
I consider the first issue to bear in mind is the issue of the existing cottage having lost its residential use due to abandonment. In June 2004, a planning application for approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling and a garage with vehicular access to replace the existing cottage was submitted. The application was refused on the grounds that the existing building had not been used for a considerable period of time and as such has lost its habitable status. Accordingly the proposed
erection of a replacement dwelling was contrary to the department's well established policy of discouraging residential development in the countryside.
The existing building is currently unoccupied and in a state of disrepair which has occurred over a number of years. The building is not currently habitable in its current state of condition. The property would require external and internal works to bring the property back into any suitable form of condition for habitation. The applicant has submitted a report from a Structural Engineer to show the existing cottage could be renovated and brought back to use. The building and the curtilage of the site has not been maintained in any form for a number of years. The building is currently obscured from public view from existing landscaping within the application site and extensive ivy coverage on the building. The building has blended into the open countryside. This evidence shows it has been the intention to abandon the residential use of the property. I therefore consider the existing site has lost its residential use.
In respect of the impact of the proposed extensions to the cottage, the existing building has a footprint of approximately 44 sq m. The proposed extension and conservatory would create an additional footprint of 91.1 sq m. This would see a 207% increase in footprint of the existing building. I therefore consider the proposed extension would be disproportionate in scale, form and appearance compared to the existing building.
The application site is visible from both directions of Leodest Road. The extensions to the property along with the detached garage would be highly visible from the public highway. I consider the proposal would be seen as significant additions to the existing building. These additions would detract from the existing character of the site and the openness of the locality. I therefore consider the proposal would cause demonstrable harm to the openness and character of locality which would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the open countryside.
The application is also seeking approval to increase the existing residential cartilage of the site, which is tightly drawn around the existing cottage. The surrounding land is used as grazing land for cattle. The curtilage would be extended approximately 19m to the south at it widest, 29.5m to the northwest from the existing curtilage and 40m to the southeast along the boundary abutting the public highway. This encroachment would allow the proposed extensions and detached garage to be built on the site. This is a significant encroachment of a residential curtilage into the open countryside. I consider this encroachment would further diminish the openness of the surrounding area and would cause demonstrable harm to visual amenities of the locality.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 13.05.2005
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
The refurbishment and extension of the existing cottage would be contrary to Planning Circular 1/88 and Housing Policy 12 of the emerging Isle of Man Strategic Plan in that the existing building has lost it established use as a permanent dwelling through abandonment and the introduction of a residential use would be detrimental to the rural amenities of the locality.
R 2. The proposed extensions and detached garage would be contrary to Planning Circulars 1/88 and 3/91 and Housing Policies 14 and 15 of the emerging Isle of Man Strategic Plan in that:
i) the proposed extensions would be disproportionate in scale, form and appearance compared to the existing building; and ii) the proposed extensions and detached garage would introduce a prominent and incongruous feature in the street scene, disrupting the rhythm of development which would cause demonstrable harm to the openness and character of open countryside and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality.
R 3. The proposed residential curtilage would be contrary to Planning Circular 1/88 and Housing Policies 12 and 14 of the emerging Isle of Man Strategic Plan in that the proposed curtilage would amount to being a significant encroachment of a residential curtilage into the open countryside which will further diminish the openness of the surrounding area and would cause demonstrable harm to visual amenities of the locality.
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown