Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/01373/A Page 1 of 13
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/01373/A Applicant : Mr & Mrs Colin and Gwen Kelly Proposal : Approval in principle for erection of dwelling to replace Ballashamrock farmhouse with all matters reserved for subsequent approval Site Address : Ballashamrock Farmhouse Port Soderick Glen Port Soderick Isle Of Man IM4 1BE
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 25.04.2023 Site Visit : 25.04.2023 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 17.07.2023 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposed replacement dwelling fails to meet Housing Policy 12 as it will result in the loss of an existing dwelling of architectural and historic interest which should be sought to be retained and renovated.
R 2. The proposal seeks to create an additional dwelling in the countryside as replacement for a dwelling that would be retained substantially on site and as such is considered to conflict with the requirements of General Policy 3 which sets out the criteria within which replacement dwellings would be created in the countryside, and how new housing is to be created in the countryside.
R 3. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the development would not result in the loss of existing housing which is fit for habitation or which could be made fit at reasonable cost. Additionally, the application is not accompanied by firm proposals for replacement housing and as such the development would be averse to the requirements of Housing Policy 18. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons It is recommended that the following organisation 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 4(2):
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/01373/A Page 2 of 13
The Isle of Man Natural History & Antiquarian Society, as they do not own or occupy property that is within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy and they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE PRINCIPAL PLANNER
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is part of the farmyard of Ballashamrock Farm which sits to the south east of the B23 highway which leads from the A25 Old Castletown Road to Port Soderick. The farmyard accommodates a large portal framed farm buildings, a couple of smaller Manx stone buildings and two large dwellings, one of which is split between two ownerships; thus forming three dwellings on site.
1.2 The buildings are not visible from the B23 road alongside the entrance and only a fleeting glimpse of the existing Manx stone building situated northwest of Ballashamrock House is achievable from Quine's Hill if one is looking in that direction. The building group is also hidden from view from the Marine Drive direction, by the topography of the land although it is likely that the site will be visible from the steam railway line which curves around in its approach to Port Soderick station, and lies only 90m to the south west of the site of the proposed building.
1.3 Ballashamrock House sits on the southern end of the site with the application site also housing a large Manx stone agricultural building which sits directly northwest of the farmhouse. The main house faces south east, and Ballashamrock Farmhouse which is the subject of the current application sits at the North West abutting the farm yard; existing as an annex to the main house. There is a separate access to the main house from the entrance to the farm, round to the south, skirting around the farmyard.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Approval in principle for erection of dwelling to replace Ballashamrock farmhouse with all matters reserved for subsequent approval.
2.2 The application comprises an indicative site plan which shows the building footprint of the new detached dwelling proposed for the site. The indicative layout shows that the proposal seeks to demolish the rear annex which sits within the application site and erect a new dwelling about 3.6m south of the existing Manx stone barn and 9.7m northwest of the current extent of the rear annex.
2.3 All matters have been reserved for subsequent approval as such only the principle is to be considered within the current application
2.4 The application is supported by a Planning Statement which details the following: o Ballashamrock Farm holding is currently farmed in association with Southampton Farm through family connections and both holdings have a range of farm buildings. o The farm accommodates a traditional farmyard which has a number of old stone barns, a larger, more modern shed to the north and three dwellings: Ballashamrock House which sits at the southern edge of the farm group; the old Ballashamrock farmhouse - an additional dwelling which is attached to the rear of Ballashamrock House; and the newer farmhouse which sits at the eastern edge of the group and which replaced a former outbuilding.
