Loading document...
The application site, defined in red represents the domestic curtilage of Ballacowle, Andreas Road, Aust, Ramsey is located on the north-eastern side of the Andreas Road and is north of Ramsey. Also defined in blue is land associated with the property.
The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'woodland' not zoned for development, under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
Approval in principle to renovate and convert existing barn into three dwellings and demolition of remains of Dutch Barn and timber framed lean-to structure.
Lezayre Parish Commissioners have recommended approval:-
The Commissioners would like to add the proviso that the houses must be for rental only and remain part of the estate.
Highways Division have objected to the application:-
The proposed access track cannot provide adequate visibility on to the Secondary Route, Andreas Road, contrary to the interests of road safety. Sight lines of 2 metres by 160 metres are required to serve this development.
The IOM Water Authority makes no comment on the merit of the proposed development but request that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice.
The Wildlife & Conservation Officer:-
Barn Owls are present here, but the roost is in the disused farmhouse. Though the farmhouse is not part of the application, it will be lost if left to ruin and the barns could then form a potential roost site. I am keen to retain a site for barn owls, which would ideally remain within a secure farmhouse structure. However, taking account that the house may be left to ruin, it would be possible, and not costly, to include a barn owl box and access in the attic of a barn conversion. Therefore, if consent is forthcoming, I recommend that provision for barn owls be required in a detailed application. If the house were subsequently lost, then the owls could then remain on site. I have discussed the situation with Mrs McMillin and will take this further once we know whether development is possible. I therefore do not object to this application but wish to be notified of the result.
The S.P.M.C. & E object to the planning application, which can be summarised as; this barn is stated to be rented-out to a neighbouring farmer as a 'cow-house'. It is not, therefore, strictly redundant, furthermore the Structural Report says that it is occupied by cows, this report also notes that some parts of the walls have been re-built in brick and are in need of rebuilding, therefore there is doubt whether the completeness of the structure complies with Circular 3/89 and in addition there is nothing to prove that, without extension, it can be satisfactorily converted into 3 permanent dwellings.
The Manx Bat Group comment on the planning application, which can be summarised as; the area around Aust is a known bat habitat, prior to construction it would be advisable for a bat survey to be carried out, the barn is heavily covered in ivy in places such dense ivy cover is used by bats, if the ivy is to be removed, the recommended action is for its stems to be severed and for the ivy to be left to wither in situ prior to its removal and this will allow any bats roosting to move to another site.
There have been received no privately written representations objecting to the application.
Throughout the Island there are examples of buildings which are no longer suitable or needed for their originally intended use. Planning Circular No. 3/89 – Renovation of buildings in the countryside
addresses the subject of the renovation of, and alternative uses for, such buildings where they are sited in the countryside.
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 for, redundant buildings in the countryside which
Such buildings must be substantially intact, and structurally capable of renovation.
Redundancy must be established by the applicant for planning permission, who should address, and produce evidence to substantiate, the following points:-
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).
Material Planning issues which need to be considered with this application include:-
Firstly I consider the barn in question would be suitable for renovation as it has a particular architectural interest being a Manx stone barn and therefore would comply with paragraph 2 of the Circular.
Secondary, regarding to whether the building is substantially intact, and structurally capable of renovation, the applicant has commissioned a Structural Engineer's report. Within this report it states; "all three units have their original slate roof in place, which has reduced the weather to the eaves stonework. However, the roofs will need re-slating when local areas of repairs will probably be required and the stonework capped in concrete to receive the new roof framework".
The reports goes on to state "Both the front and rear walls of the centre units had been repaired in brickwork, at the front for nine courses down from the eaves, and at the rear down to the first floor level from eaves level".
The report continues "Our inspection of the principal walls was limited because of vegetation cover or lack of access, however in the areas examined, the walls appeared to be in an acceptable condition with no obvious misalignment or stress induced cracking and the lime mortar showed little evidence of friability. However, the exception to this was the rear wall of the centre unit, where the repaired brickwork leaned outwards from the first floor eaves, and will require restoring".
In Summary the reports states "The limited scope of the survey indicated that the principal walls are in a satisfactory condition, apart from the defects noted. No movement cracking could be identified, the two cross walls provide stiffness to the wall panels and the height to wall thickness when a new first floor has been constructed will give an acceptable slenderness ratio. In our opinion, the basic
structure is capable of being restored as part of a scheme to convert this building into living accommodation".
I therefore consider the barn in question would structurally be capable of renovation and therefore comply with the Circular.
However, a concern I have with the application would be regarding paragraph 3 of the Circular which deals with redundancy. As stated within the letter submitted with the application, "the barn is presently on a short term let to Mr Kermode of Andreas, used as a cow house", this indicates that the barn is not presently redundant and therefore contrary to paragraph 3 of the Circular. The applicant has indicated that the income derived from the short term let of the barn renders its upkeep uneconomic. The proposal to provide three dwellings would provide the income to offset the capital costs of the renovation and conversion. Without the necessary investment the building will continue to deteriorate and fall into disrepair.
The Highway Department have objected to the application as the required 2 metres by 160 metres visibility splays cannot be provided with the existing access. The applicant is not in ownership of the fields either side of the existing access lane, therefore no significant alterations to the existing access could be undertaken. However even if this was not the case the access would not be able to provide the adequate visibility splays particularly due to the entrance of the access been located near to a bend in the Andreas Road which is located only 55 metres away.
I consider the proposal contrary to Planning Circular 3/89 as the proposal is not redundant and is still being used for agricultural activities.
I also consider the introduction of three residential dwellings to this site would generate additional traffic to and from the site which would have an adverse impact upon highway safety due to inadequate visibility splays.
For these reasons the proposals would seem inappropriate in this location and therefore my recommendation is for a refusal.
I consider that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
I consider that the following parties that made representations to the planning application do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 22.05.2007
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. There is not available adequate visibility for drivers of vehicles emerging from the access track onto the Secondary Route, Andreas Road, contrary to the interests of road safety. Sight lines of 2 metres by 160 metres are required to serve this development.
R 2. From the information supplied in the application, it is clear that the existing buildings are presently in agricultural use, and thus not redundant; therefore the proposed development would not comply with the Department's policies for the Renovation of Buildings in the Countryside, as set out in Planning Circular 3/89.
Decision Made : Refuse Committee Meeting Date :
Discuss with the Dept
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown