155900

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                                 17/00540/B
                                 Page  1  of  9

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 17/00540/B Applicant : Dr John C Taylor OBE Proposal : Replacement of existing redundant dwelling with new dwelling including new access drive and incorporating part of field 434112 within the domestic curtilage Site Address : Ballawoods Gatekeepers Cottage Off Douglas Road Ballasalla Isle of Man

Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 01.06.2017 Site Visit : 01.06.2017 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSALS

THE SITE 1.1 The site is part of a field which lies to the south east of the A5 Douglas Road as it passes between the junction of the Old and New Castletown Roads (A25 and A5) and Ballasalla. Also included in the site is the access lane to the field, part of which is a public footpath. The public footpath runs from the A5 for around 100m and then parts from the access lane and passes through a field towards the railway line. The route of the footpath passes in a straight line from the main road, directly through the middle of some of the fields, reaches the railway line and then heads south east until it intersects another footpath and the Raad ny Foillan, close to the coast.

1.2 To the north east of the access onto the A5 is a dwelling, Arborfield whose access is onto the lane, rather than the main road. This is modern single storey property with generous gardens surrounded by substantial trees and shrubs. Visibility splays of 2.4m by 120m are available from the lane onto the A5 as is required by Highway Services.

1.3 The site extends across the full width of the field with its southern boundary forming the edge of the railway line. The site is around 90m wide and 60m long (nw to se).

1.4 At the eastern corner of the site, alongside the lane and the railway line, is the former Ballawoods Gatekeeper's cottage. The cottage has fallen into ruin and is no longer required in connection with the railway following the electrification and automation of the crossing. The cottage has a footprint of 8m by 5m at longest and widest, with a small annex at the rear. The front porch has been removed following the relocation of the railway line closer to the cottage and the cottage sits with very little space between its front elevation and the line.

1.5 The cottage has lost its habitable status through abandonment. The roof has no slates and whilst it retains its walls, some of these show signs of cracking.

1.6 A gas main bisects the lower part of the application field and runs from the A5 along the route of the access lane to the railway.

THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a new dwelling. Also proposed is the demolition of the existing Ballawoods Gatekeeper's cottage. The new house would sit in a curtilage of around 47m by 37m

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                                 17/00540/B
                                 Page  2  of  9

with a new spur access drive off the land, stone retaining walls forming a sunken garden with the dwelling sitting 10.5m north of the railway line and a parking and turning area to the rear. The land within the curtilage will be planted as a wildflower meadow with the existing hedgerow retained and reinforced with native species. A new hawthorn hedge would form the boundary at the north western edge of the plot.

2.2 The dwelling is unusual in design, having some semblance of a single storey Manx cottage with stone walling and chimneys but with a copper roof, elliptical shaped windows, external chimney breasts which slope upward and inward. The dwelling would sit elevated above the natural ground level by around 2m and the ground excavated to accommodate accommodation beneath what appears to be the ground floor level. This additional level of accommodation would be visible from those approaching from the entrance but would not be visible from the public vantage point (the railway). The house would have a footprint of 12.5m by 8m and will provide one bedroom in the upper floor, two further bedrooms in the lower ground floor along with a garage and on the ground floor there will be a lounge and a kitchen.

2.3 A new wastewater treatment system is proposed to drain the site. The access lane is to be tarmacadam finished with a new passing place to the north west of the new access.

2.4 The applicant considers the existing gatekeeper's cottage to be of plain form, having been rendered at a later point and with alterations having been undertaken of poor form. He considers that this is a building which is not of architectural merit or social interest and does not contribute positively to the character or appearance of the surrounding countryside. He considers that it is actually a negative element and the sense of dereliction affords nothing of value and its retention would not be of any benefit. Furthermore, if the building were renovated, its size would limit its usefulness as a dwelling along with its proximity to the railway line. A bat survey has been undertaken with no signs of any bat activity within the building. He considers that there are no references in the Area Plan to this building and it is not Registered nor suggested as being appropriate for this.

2.5 It is his contention that the proposal accords with the Strategic Plan's requirement to "encourage change which would result in overall environmental improvement (paragraph 8.11.1) and that by replacing a dilapidated building of little historic importance in the countryside with one of a unique design, this would result in such an environmental improvement. He accepts that the proposal does not comply in the strictest sense with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14 but notes that there is an existing track from the highway and the proposal would comply with the part of the HP 14 which refers to "buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact". He accepts that there would not be lesser visual impact but it would not be an adverse visual impact.

2.6 The applicant has considered other unusual houses, such as Ty Hyll in Snowdonia (legend says that the house was built in the 15th century overnight - a 'ty unnos' or 'one night house'. According to tradition at that time, a house built during one night on common land, with a chimney smoking by dawn, could be claimed by the builders as their own property. Other legends say it was built by robbers and thieves, taking advantage of travellers on the old main road as they journeyed through Snowdonia - 'ugly' people that gave the house a fearsome reputation.) as well as landmark buildings such as Goldenes Dachl - a gold tiled property in Innsbruck, Austria.

2.7 The existing property has a floor area of around 76 sq m and the proposed somewhere in the region of 380 sq m.

2.8 It is the applicant's desire to create something of interest from the view of the railway line with the impact reduced by mounding of the land, particularly when travelling from the south northwards (from the other direction if would be partly hidden from first view by the existing and proposed lane hedge planting.

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                                 17/00540/B
                                 Page  3  of  9

2.9 The applicant explains that he in an inventor and his approach is to look at existing materials and structures and consider how they may be used in different ways to produce something that may be safer, more practical or simply more up to date. He has used this approach at his home at Arragon Mooar and a former house, Spindrift at Poyll Vaaish which incorporated features which resemble a lighthouse, reflecting its coastal setting. Arragon Mooar is a new dwelling with unique elliptical shaped footprint and detailing such as the sandstone columns (built of the same seam of sandstone as the Manx indigenous material). It is his view that both of the properties sit comfortably within their very different surroundings. He explains that he has been wondering for some time what to do with Ballawoods Gatekeeper's cottage and it is becoming unsafe and in his view cannot be used in its current form or position. It is also his view that to replace the property with a traditional Manx cottage would "inflict a further blot on the landscape of the tourist railway". The application represents an attempt to evoke the spirit of the traditional thatched Manx cottage but changing the thatch for a soft green rounded copper roof which in his view, will blend into the Manx landscape. He confirms that he is happy to introduce further native screening and adds that when Arragon Mooar was being developed, relatively few trees were removed and over ten thousand trees and shrubs were planted.

PLANNING POLICY Landscape protection 3.1 The site lies within an area not designated for a particular purpose on the Area Plan for the South (2013). The Plan sets out a number of landscape strategies and key views, drawing on the 2008 Landscape Character Assessment. The relevant ones for the wider landscaping in which this site sits are set out below: "Ballamodha, Earystane and St Marks (D14) 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. Key Views 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." "3.23 Implications of the Landscape Character Assessment Landscape Type: Uplands, Incised Slopes, Rugged Coast, Undulating Lowland Plain Landscape Area: A2 (Southern Uplands), D14 (Ballamodha, Earystane and St Mark's), E11 (Langness), F7 (Castletown and Ballasalla) and F8 (Poyll Vaaish and Scarlett Peninsula) i. To protect and enhance the identity of Ballasalla by conserving the rural character of the adjacent landscape iii. Protection of the tranquil, rural character of the area with its open views and iv. Sensitive location of new buildings and the use of screen planting." "5.21.3 In terms of the Island's rail heritage, the route of the still-operational Isle of Man Steam Railway winds south and west from Santon Station to its terminus in Port Erin, passing through Ballasalla, Castletown, Colby, and Port St Mary on the way. Given that the route, most of the rolling stock, and most of the station buildings and line-side structures are essentially as they were when the railway opened in 1874, there is obvious cultural and historic interest. Where possible and practical station buildings, gate-keepers' huts, and other line-side structures should be retained in, and where necessary, restored to their original form and appearance. Although it is recognised that financial and modern operating requirements may mean that this is not always possible."

3.2 Whilst not directly applicable to new development in the countryside, the following policy is indirectly relevant in that it provides advice about the design of new development where this is visible from the railway: "Landscape Proposal 19: New industrial or commercial buildings at Balthane and Ronaldsway Business Park and the Freeport, which would be visible from the A5 or the Steam Railway, should be of high-quality, functional

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                                 17/00540/B
                                 Page  4  of  9

design. This proposal will also apply to buildings which would be visible from the by-pass once a route has been firmly determined." The principle of development in the countryside

3.3 The Strategic Plan provides over-arching advice about how the Island should be developed, promoting development which is sustainable and generally presuming against development in areas not so designated (Housing Policy 5, General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1). There are policies which allow for residential development in the countryside through the re-use or re-development of existing buildings or dwellings (Housing Policies 11, 12, 13 and 14). These policies need to be considered in detail.

3.4 Housing Policy 11 refers to buildings which were not previously dwellings so do not apply to this proposal and in any case provide for the creation of a dwelling through the renovation of a building which is not being proposed here.

3.5 Housing Policy 12 provides useful guidance: "Housing Policy 12: The replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside will generally be permitted unless:

(a) the existing building has lost its residential use by abandonment; or (b) the existing dwelling is of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation. In assessing whether a property has lost its habitable status(1) by abandonment, regard will be had to the following criteria: (i) the structural condition of the building; (ii) the period of non-residential use(2) or non-use in excess of ten years; (iii) evidence of intervening use; and (iv) evidence of intention, or otherwise, to abandon." Habitable status (see Housing Policy 12) "In the context of Housing Policy 12, "habitable status" means whether or not a building which has previously been occupied as a dwelling may be re-occupied as such without the need for planning permission for that use. " Non-residential use (see Housing Policy 12) "In the context of Housing Policy 12, "non-residential use" means use for a purpose other than as a dwelling." Non-use (see Housing Policy 12) "In the context of Housing Policy 12, a period of "non-use" means a period during which the building has been unused i.e. has not been used for any purpose."

3.6 If a dwelling fails to demonstrate that it has retained its habitable status, it may still be used to create a dwelling through its retention and renovation and Housing Policy 13 provides advice about this: "Housing Policy 13: In the case of those rural dwellings which have lost their former residential use by abandonment, consideration will be given in the following circumstances to the formation of a dwelling by use of the remaining fabric and the addition of new fabric to replace that which has been lost. Where: a) the building is substantially intact; this will involve there being at least three of the walls, standing up to eaves level and structurally capable of being retained; and b) there is an existing, usable track from the highway; and where c) a supply of fresh potable water and of electricity can be made available from existing services within the highway. This policy will not apply in National Heritage Areas (see Environment Policy 6). Permission will not be given for the use of buildings more ruinous than those in (a) above, or for the erection of replacement buildings. Extensions of dwellings formed in accordance with the above may be permitted if the extension is clearly subordinate to the original building (i.e. in terms of floorspace measured externally, the extension measures less than 50% of that of the original)."

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                                 17/00540/B
                                 Page  5  of  9

3.7 Housing Policy 14 provides advice where the principle of a replacement dwelling is considered acceptable. This requires the following: "Housing Policy 14: Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the "footprint" of the existing, and should have a floor area(1), which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally, the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91, (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in general, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building. Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact."

3.8 Further advice is provided regarding existing dwellings in the countryside: "8.11 Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside 8.11.1 There are in our countryside many existing dwellings, some of which contribute positively to its appearance and character, and some of which do not. A number of dwellings have been abandoned for many years; their physical remains being a reflection of agricultural and social change across the Island. They form features in the rural landscape which are often not unacceptable in their present state. It is appropriate to encourage change which would result in overall environment improvement, and to discourage change which would not. Where the building(s) concerned are of architectural merit or of local, historical or social interest demolition and replacement will be discouraged."

3.9 Finally, advice about tourism-related development includes the following: "Strategic Policy 8: Tourist development proposals will generally be permitted where they make use of existing built fabric of interest and quality, where they do not affect adversely environmental, agricultural, or highway interests and where they enable enjoyment of our natural and manmade attractions" although it should be noted that the development is not intended for tourist occupancy but it is intended to be a feature of interest to the railway, a tourist attraction.

REPRESENTATIONS 4.1 Malew Parish Commissioners raise no objection to the application (08.06.17). They clarify this position, given the various policies set out above, by explaining that they considered that the proposal was compliant with HP14 in that the footprint was close enough to the existing to be considered the same and that its design made it look single storey, despite being larger than the existing which was too close to the railway to be useable, in their view. They considered the design of the building is "timeless" and unique and that it would have a more attractive impact as viewed from the railway which is otherwise characterised by much more modern development which outweighs the number of historic structures associated with it (13.06.17).

4.2 Manx Utilities have no immediate concerns regarding the natural gas pipeline which runs through the field and are liaising with the applicant regarding the appropriate safeguards whilst development is on-going on the site (28.06.17).

4.3 Highway Services advise: "The proposals are in effect the replacement of an existing Gatekeeper's cottage albeit it in a ruined state of disrepair. The proposed development will be served off the same access road that ultimately connects with the A5. Acceptable visibility is provided as part of the existing access arrangements onto the A5. The applicant proposes to surface the access road leading up to the new dwelling and beyond, over the level crossing (Ballawoods Crossing)...together with two new passing bays. Based on the above, the proposals are considered acceptable from a highways aspect. There

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                                 17/00540/B
                                 Page  6  of  9

are no suggested conditions as all the necessary works are clearly shown on the plans, however the applicant must contact the Department of Infrastructure (S109) in terms of the surfacing work to be carried out from the A5 and also across the level crossing" (19.06.17).

4.4 The owners of Arborfield expresses concern if the visibility splays involve land which is within their curtilage and give no assurance that any of their vegetation will be required to be removed to facilitate this and seek assurance that the development will not compromise their access or services (06.06.17).

PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 There are no planning applications for this or any other site which are considered relevant to the consideration of the current application.

ASSESSMENT 6.1 The Town and Country Planning Act requires that consideration is had to the following matters in the determination of any planning application: Section 10: (4) In dealing with an application for planning approval or an application under subsection (3), the Department shall have regard to - (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3; (c) such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and (d) all other material considerations.

6.2 In this case the relevant considerations are considered to be a) as they apply to the principle of development in the countryside and its landscape implications and d) where other considerations. The provisions of the development plan

6.3 The Strategic Plan makes it clear that development will only be permitted in areas not so designated if they comply with certain criteria. In this case, the existing cottage has lost its habitable status by abandonment so cannot fall to be considered for replacement under the provisions of HP12. By not renovating the existing cottage, the proposal is contrary to both HP12 and HP13 and there are therefore no grounds to replace it. Where there is a question about what should be done with the cottage, the Strategic Plan provides only for its renovation and does not support its replacement in any form. No planning approval would be required for the cottage to be demolished although it is acknowledged in the Area Plan as a feature of interest (more of that later).

6.4 If the principle of the replacement of the cottage were accepted, disregarding the provisions of HPs 12 and 13, the proposal is not considered to accord with the provisions of HP14 in that the new dwelling would be considerably larger and higher, in a different location with a larger curtilage and greater impact. Whilst in poor repair, the existing cottage is not considered of poor form, and although the changes which it has undergone in terms of the removal of its porch and its closer proximity to the railway line do not help, they are not considered to detract sufficiently to warrant consideration of the cottage as being of poor form.

6.5 The proposal clearly not in conformity with the Strategic Plan policies on housing in the countryside.

6.6 In addition, the Area and Strategic Plans makes it clear that the countryside is protected for its own sake and in this particular landscape area, the rural nature and the tranquil, rural character of the area with its open views should be protected along with the sensitive location of new buildings and the use of screen planting. It is difficult to reconcile the principle of preserving a rural, open landscape with one where a new building which is designed to be seen will sit in what may appear as the middle of an open field although it is accepted that the application tries to introduce interesting and new landscaping around the proposed building.

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                                 17/00540/B
                                 Page  7  of  9

Other considerations - the historical merits of the gatekeeper's cottage

6.7 The existing gate keeper's cottage is acknowledged in the Area Plan as a building of historic interest due to its former function and the Plan recommends that where possible these should be retained and renovated. It is relevant, as pointed out by the applicant, that the proximity to the railway, together with its condition and size are likely to discourage any investment in the building which would see the building renovated and brought back to a residential or even a tourist use. As such, perhaps this site should be considered to merit a different approach rather than those set out in the Strategic Plan housing policies. It could be that the restoration of this feature could be something which could be brought into the balance in assessing the impacts of the type of dwelling which the applicant desires to see in this location.

6.8 If the interest of the cottage were to be retained, this could be done through the restoration of the existing fabric, although it would remain close to the railway line and even restored to the highest quality would still be a very old building without the benefits of modern thermal technology and renewable energy. One response to this could be the rebuilding of a faithful replication of the existing but slightly further back, so as to allow a convenient and safe access in but retaining the character of a building like the original in a very similar location. If achieved, this could be considered to balance the impact of a new dwelling (were the two considered to be compatible) as the renovation of the cottage is unlikely to be achieved on its own. The creation of a landmark feature

6.9 It is the applicant's aspiration to create here a feature of interest, a landmark almost which would invite users of the railway to know where they were (just coming into Ballasalla for example) in the same way that the purple roofed property in the village is clearly identified by many as a marker for being in Ballasalla. Such features, particularly when built of quality materials, make up the unique character of the Island - think of Corrin's Folly, Milner's Tower, Albert Tower and some of the more unique dwellings on the Island - Crogga House, Billown Mansion House, Milntown as well as its castles and Laxey Wheel, very few of which would be seen to comply with the Island's planning policies as they currently stand. However, there clearly needs to be some element of control over how and if our countryside is developed and where exceptions are to be made, they need to be made on the basis of clearly understood principles and material considerations. Conclusion

6.10 In this case the active removal of a building which is acknowledged in the Area Plan as something to be retained and preserved is in itself something to be regretted and accompanied by the introduction of a new dwelling of the size and height, in the position and of the design as proposed, particularly given the nature and size of the curtilage as shown would adversely affect the character of the countryside and as such the application is recommended for refusal.

6.11 Even were the principle of the new dwelling and the removal of the gatekeeper's cottage to be accepted, the building up of the ground as proposed would result in the proposed dwelling being artificially presented to the railway line in a way that in itself would be detrimental to the outlook of the railway, contrasting with the comfortable way in which Ty Hyll sits within a heavily wooded and natural setting. If a dwelling of this nature is to be considered acceptable here, its presentation would be improved by its relocation towards the northern side of the lane, thus having a treed backdrop which could be reinforced by additional planting if necessary, together with perhaps greater ground remodelling so that the property sits within a natural bowl rather than building up the ground only to excavate into it.

6.12 The applicant's aspirations are clearly understood and the intention to create a building of quality of such a unique design is very much welcomed, but not at the loss of a building of acknowledged interest and in the way it is proposed in the current application.

INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                                 17/00540/B
                                 Page  8  of  9

7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material, in this case Manx Utilities; (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

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.

In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:

the owners of Arborfield which is adjacent to the access to the site

With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Refused Date of Recommendation: 10.07.2017

Reasons for Refusal:

R 1. The proposal would represent the development of a new dwelling in the countryside, contrary to Housing Policy 4, General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan. Furthermore, the development would activate the removal of a building (the gatekeeper's cottage) which is acknowledged in the Area Plan as something to be retained and preserved and this building would be replaced by a new dwelling which is considerably larger and in a different position and within a considerably larger curtilage all of which would adversely affect the character of the countryside particularly as viewed from the steam railway line.

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.

Decision Made : Refused

Committee Meeting Date: 07.08.2017

Signed : S E Corlett Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report was required.

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                                 17/00540/B
                                 Page  9  of  9

YES/NO See below

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 07.08.2017

Application No. :

17/00540/B Applicant : Dr John C Taylor OBE Proposal : Replacement of existing redundant dwelling with new dwelling including new access drive and incorporating part of field 434112 within the domestic curtilage Site Address : Ballawoods Gatekeepers Cottage Off Douglas Road Ballasalla Isle of Man

Presenting Officer : Miss S E Corlett

Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Committee refused the application at its meeting of 7th August, 2017 by a majority of 4-2. They amended the reason for refusal to add reference to the applicant's suggested benefits of the scheme.

Reason for Refusal

R 1. The proposal would represent the development of a new dwelling in the countryside, contrary to Housing Policy 4, General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan. Furthermore, the development would activate the removal of a building (the gatekeeper's cottage) which is acknowledged in the Area Plan as something to be retained and preserved and this building would be replaced by a new dwelling which is considerably larger and in a different position and within a considerably larger curtilage all of which would adversely affect the character of the countryside particularly as viewed from the steam railway line. Whilst the Committee acknowledges the perceived benefits of the removal of the existing gatekeeper's cottage which has fallen into disrepair and which is clearly visible from the railway, together with the introduction of a feature of interest for those using the steam railway, these did not outweigh the fact that the proposal is contrary to policy and the visual impact which the development would have on a currently open and undeveloped field.

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.