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/01373/A Page 3 of 13
o Ballashamrock House is in separate ownership from the rest of the farm and has been for some considerable time. o There is also a track which leads from alongside Ballashamrock House to Marine Drive, passing over the railway line, involving sharp 90 degree corners and skirting the fields. o The internal layout of the two properties reveals that Ballashamrock House had three floors of accommodation including a lower floor/cellar whereas the farmhouse has only two floors. The mutual party wall differs in location per floor with the ground floor of the House extending underneath the upper floor bedrooms of the farmhouse with a resulting flying freehold arrangement for the owners of both properties and on the first floor, a wall running vertically through a window. o At some point between then and the 1930s the farmhouse was created at the rear of Ballashamrock House and Ballashamrock House was extended to the north east. No planning approvals appear to have been sought or granted for these although it is shown as a separate dwelling on a number of applications submitted after 1953. o Ballashamrock House appears in John Kitto's book "Historic Homes of the Isle of Man" (1990) where it is referred to along with Crogga House where it states the following: "The adjacent estates of Crogga and Ballashamrock House were both owned for something like a hundred years by the well-known Quayle family of Castletown. In the eighteenth century when the Manx contraband trade was at its peak and smuggling was no offence under Manx law, both houses were used openly as convenient places to store 'trade' goods, for Port Soderick was a favourite landing place. In 1736, the British Customs Protection Act resulted in the increase of revenue cutters patrolling the Manx coast and made landing more difficult and in 1765 the British Government compelled the Duke of Atholl to surrender his Lordship of Mann to the Crown for £70,000 - a compulsory deal which both he and the Manx people resented - and the contraband trade was made illegal in this Island as well as in England. It still continued, as most of the leading Manx families were deeply involved in it and getting considerable profit from it - including the Quayles. These two estates were then still more important, for landings were made by night and it was only a very short distance to convey the goods to them in darkness. They were hidden there until they could be moved on, again by night. The Quayles never occupied either of these houses but they had stewards living there - who were also their agents in 'The Trade'. In 1822 the steward living at Crogga was one William Hunter, a Scot and it was probably he who added or got his employer to add the Scottish Baronial type of frontage to Crogga House, which was formerly a plain Manx farmhouse very much like Ballashamrock House. Crogga and Ballashamrock are both very appropriately sited above Port Soderick Glen which leads directly to the shore".
2.4.1 The Planning statement also provides details of the site history, application history for the site and the proposals currently sought within this application. It refers to relevant policies and seeks to assess the scheme.
2.5 The application includes a Bat Survey Report prepared by Manx Bat Group dated 7 September 2020 which states the following: o Three holes were noted in the north-east sloping roof with missing slates on the opposite roof along with raised ridge tiles. The north-west facing hip roof also had missing slates. o Rain had evidently been getting in for several years and the floorboards beneath the holes had rotted quite considerably. It was nevertheless possible to view the attic which showed no sarking under the slates and very little remaining lime mortar. This had fallen as dust to the attic floor so any bat droppings, if present, would have been visible. o The property has very low potential for bats as a maternity roost, with no roofing felt beneath the slates and being unheated and very damp. There is a remote possibility that individual bats might roost somewhere in the roof-space in winter. o Demolition of the building will have no impact on breeding bats. There is a remote possibility that demolition might remove hibernating space from individual bats but this would be impossible to assess, given the condition of the building. It is therefore recommended that
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/01373/A Page 4 of 13
demolition takes place outside the hibernation season (late Oct to early March depending on temperature).
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area not designated for development on the Area Plan for the East and the site is not within a Conservation Area. There are no registered trees on site although the entire western and northern boundaries of the site, including parts of the site access are within a registered tree area. The site is not prone to flood risks although it is situated about 419m northwest of the Marine Drive Area of Special Scientific Interest (ASSI).
3.2 The Character Appraisal within the Area Plan for the East states thus concerning the area: "Landscape Character Area: Douglas Head (D12)
3.2.1 Landscape Strategy Conserve and enhance: a) the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area, with its open and panoramic views over large rectilinear fields; b) its steep winding small lanes enclosed by grassed Manx hedges; c) its scattered hill farms fringed by trees.
3.2.2 Key Views Open and expansive views from most of the area out to sea, along the coast, over Douglas Bay and inland over the incised inland plateau up to the northern Uplands. Telecommunications tower on hill top forms highly visible landmark in surrounding areas.
3.3 The Area Plan for the East Written Statement has the following policies that are specifically relevant to the current site:
3.3.1 Landscape Proposal 6 (Douglas Head) "Douglas Headland is exposed and prominent from many viewpoints. This is considered an outstanding natural feature and one which should be conserved. In order to conserve this vista of seascape and coastal views, applications for planning approval for new development in this area will generally not be supported. It is acknowledged that maintenance and need for upkeep may lead some existing development to seek planning approval from time to time, such as the radio transmission/telecoms site at Carnane. In cases where new development is proposed, applications must demonstrate that it can be suitably integrated into the surrounding landscape setting through reasonable mitigation measures and include considering siting, colours, materials, finishes and the general scale."
