Loading document...
APPLICATION REFERENCE: PA 19/01057/B
PROPOSAL: CONVERSION AND EXTENSION OF REDUNDANT MILL TO CREATE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING
ADDRESS: GLEN MOAR MILL GLEN HELEN ROAD, LAUREL BANK, ST JOHNS, ISLE OF MAN IM4 3NN
0.0
Conversion and Extension of Redundant Mill To Create Residential Dwelling
Glen Moar Mill Glen Helen Road, Laurel Bank, St. Johns, Isle of Man IM4 3NN
i.1 This Statement has been prepared by Haven Homes Limited (HH / the Agent) on behalf of Rockfell Ltd. (the Applicant) at the direction of the case officer for the application (the Application, as amended). The Statement is intended be read and considered in conjunction with those submissions lodged by the Applicant in support of the Application.
i.2 The Proposal is as described in this Statement and as represented in those drawings scheduled under Appendix A. The Proposal may be summarised as the conversion and extension of the redundant, predominantly stone-built structure that previously accommodated a corn mill (the Mill building) for residential use.
i.3 The Application is made under reference PA 19/01057/B for full detailed planning consent for the Proposal, without prejudice to any existing statutory consents, licenses or other provisions in respect of the land, whether wholly or partly contained within the Site.
i.4 The Application site (the Site) is as delineated, edged red, on the Site Survey. The Applicant’s interest in the Site is as owner, with the extents of their adjoining interest as delineated, edged blue.
1.1 PA 19/01057/B was originally lodged in September 2019 and, following dialogue with the Department, has been amended to
a) limit the extents of the original application to the Mill building itself, as is reflected in the amended Site Survey;
b) put forward for consideration only those parts of the original proposal concerning the change of use of the Mill building to residential use, including the building works that would be required by the same change of use.
1.2 Whilst the Proposal is generally as originally submitted, there have been a number of amendments affecting the external appearance and internal arrangement over that previously shown. These can be seen by comparing those drawings scheduled under Appendix A with their corresponding superseded versions (previously submitted) and include:-
a) the substitution of a north-facing double door for a single door to the En-suite of Bedroom One at ground floor level;
b) the omission of a south-facing window to Bedroom One at ground floor level;
c) the reduction in size of a south-west facing terrace space served by the dining room at ground floor level (and reduction of the corresponding internal space underneath);
d) the omission of the terrace served by the gallery at first floor level (over Bedroom One below) and substitution for a mono-pitched roof form;
e) the enlargement of Bedroom Two at first floor level with additional roof lights and extension of ridge line above;
f) the reduction of the size of light admitting windows to the gable over the former wheel pit (to the Wheel Room at ground floor level and to Bedroom Four at first floor level)
2.1 The Site is not within, in the vicinity of, or in a sight-line from, any Conservation Area. The Site is not within a proposed Conservation Area. The Site does not contain any Registered building, nor is it in the vicinity of any Registered building or any building formally proposed for inclusion on the Register of Protected Buildings. Therefore, Planning Policy Statement 1/01, Environment Policy 34, Environment Policy 35, Environment Policy 36 and Environment Policy 39 are inapplicable to the Application.
2.2 General Policy 3 states, in part:-
“Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: [...] (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11)[...]”
Housing Policy 4 states, in part:-
“New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances: [...] (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11;”
Housing Policy 11 states, in full:-
“Conversion of existing rural buildings into dwellings may be permitted, but only where: (a) redundancy for the original use can be established; (b) the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation (c) the building is of architectural, historic, or social interest;
(d) the building is large enough to form a satisfactory dwelling, either as it stands or with modest, subordinate extension which does not affect adversely the character or interest of the building; (e) residential use would not be incompatible with adjoining established uses or, where appropriate, land-use zonings on the area plan; and (f) the building is or can be provided with satisfactory services without unreasonable public expenditure.
Such conversion 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.
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"
a) Although water-powered corn mills continued to operate on the Island for some time after the Revestment Act, the use of local mills diminished considerably after the introduction of the railway infrastructure in the 19th century, ceasing almost entirely by the time modern highway infrastructure was introduced in the early 20th century. More recent use of the Mill building has, ironically, included use as a shop in connection with a petrol filling station serving the adjacent highway. The Site has, however, not served this 20th century purpose for a considerable amount of time. In terms of criterion HP11(a), it is clearly established that the original use of the Mill building is redundant.
b) The Mill building has recently suffered some deterioration at roof-level and so the Applicant is anxious to carry out renovation works to prevent further damage whilst the structure remains substantially intact. A chartered structural engineer has been consulted and has prepared a report demonstrating that the Mill building is capable if being refurbished, thereby satisfying criterion HP11(b)
c) Mills are an important and established part of the Island's social history, despite many having unfortunately been lost following their redundancy. With a few rare exceptions, those that survive have done so through the alternative uses for their structure, often to the cost of some of their originality. Glen Moar is such a case in point, as it is probably better known in recent times for its former use as a petrol filling station with a number of late alterations. In terms of criterion HP11(c), therefore, the Mill building can be said to be of social and historical interest.
d) In its present form, the Mill building is arranged over four floors with a gross internal area of some 463m². The Proposal arranges living accommodation over three floors in order to provide a suitable headroom for this intended purpose, as can be seen by comparing the existing and proposed sections provided on drawings 20/10/02 and 20/10/04. Together with the minor extensions proposed, some 484m² GIA would be provided
in total. This is sufficient in terms of criterion HP11(d) for the use sought. Moreover, the proposed extensions are arranged to the rear (south) of the Mill building, with the objective of having minimal impact when seen from the public realm. The modest massing of the extensions is arranged so as not to detract from the form of the original structure, and will be finished in stone to complement the materiality of the original stonework.
e) The Mill building is situated adjacent to three residential cottages, with which it shares an established vehicular access. The proposed conversion of the Mill building is compatible with, and would not prejudice, the existing adjacent use of the cottages, thereby satisfying criterion HP11(e).
f) The Site is served by existing utility connections for electricity, telecoms, gas and water, and so provision to the Mill building would not result in unreasonable public expenditure, as described in criterion HP11(f).
g) The Site is situated within a low-lying, narrow valley, lined on both sides with plantations and so the surrounding topography of the Site considerably limits the availability of natural light, in particularly during winter months when sun is at its lowest angle of inclination. This has necessitated the proposed addition of high level apertures to the Mill building in order to admit a greater amount of natural light within the structure. Such alterations, to increasing natural light to older buildings, has become a common practice in order to secure their reuse, with a number of such examples on the Island and further afield. Although this will inevitably affect the appearance of the building as it currently exists, the appearance is already somewhat altered by its previous re-use in connection with a petrol filling station. The effect of the Proposal would be minimal in this respect and has been balanced against the various changes already made to the original structure during its life, the particular circumstances and surroundings of the Site, and the practicable rehabilitation of the Mill building. As already stated at §2.2(d) of this Statement, the Proposal makes consideration of the original materiality of the structure. Given the foregoing, the Proposal can be shown to comply with the latter criteria of HP11, also labelled (a) and (b).
2.3 Environment Policy 43 states, in full:-
"The Department will generally support proposals which seek to regenerate run-down urban and rural areas. Such proposals will normally be set in the context of regeneration strategies identified in the associated Area Plans. The Department will encourage the re-use of sound built fabric, rather than its demolition.
With reference to §2.2(d) of this Statement, the Proposal seeks to regenerate a historical building in a rural context that has recently suffered deterioration. The Proposal is, therefore, as described under EP43 as being generally supported by the Department, albeit that the Proposal is limited to the Mill building at this time and that no Area Plan or regeneration strategy concerning the Site has been established or adopted.
3.1 The Application has already undergone a consultation process with the relevant authorities. It is understood that the amendments to the Application will give rise to a second consultation period, nevertheless no matters that have not already been identified by interested parties are anticipated, as it is solely those matters in relation to the Mill building that are now for consideration.
3.2 Previous representations in this regard can be summarised as follows:-
a) Highways express no objection;
b) German Parish Commissioners express no objection;
c) DEFA Biodiversity request condition(s) to approval, regarding i) undertaking a bat survey and a report detailing any mitigation ii) a lighting scheme that minimises the spill of artificial lighting;
d) Manx Utilities who have requested, and received, a Flood Risk Assessment; and
e) DEFA Fisheries Directorate who await a method statement in relation to the mill race (fed by the River Neb). It is anticipated that the method statement will shortly be available to the Fisheries Directorate.
4.1 It is considered that the Proposal makes a carefully considered approach to the rehabilitation of a historical building that, without intervention, is presently at risk of further decay.
4.2 The Proposal complies with the requirements of the relevant planning policies identified in this Statement.
4.3 Should any further material consideration(s) be raised during subsequent consultation or consideration by the Department, the Applicant would be glad to provide further representation as may be required, prior to the determination of the Application.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown