Loading document...
Application No.: 17/00725/B Applicant: Ballacreggan Farms Ltd Proposal: Conversion of existing redundant mill to single dwelling with associated parking Site Address: Ballakindry Mill Ballagawne Road Ballabeg Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 4PD Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 28.03.2018 Site Visit: 28.03.2018 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 25.06.2018 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
This decision relates to drawings 1758-05, 1758-06 received on 3rd July, 2017 and 1758-01A, 1758-02A1758-03A and 1758-04C all received on 24th May, 2018.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:
Manx Utilities who are directly affected by any alteration to the watercourse.
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
Glebe Cottage, Maughold who are too distant from the site to be directly affected by the proposal. _____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
1.1 The site is a parcel of land adjacent to the northeastern side of Ballagawne Road between Ballabeg to the south and the A27 Ronague Road to the north. The Ballagawne Road is narrow and generally of single vehicle width and contains a number of bends which afford sometimes very limited visibility for those in vehicles. The road slopes downhill from north to south which perhaps encourages the speed of vehicles but this is limited by the lack of forward visibility in both directions. To the south of the site is a series of two relatively sharp bends with similar bends to the north. - 1.2 Within the site, the predominant feature is Ballakindry Mill, which appears to have been unused for some years. This building has been identified within the Department as having potential for Registration despite not being identified in the Area Plan for the South as such. It is situated at a slight angle from the highway, with the side lean-to roofed extension immediately abutting the highway: roughly 18m of the frontage is open and free from any boundary treatment, whereas the highway is generally characterised by clear roadside boundaries of hedging and trees with some stone walling. Beyond this to the rear (north) is a wooded area and, within this, lies a large pond. There is a mill race apparently flowing to the mill, and which also apparently connects the pond with the nearby stream. To the side of the front of the mill is a gated access into the land to the north which is higher than the ground floor around the building. - 1.3 Ballakindry Mill, which is angled almost exactly such that its front elevation faces due west, is largely two storeys in height, but there is a single storey, lean-to extension to the southern side. It is formed largely of stone, much of which is horizontally laid, along with prominent stone quoins and some bricks that were apparently latterly installed. The roof on the twostorey element, which is incomplete, is finished in slate, while corrugated sheeting provides the mono-pitched roof for the single-storey extension. Both elements of the building are clearly of historic and traditional construction even if it is clear from the stone joins that they were constructed at differing times. - 1.4 There is a prominent vehicular sized entrance situated centrally within the front elevation, which has a slightly curved head, also formed of vertically oriented brickwork. There are no other openings at the ground floor level besides a pedestrian access into the side elevation and a very small square aperture to the right of the vehicular entrance. On the first floor of the front elevation are five openings of differing sizes. One would appear to have formed some kind of delivery access as it is - at 1.6m in height - just large enough for a person to stand within. The other four openings are more clearly windows, fitted with robust timber lights albeit that the glazing is no longer present and boards behind those openings are apparent. To the rear, there are five, similarly high-level, openings, albeit that these are (or would have been) all windows: they are identical in size.
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the conversion of Ballakindry Mill to a single dwelling and this follows previously approved applications for similar schemes (see Planning History). This would have four bedrooms on the ground floor and an open plan kitchen/lounge on the first floor. The application has been submitted with a Design and Access Statement explaining the design ethos, which includes a sentence explaining that the walls are straight appear to be free from cracks, and also a bat survey. The latter concludes that bats do use the building/area as a feeding site but not for breeding. - 2.2 The existing openings on the barn would be retained and re-used for windows; there would also be some new apertures created for the same purpose: three on the ground floor of the rear (east) elevation, one on the front (west) elevation at ground floor, and one in the side (north) elevation at ground floor. In addition, an older opening subsequently closed off is now proposed to be re-opened, with a single glazed panel installed. The lean-to side extension is proposed to accept two new rooflights. The most significant installation proposed is in the existing courtyard-style entrance, which would be in the form of a pair of front doors with fanlight surrounds, retaining the existing aperture but with a straight top to the glazing, reflecting that of the current timber door. - 2.3 Structurally, it is proposed that the building be entirely re-pointed with lime render, with a new slate roof finish proposed as well. - 2.4 A number of sycamores, an alder and three ash trees are proposed for removal to facilitate the development: one lies between the gable of the building with the road, three lie to the rear of the building and will be affected by proposed drainage and the remainder lie to the north of the building within the area proposed for vehicle parking. - 2.5 Three parking spaces are shown to the north of the barn and through an area that is currently gated. Tarmacadam surfacing on the hardstanding directly in front of the building and concrete block paving is shown for the parking and manoeuvring areas. - 2.6 Following discussions with the Arboricultural Officer amended plans have been submitted (25.05.18) which describe in more detail how the access and car parking areas will be formed and the existing trees protected. PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 The site has a highly relevant planning history. Approval in Principle was granted for the conversion of the barn under PA 04/01655/A, which was followed by a detailed approval issued to PA 05/01102/B - however, this was not implemented. Subsequently, and most recently, a conversion scheme identical to what had been previously approved was submitted, 16/01283/B. However, this was refused for four reasons. - 3.2 That application was refused for the following four reasons:
4.1 The site falls within an area not zoned for any particular kind of development as set out in the Area Plan for the South (APS) 2013. It also falls within the Landscape Character Area (LCA) for Ballamodha, Earystane and St Marks. - 4.2 The APS sets out the following in respect of this LCA:
"The overall strategy is to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area, with its wooded valley bottoms, its strong geometric field pattern delineated by Manx hedges, its numerous traditional buildings and its network of small roads and lanes. The strategy should also include the restoration of landscapes disturbed by former mining activities."
It continues: "Distant views prevented at times by dense woodland in river valleys and by the cumulative screening effect of hedgerow trees, which tend to create wooded horizons. "Open and panoramic views out to sea from the higher areas on the upper western parts of the area where there are few trees to interrupt views."
4.3 Otherwise, the APS contains no specific policies relevant to the assessment of this application. - 4.4 Strategic Policies 2 and 10 and Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan presume against development on land not zoned for it. However, General Policy 3 does set out some exceptions, and one such exception is the conversion of existing built fabric, but only on the proviso that such a conversion would comply with Housing Policy 11: "Conversion of existing rural buildings into dwellings may be permitted, but only where:
"Permission will not be given for the rebuilding of ruins or the erection of replacement buildings of similar, or even identical, form.
"Further extension of converted rural buildings will not usually be permitted, since this would lead to loss or reduction of the original interest and character."
4.5 In view of the site's location adjacent to a number of trees, and also the Landscape Character Area applying to the site in the APS, it is also important to consider Environment Policy 3:
"Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value."
4.6 General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan provides an important set of criteria against which new development proposals should be assessed. In this case the following are relevant: that the development
4.7 Environment Policy 4 provides further guidance on the protection of ecology: "Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect:
Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan
has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward."
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Arbory Parish Commissioners raise no objection (31.07.17). - 5.2 DEFA Inland Fisheries have no objection to the application provided that appropriate steps are taken to prevent harm to the aquatic populations in the watercourse downstream from the site. They confirm that they have visited the site in 2016 in response to the earlier application and both that and the current application involve re-routing the existing millrace. Whilst the mill race itself does not have a permanent water flow, it does drain into a stream which contains trout populations. Any major alterations to the watercourse would need to be done with care to ensure that sediment is not washed downstream during the re-routing works, especially at sensitive times of the year. They require a written construction method statement approved in advance of the commencement of works to ensure that there is taken a suitable construction approach to reduce the possibility of injury or disturbance of fish within the watercourse (21.07.17) - 5.3 DEFA Senior Biodiversity Officer confirms that he is content with the bat report (08.08.17). - 5.4 DEFA Arboricultural Officer considers that there is a sufficient lack of information on the impact of the development on the existing trees to warrant an objection to the application and requires information on both the impact on existing trees and proposed mitigation planting before a decision is taken (22.08.17). Following the submission of further information, the AO expresses concern at the loss of two trees to the rear of the building which are required to be removed to facilitate a drainage ditch to serve the property, and he confirms no objection to the removal of trees 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8. He confirms that he is concerned that there are other trees on the site which have not been considered and suggests that measures for their protection should be provided along with details of the levels of the parking area and how this may affect trees. He states that the arboricultural assessment has not been undertaken in accordance with Section 4 of the British Standard to ensure that the tree constraints are identified properly. Finally, he suggests that there are areas where construction activity will take place within root protection areas and the method of undertaking this needs to be specified, which it is not (21.12.17). - 5.5 Manx Utilities advise that if there is an intention to make the mill race watercourse part of the dwelling, written consent will be required from them prior to any works commencing (25.07.17). - 5.6 Highway Services initially sought a deferral of the application, noting that the access appears to have very low levels of visibility at 13m and 23m. There is no information provided regarding the speed of traffic on the derestricted road to determine the correct visibility, and no justification for accepting such a low level of visibility sightlines and requested that the application is deferred to allow the applicant to submit the required information (31.07.17). - 5.7 Highway Services then recommended refusal of the application on the grounds that the application fails to provide safe and convenient access as required by GP2 (h) of the SP (18.08.17), indicating that it is not likely that the required visibility splays are available, even if the access were relocated (22.05.18). - 5.8 Two residents of Maughold suggest that the mill was probably a water mill rather than a windmill but note that the bat survey mentions machinery yet none is shown on the drawings and wonder whether there is any remaining internal ill machinery. They suggest that this needs to be taken into account and if possible to preserve any remaining machinery if possible and
this has been done in the past (28.07.17). The applicant later confirmed that the building is empty (15.08.17).
6.1 The principle of the conversion of the mill to a residential dwelling was previously acceptable, noting some reservations with respect to the lack of a structural survey - a situation replicated here and, as noted with respect to the previous application, "this part of HP11 is largely intended as a means to provide certainty and security for applicants when they submit applications such as this, by way of ensuring the building will not collapse during construction work". However, the agent has confirmed that he is a Structural Engineer and confirms that the walls are sound and showing no sign of movement, bowing or cracking and as a new first floor is to be introduced, this will further strengthen the building. This is no longer considered to be an issue. - 6.2 Accordingly, the matters for detail are, in this case, judged to be:
The impact on ecology
7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 The proposal is considered to accord with HP11 and is supported.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application. - 8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Signed :……S CORLETT……….. Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required
YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown