Loading document...
Application No.: 06/00964/B Applicant: Martia Limited Proposal: Conversion of redundant barns to four holiday cottages Site Address: Southampton Farm Quines Hill Port Soderick Isle Of Man IM4 1BA Considerations Case Officer: Mrs F Mullen Site Visit: 30.08.2006 Expected Decision Level: Delegation Written Representations Hampton Court Quines Hill Old Castletown Road Port Objects to the proposal Soderick Hampton Court Lodge Quines Hill Old Castletown Road Objects to the proposal Port Soderick Consultations Consultee: Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose Consultee: Braddan Parish Commissioners Notes: Consultee: S.P.M.C. & E. Notes: Consultee: IOM Water Authority Notes: Consultee: Chief Fire Officer Notes:
Officer's Report THE SITE
12 September 2006 06/00964/B Page 1 of 4
The application site represents an area to the rear of Southampton Farm House, Port Soderick. Access to the site is gained via a single track leading from the west of Old Castletown Road. The Barns are constructed of stone with tiled roofs and vary in structural condition. A new agricultural building is adjacent to the stone barns and is included within the application site.
PLANNING STATUS The application site is located within an area zoned as High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance in the 1982 Development Plan Order.
PLANNING HISTORY Extensions to the adjacent farmhouse were granted approval under PA05/02024. Works in association with that approval are currently being undertaken on site.
REPRESENTATIONS The Department of Transport Highways Division advise that they do not oppose the application. Braddan Commissioners have not submitted comments and the SPMCE advise of no objections. The occupiers of Hampton Court and Hampton Court Lodge object to the proposal on the grounds of increase in traffic, noise and nuisance. The Registration and Grading Commission support the application.
THE PROPOSAL The application seeks approval for the conversion of redundant barn to form four holiday cottages.
ASSESSMENT Planning applications which seek approval for the conversion of redundant farm buildings are considered against the provisions of Planning Circular 3/89 - Renovation of Buildings in the Countryside.
Paragraph 2, the Circular states:
Such buildings must be substantially intact, and structurally capable of renovation. (my emphasis) It is further stated in Paragraph 8: "This Circular outlines the Department's policy for the renovation and continued use of buildings of merit which contribute positively to the character of the countryside. For clarification, it should be stated that this policy does not sanction in any general way the establishment in the countryside of new dwellings by the rebuilding of ruins."
Furthermore, Paragraph 7. states: "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)"
As is the practice of the Department, a structural survey was requested as part of the consideration of the application. That survey indicated that the buildings are constructed of traditional loose stone walls supporting timber floors, roof purlins and trusses. The roofs are stone tiled with ground floors of compacted earth. "To the two storey element, there are a number of localised areas of movement in the stonework and roof tiles due to deterioration of the floor and roof timbers. There are also areas of historic impact damage and water ingress. The single storey element is of comparatively better quality.
There are no general indications however of foundation settlement, significant roof spread or results of lack of restraint at first floor level. The structural integrity of the stone walls remain.
In summary, the general structural condition of the property appears satisfactory and subject to reroofing and making good local defects including replacement of selected roof timbers, the existing, remaining structure is considered suitable for the proposed refurbishment."
A site inspection was carried out on 30th August 2006. From the visit, it was noted that the wall to the west elevation was supported by a number of timber shores these being directly adjacent to a section of wall that had collapsed. In addition, a section of roof in this building had also collapsed with debris being clearly visible within the structure. Whilst it is proposed to retain a section of this building as a 'barn' this in itself would require substantial rebuilding.
Notwithstanding the structural survey submitted, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Planning Circular 3/89 insofar as the buildings do not appear to be structurally capable of renovation without substantial rebuild.
With regard to representations submitted, these relate primarily to traffic generation and noise. The Department of Transport have not objected to the proposal and given the existing access and visibility splay, it is not considered that access and traffic generation should form a reason for refusal.
It is considered that all parties who made who made representations to the planning application meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status except those listed below:
The Occupier Hampton Court, Quines Hill, Old Castletown Road The Occupier Hampton Court Lodge, Quines Hill, Old Castletown Road. SPMCE Registration and Grading Commission
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 30.08.2006
The proposal is considered to be contrary to the provision of Planning Circular 3/89 - Renovation of Buildings in the Countryside in that the existing barns are not considered to be structurally capable of renovation. As such, the proposal would be tantamount to the construction of new buildings in the countryside for tourist accommodation, such a proposal being contrary to the established policies of the Department.
The proposed car parking area, which is in excess of the requirements for the number of units proposed, would introduce a large area of hard standing, to the site, and limited soft landscaping and amenity space for tourists occupying the units, to the detriment of visual amenity.
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)
M. I. McCauley
Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown