Inspector's Report

Report On An Appeal By Ms Pauline Howell Against Refusal Of Planning Approval For The Erection Of A Dwelling And Incorporation Of Existing Cottage As A Linked Guest Suite At The Mine, Mines Cottage, Ballakilpheric Road, Colby, Isle Of Man

1. I held an inquiry into this appeal on 3 December 2013 after a site visit on 2 December. The following persons appeared at the inquiry:

For the Appellant: Mr A Pettit Ms P Howell

For the Planning Authority: Miss S E Corlett

For Rushen Parish Commissioners: Mr P Gunn Mrs G Kelly

The Appeal Site And The Proposed Development

1. The site lies to the south east of Scholaby Mill. Its boundaries are not presently evident on the ground. The site includes a cottage and an abandoned mineshaft, together with land to the north and south of those features. It also incorporates a curving strip of land to the east, which comprises a track which would provide the access from Ballakilpheric Road. There is a dwelling known as the Shanty adjacent to the point where the access would join that road. The evidence indicates that the mine was the Ballasherlogue Mine, rather than the Belle Abbey Mine as suggested by the appellant.

1. It is proposed to create a “solar powered four bedroom house... as part of making safe the mine whilst expressing the industrial heritage of the site within the landscape”. The cottage would be retained and used as guest accommodation or a “den”. A link would be built from the cottage to a proposed larger building to the north west side. This would represent involve a substantial increase over the floor area of the cottage. The proposed building would be 2.2m taller than, and would have a frontage twice as long as, the cottage. It would be of an “industrial aesthetic”, with a metal grate roof, timber clad walls and a stone chimney. The felling of 17 Registered Trees has been approved by the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (“DEFA”).

The Case For The Appellant

The main material points are:

1. Approval in principle was granted on appeal for reinstatement of the cottage as a residence and extension of the track to the Mill (PA07/00360/A). Reserved matters were approved (PA08/02112/ REM). Those approvals have been implemented. The current proposal should be considered with the context of proposed development of Scholaby Mill. Approval has been given for the principle and details of its renovation (PA07/00359 & 09/00036). PA13/00869 which proposed a revised scheme of renovation/conversion of the Mill has been withdrawn and an amended scheme is being prepared.

1. The proposal would not be an isolated dwelling, as the site is surrounded by sporadic development. It is not a rural area but “exurbia” - a collection of dwellings just outside villages. The proposed dwelling would be compatible with that pattern of development. There are 22 other dwellings enjoying the same view of the sea, many of which are visible from the site. The existing cottage cannot enjoy the sea view as it faces the mine. The proposal would give the new dwelling a sea view. The mine on the site is of historic interest. The proposal is intended to re-establish the link between the site and its historic industrial heritage. The design would be sympathetic to the area. It would create a subtle building, below the height of the tree line and not visible from Ballakilpheric Road.

1. With respect to issues, including those identified at the initial meeting with the Planning Authority, the following material comments are made:

• access to the site was addressed in the approval of PA08/02112/REM and the arrangements now proposed are the same;
• the rear elevation of the cottage would remain unaltered as was required by condition 3 of PA07/0360/A - the proposed building would be sited well behind the line of the cottage, so that the cottage and the new building would be seen as 2 separate entities;
• the ridge of the building has been kept as low as practical, although it has not been possible to make it lower than the ridge of the cottage - the roofing materials would reduce the visual impact;
• the materials to be used, and the retention of most of the mature trees, would help to make the dwelling subservient to the cottage;
• the link between the cottage and the new building has been designed to be sympathetic to the cottage and to maintain the distinction between the old and new buildings;
• the production of on-site energy was supported by the Planning Authority;
• the Planning Authority's desire for a less striking form of development was contrary to the appellant's architect's intent to employ an industrial style appropriate to the site's historic context, character and setting - it is not intended that the form of the building should conform with the traditional style of houses in the countryside sought by Planning Circular 3/91;
• although the design of the proposal does not directly follow that Circular's guidelines, it complies with the intentions of that document;
• the proposed design responds to Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan ("the Strategic Plan"), which provides that permission may be granted exceptionally for buildings of innovative, modern design of high quality which would not result in adverse visual impact;
• the proposal would provide a sustainable dwelling with potential for "off-grid" living and selfsufficiency, with possible provision of orchards, livestock keeping and a small holding.

1. The following main material points are made in response to the Planning Officer's report:

• the domestic curtilage would be restricted to the area immediately surrounding the property;
• the cottage would screen parked cars and domestic paraphernalia from the view of passers-by;
• irrespective of whether the mine on the site is Belle Abbey Mine, the mine is of historic interest to the local area;
• the design tried to ensure that views from the public footpath along the access route were not significantly altered;
• DEFA confirmed that the trees around the mine were self-sown and could be removed, and a licence for felling 17 registered trees was issued - due to the number of remaining trees, the character of the landscape and the setting of the dwelling would not be significantly altered;
• the siting and setting of the proposed dwelling adheres to the strategies in the Landscape Character Appraisal for the area and in Planning Circular 3/91;
• both Scholaby Mill and the mine are of significant historic interest - Draft Planning Policy Statement $2 / 09$ acknowledges the importance of mining and quarrying heritage and that redundant mining sites are important components of landscape character and may provide opportunities to understand and enjoy the Island's geology, history and industrial heritage - the proposal would serve those aims by identifying the mine within its immediate context, adding a chapter to its history and ensuring it can be enjoyed in the future;
• the appellant considers that the Planning Officer's statement is more intent on protecting the earlier decision under PA07/0360/A rather than addressing the opportunities of the new proposal;
• it is not accepted that the proposal would increase the floor area by $500 \%$ - the area of the original dwelling is $49 \mathrm{~m}^{2}$, and the additional area including the link would be $206 \mathrm{~m}^{2}$;

• it is intended that the access route would be an informal gravel or hard-core track as stipulated by conditions on the previous approvals on the site;
• a report by the Manx Bat Group found no evidence that the cottage was being used by bats for roosting purposes;
• the proposal seeks to make the mine safe - although fenced with barbed wire it is currently easily accessible by children and others - the previous approvals did not address the safety issue;
• it is believed that the Planning Authority support the intention to create a low-energy dwelling, the achievement of which is assisted by the proposed innovative design;
• the appellant was not made aware of the fact that the Parish Commissioners had objected to the proposal, and would have withdrawn the application if she had been aware of this.

1. With respect to the representations on the proposal, the following material comments are made:

• in response to Isle of Man Water \& Sewerage Authority no works are intended to the watercourse;
• in response to the Department of Economic Development ("DED"), it is proposed that ground investigation works should be carried out to assess levels of contamination - expertise would be sought regarding the structural design prior to submitting a Building Regulations application;
• the owner of the Shanty has concerns over the access, but that route is owned by the appellant.

1. The following material points are made in the assessment of the proposal on behalf of the appellant:

• the proximity of the mine was wrongly ignored in the earlier applications on the site which were made by a previous owner - this proposal seeks to rectify that omission;
• the economic viability of renovating Scholaby Mill and of dealing with the mine safety issue on the appeal site are likely to be dependent on the appeal proposal, although it is accepted no evidence has been presented relating to economic viability - use of the cottage as guest or tourist accommodation is unlikely to be viable as it has only 1 bedroom;
• it is not intended that the proposal should be considered as a typical extension or alteration of a traditional styled property in the countryside - it should be considered in line with the description given and accepted by the Planning Authority as "the erection of a dwelling and the incorporation of the existing dwelling as a guest suite";
• the proposal should be considered as an exception under Housing Policy 15 of the Strategic Plan, which provides for permission to be granted exceptionally for extensions which measure more than $50 \%$ of the existing building;
• the site is not visible from the public footpath by Scholaby Mill, and the building would be substantially lower than the adjacent trees - consequently the presence of the proposed development would not be as significant as the Planning Officer's report suggested;
• the proposal seeks to express the former mine within the landscape and to establish an association with the mine's previous use rather than a "literal translation" of that use - the proposed building would draw attention to the existence of the former mine and people would get to know how the former shaft had been used for water storage as part of the scheme;
• materials and finishes for the proposed building have been chosen to be a contemporary representation of the site's industrial heritage;
• it is intended to create a sustainable building - just as the mine exploited the mineral resource, the proposal would exploit the mine by using it's shaft for a storage tank and by using the sun as an energy resource - the large water storage tank would be heated by solar collector panels on the extensive south facing roof and as a heat sink from a wood burning stove using the available sustainable woodland on the site - this would provide central heating for the property;
• with respect to the scale of the development, the fact that the house can be heated economically means the proposal can afford to be generously proportioned - the extent of land associated with the cottage would make it difficult to find a buyer requiring that land for such a small property.

1. Although the proposal might not be in strict accordance with policies of the Strategic Plan, this site is an unusual situation. The Strategic Plan is intended to be an evolving document. It should be interpreted liberally in order to allow for buildings such as the one proposed to be approved. The intention to create a sustainable dwelling accords with the sustainable objectives of the Strategic Plan. The proposal would use previously developed land occupied by the existing cottage and the mine, its spoil heaps and the remains of its former buildings. That would be in line with the stress placed by the Strategic Plan on optimisation of use of previously developed land, including in Strategic Policy 1 and General Policy 3. Support for the proposal is also to be found in Housing Policy 11, although it is accepted that there may be a problem with part (d) of that policy which expects that existing rural buildings to be converted into dwellings should be large enough to form a satisfactory dwelling as they stand or with modest, subordinate extension. Housing Policy 14 is also considered to be relevant, as it allows for permission to be granted exceptionally for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact. The proposal seeks to gain full potential from the site by the use of innovative design. Without it there is a danger that the cottage would fall back into disrepair.
2. The appeal should be allowed and planning approval granted.

The Case For The Planning Authority

The main points are:

1. The site lies in an area designated as Open Space not designated for any particular purpose in the Area Plan for the South ("the Area Plan"). That Plan also identifies constraints in the form of Registered Trees and a Wildlife Site, and identifies Scholaby Mill as worthy of consideration for registration. The site is in an Area of Incised Slopes indicated in the draft Landscape Character Appraisal. The Strategic Aim, Strategic Policies 1, 2 and 10, Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3, Environment Polices 1 and 27, Housing Policy 15, and Appendix 1: Previously Developed Land of the Strategic Plan are relevant.
2. Planning approval was granted on appeal for the reinstatement of the residence and extension of track to the Mill (PA 07/0360). A reserved matters application was subsequently approved (PA 08/02112). Planning approval was also granted for the principle and details of the renovation of the Mill (PA 07/00359 \& 09/00036). An application for an amended scheme of renovation of the Mill and conversion to a residence was being considered (PA 13/00869).
3. The proposal falls well outside the provisions for extension of traditional dwellings in the countryside, and would have a significant and detrimental visual impact. With respect to the previously developed land provision in General Policy 3, it is not accepted that the majority of the site has buildings upon it, and in the previous application the mine was not included in the residential curtilage of the cottage. There is no evidence that the cottage cannot be occupied at its current size, or to show that it would not be viable if used as guest or tourist accommodation in conjunction with occupation of the mill.
4. The mine shaft has been present for a considerable time, and is all but hidden from public view. There is no evidence of it having presented a danger, or to show that it would have to be capped. It could be fenced. There is no public right of access to the mine. The need to treat the shaft was not identified as an issue when application was made for approval of reserved matters relating to renovation of the cottage and the Mill. It is not accepted that there is a need for the extent of development now proposed in order to make capping of the mine viable. The mine is not an eyesore and does not harm the character of the countryside. There is no need for the development in order to enhance the site. It has not been shown that the intentions to use the shaft for water storage are feasible, and the advice from DED indicates that this is unlikely to be practical and that the shaft would have to be properly capped.

1. General Policy 3 makes provision for the interpretation of the Island's countryside, but it is difficult to see how the erection of a very large dwelling of non-vernacular proportions/finish would assist in interpreting the mine or its heritage or how it would create a visual expression of the mine in the landscape. No interpretation facility or public access is proposed, and the proposal would not make the public aware of the mine's history. There is no evidence to show that the mine ever had buildings of this size associated with it. The proposal is out of scale with the cottage which would be reduced to insignificance. The site's heritage would be distorted. There would be little if any visual relationship between the development and the mine and its heritage. The information about the environmental friendliness of the scheme does not justify a building of this size. It is not accepted that the proposal would provide for self-sufficiency, and residents would need to travel from the site for some purposes.
2. With respect to part (c) of General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan, the site is not untidy. It has the appearance of a natural looking stand of trees. The proposal would not comply with that part of General Policy 3, as it would not reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment, or result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment.
3. The appellant has made no mention of the very relevant policy which provides advice on the extension of traditional properties - Housing Policy 15. The proposal conflicts with that policy, and there are insufficient grounds to set it aside. It also conflicts with Environment Policies 1 and 2 due to its adverse impacts on the countryside and landscape. The appeal should be dismissed.

The Case For Rushen Parish Commissioners

The main points are:

1. The proposal was carefully considered. It is an interesting concept but would be a large new dwelling in the countryside. It would be out of keeping with the site and the area in size and design. The proposal had not been supported by Manx National Heritage. It should be refused.

The Case For Mrs A Brown (Interested Party)

The main material points made in writing are:

1. Objection is made on the following grounds:

• Mrs Brown's property, the Shanty, adjoins the public footpath along the vehicular access to the site - the only vehicular entrance/exit is from Ballakilpheric Road directly outside her cottage;
• the development and traffic generated would create noise, dust and smell which would harm Mrs Brown's legitimate enjoyment of her property - the machinery room could also produce noise;
• the proposal could set a precedent for further development as the area is not designated for development in the Area Plan;
• land subsidence could be caused by the underground work to be undertaken;
• the proposal does not comply with Housing Policy 15 or Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan.

1. With respect to the evidence submitted at appeal stage, further points made include the following:

• the mature trees would not make the proposed development appear subservient as seen from the public footpath as they would be behind the building as viewed from there;
• the new building would be much bigger than the cottage, and so would not be hidden by the cottage as seen from the footpath;
• the development would not be subservient to the cottage;
• the proposal would not comply with the part of Housing Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan which indicates that exceptionally permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design.

because this proposal would result in adverse visual impact - it would be out of proportion with the cottage and contradictory with the existing landscape;

• Mrs Brown concurs with the assessment of the Planning Officer that the development would distort the heritage of the site and be out of scale with the cottage and the buildings which may have once been on the site of the mine;
• contrary to the statement that access would be taken from Scholaby Road rather than adjacent to the Shanty, all vehicular access for renovation since the appellant bought the property has been via Ballakilpheric Road - when asked about this matter the appellant has stated that the Scholaby Road was not accessible to vehicles and that she would continue to use Ballakilpheric Road..

1. The appeal should be dismissed.

Other Representations

1. The following materials representations from Government Departments and other public bodies were made at application stage:

• the Director of Highways did not oppose the proposal, as it would have no traffic management, parking or road safety implications and meets relevant highway standards and policies;
• the Senior Biodiversity Officer of DEFA made no objection on the basis of the agent's assurance that there is no bat access through the mine shaft to the mine galleries below;
• the Development Manager of DED drew attention to the need for the applicant to consider the influence the mine workings of the abandoned Ballasherlogue Mine may have on the development and how those factors would be addressed. As excavation would be likely to be required around the mine shaft collar to ensure safe access to allow construction of a cap, DED stated that it did not appear possible to retain the upper sections of the mine shaft to store hot water as proposed on the drawings. It was possible that the "Day Level" adit lies within influencing distance of the proposed dwelling, and records indicated that after an initial vertical section the shaft was excavated on an incline at an angle down the dip of the mineral vein. As a result of the potential for former mine workings to be present within influencing distance of the dwelling, it was suggested that ground investigations should take place prior to the commencement of construction. As the access would traverse the former mine "deads", and there is a possibility that the ground may be contaminated, consideration would need to be given to the testing and, if necessary, the disposal of any contaminated arisings if excavations are made along this route. If there is a mind to grant approval, the developer would be required to give 2 weeks' notice to DED of the commencement of operations, to provide a report of the findings of any ground investigations and details of the cap to be constructed, and to keep a diary and photographic record of capping works and treatment of other mine workings and to provide a copy to DED;
• Isle of Man Water \& Sewerage Authority stated that works on or affecting the watercourse or its flows would require consent under the Land Drainage Act. Details would be required of any proposed outfalls to the watercourse. Attention was drawn to the fact that the access road is a dam and that any works to it should be overseen by a qualified Engineer.

1. The following further representations from individuals were made at application stage:

• I K \& E Bleasdale (residents of Kirk Maughold) considered the proposal to be "a carbuncle on a mouse"; that it would look like a large agricultural shed; that it could only find favour in planning policy terms if it were to be considered to be a "Grand Design". The proposal was unacceptable with respect to policy that limits extensions to existing cottages to $50 \%$ of the floor area. It was queried whether the existing ruined building still had any domestic use rights. It was pointed out that the proposed visitors' annex would have no bathroom;

• Mr G A Clark (resident of Douglas) expressed a professional academic interest. He drew attention to the fact that the site is not zoned for development and is identified in the Area Plan as an area of ecological importance with Registered Trees and as woodland. The proposal would be contrary to Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan and out of proportion to the cottage. Other matters highlighted included that it was questionable whether the cottage was a residential building, that the access track is a public footpath, and that the site boundaries appeared to be arbitrary and to include areas which are agricultural land or woodland. Mr Clark was of the opinion that the building works and consequent domestication of the area would result in the loss of the area's sense of tranquillity and its historical context, and he was concerned about the precedent that could be created.

Inspector'S Assessment And Conclusions

1. The main issues are (i) whether the proposal is acceptable in principle having regard to Strategic Plan policies relating to the location of development and the protection of the countryside; and, (ii) if the proposal is in conflict with those policy provisions, whether there are other considerations which justify approval of this proposal as an exception to the restrictive approach to development in the countryside.
2. The site lies outside areas which are zoned for development, and so pursuant to Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan it is in the countryside and the restrictions on development in General Policy 3 apply. The proposal to erect a dwelling and incorporate the cottage as a linked guest suite does not fall into any of the Exceptions listed in that policy. The scheme does not comprise essential housing for an agricultural worker or the replacement of an existing rural dwelling, as the cottage would be retained.
3. This proposal does not fall within the terms of Exception (c) in General Policy 3 for a number of reasons. The first is that the definition of previously developed land in the Strategic Plan excludes land "where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time (to the extent that it can reasonably be considered as part of the natural surroundings)". My observations were that the remains of the mine buildings and spoil heaps have blended into the landscape in that way. Moreover, in order to enjoy the benefits of Exception (c) there are provisions specifying that the redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment, and that the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment. As the area occupied by the former mine buildings, spoil heaps and mine shaft have reverted to a natural well-vegetated appearance, and given that it is proposed to introduce a very substantial building of industrial appearance into this countryside location, the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment would not be reduced by this proposal, and it would not result in improvements to the landscape or the wider environment.
4. Exception (h) of General Policy 3 relates to buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage. This proposal would not in my view assist in the interpretation of the countryside or the former mining heritage. No public access to the site of the mine would be created, and there is no suggestion that any interpretative elements such as information boards or artefact displays would be provided. There is also no evidence to suggest that the form of the proposed dwelling would replicate or reflect the buildings that originally provided for the functions associated with the mine. My observations on site of the remains of the mine buildings suggested that they were in fact simpler buildings of a mean and basic appearance and of a much lesser scale. I have not found the proposal to be one which should benefit from the terms of Exception (h) of General Policy 3.
5. I have found no other policies which would facilitate development of the type proposed, which is essentially a new dwelling of a substantial size outside of areas zoned for development. Of the other policies cited by the appellant, Housing Policy 11 does not apply as it relates to conversions of rural

buildings into dwellings. Housing Policy 14 also does not apply, as it relates to replacement dwellings. In any event, the proposal does not comply with the requirements within that policy under which buildings of innovative, modern design may exceptionally permissible, as the substantial mass and bulk of the proposed dwelling, its height exceeding that of the existing cottage and its industrial appearance, including its sizeable roof slopes of metal grate finish, would result in an alien and intrusive development in this Manx countryside context. Consequently, the expectation in Housing Policy 14 that adverse visual impacts should be avoided would not be met. I have reached the overall conclusion on the first main issue that the proposal is unacceptable in principle having regard to relevant Strategic Plan policies relating to the location of development and the protection of the countryside.

1. On the second issue, it follows from what I have said above that I have not found the suggested benefits of the scheme in terms of expressing the former mine use within the landscape, and of interpreting that use, as being factors to which any substantial weight should be attached. There is no evidence to show that the mine shaft has presented a significant hazard to members of the public. Moreover, it follows from the comments of DED that there must be substantial doubts as to whether the proposals would satisfactorily resolve any safety issues there may be. The scheme for the mine shaft as explained at the inquiry would involve suspending a water tank within the upper part of the shaft, rather than supporting it on a capping of the shaft. There is no expert technical evidence before me to support the feasibility of that proposal. The available evidence is insufficient to justify attaching any substantial weight to the suggested benefits of the scheme for rectifying any stability and/or contamination issues there may be as a result of the former use of the site for mining.
2. I have taken into account that it is intended that the dwelling would be heated from on-site sources, but arguments of that kind could be repeated frequently within the countryside, and could lead to a proliferation of dwellings in locations not allocated for development. That matter cannot provide a sufficient reason to justify overriding the conflicts with planning policy that I have identified. That is also true of the suggestions that the proposal would offer the opportunity for self-sufficiency. That would be dependent on the intentions and desires of whoever might take up occupation of the dwelling in the future. There is nothing inherent in the form and design of the proposal that would ensure that such a style of living would be followed. The suggested advantages of the proposal in these respects do not justify setting aside established planning policy on the protection of the countryside.
3. I have taken account of all other matters raised, but I have found nothing of sufficient weight as to override my conclusions on the first main issue. There are no other considerations which justify approval of this proposal as an exception to the restrictive approach to development in the countryside. I have reached the overall conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed.
4. Should the Minister decide to approve the proposal contrary to my recommendation, conditions would be required (i) to specify a 4 year period for commencement; (ii) to specify the approved Drawings (Nos. 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 \& 106 - received on 22 July 2013); (iii) to require that samples of the external materials be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to development commencing, and that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved details; (iv) to require the submission and approval in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development of a method statement for the capping of the mine shaft, and to require that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved statement; (v) to require the submission and approval in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development of a scheme defining the limits of the domestic curtilage, and to require the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme with the defined curtilage be retained at the approved extent thereafter; (vi) to remove permitted development rights under Part 2 of the Town and

Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 for operations within the curtilage of a dwelling house, in order to prevent further visual intrusion within this area of countryside.

Recommendation

1. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed, with the effect that the Planning Authority's decision to refuse planning approval be upheld.

Stephen Amos MA(Cantab) MCD MRTPI Independent Inspector

.