3.4 Due to the site location, zoning and the type of proposal, the following Strategic Plan policies are relevant for consideration:
3.5 The Strategic Plan stipulates a general presumption against development in areas which are not designated for a particular purpose (zoned for development) and where the protection of the countryside is of paramount importance (EP 1 and GP3). However, there is provision within GP3 and Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14 for the creation of replacement dwellings in the countryside.
3.5.1 General Policy 3: Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of buildings where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environmental and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14)
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/01373/A Page 5 of 13
3.5.2 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.
3.5.3 "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."
3.5.4 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 floor space(3) measured externally, the extension measures less than 50% of that of the original).
3.5.5 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.
==== PAGE 6 ====
22/01373/A Page 6 of 13
3.5.6 Housing Policy 18: Applications which would involve the loss of existing housing which is fit for habitation or which could be made fit at reasonable cost will not usually be approved unless accompanied by firm proposals for replacement housing.
3.5.7 Environment Policy 1 protects the countryside and its ecology. It stipulates that development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative.
3.5.8 Environment Policy 4 and 5 protects ecology.
3.5.9 Strategic Policy 1: Development should make the best use of resources by: (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under- used land and buildings, and reusing scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services.
3.5.10 Strategic Policy 2: New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3.
3.5.11 Strategic Policies 4 and 5 relate to preserving the character of the landscape, preventing unacceptable environmental disturbance, and making positive contributions to the environment of the Island.
3.5.12 Section 7.4: Landscape Protection "7.4.1 Development which is permitted in 'Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance' or in important landscape and coastal areas as recognised by any new landscape classification, will be subject to higher design standards than would normally be required. Development must be properly integrated into the landscape in terms of scale, materials, architectural style, engineering works and landscaping. Landscape features such as trees, hedgerows, sod banks or traditional stone walls which are important to landscape character should be retained. In cases where development is not capable of being sensitively and unobtrusively integrated into the landscape, permission will not be granted."
3.5.13 Appendix 1: Definitions and Glossary of Terms 3.5.13.1 '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.
3.5.13.2 'Previously Developed Land' "Previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure.' The definition includes defence buildings, but excludes: o Land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings. o Land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures. o Land in built-up areas such as parks, recreation grounds and allotments, which, although it may feature paths, pavilions and other buildings, has not been previously developed. o Land that was previously-developed but 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).
==== PAGE 7 ====
22/01373/A Page 7 of 13
There is no presumption that land that is previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed."
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025 4.1.1 The strategic aims (In part): o Managing biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats. o Maintaining, restoring and enhancing native biodiversity, where necessary.
4.1.2 Habitat loss actions "21. DEFA will continue to promote a policy of 'no net loss' for semi-natural Manx habitats and species and ensure that unavoidable loss is replaced or effectively compensated for."
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The most recent planning application for the broader farm site under PA 13/91030/B for Demolition of existing outbuilding and erection of a detached agricultural workers dwelling with garage, is of particular relevance to the current application as it provides insight into the dwellings on the broader farm site and that of Ballashamrock House. Paragraphs 6.4 and 6.5 of the Officer Report is of particular relevance. They state: "6.4 There have clearly been dwellings associated with the farm in the past and of these one is currently occupied in association with the farm as a retirement dwelling and the other is occupied by a farm worker who farms the land (Southampton Farmhouse). The third dwelling is not tied to the farm and not available to the applicants. The final fourth dwelling is the annex to Ballashamrock House, which is not ideal, being part of a non-agricultural dwelling which is not in their ownership or control. This issue would be better controlled if the applicant proposed to demolish the annex on completion of the new dwelling, or there were some form of legal agreement reverting the annex back to part of Ballashamrock House on completion of the new dwelling. This would prevent the new dwelling becoming a fourth dwelling associated with the farm but with no specified occupant or use.
6.5 Despite this, it is considered that the dwelling is agriculturally justified and its erection could lead to the separation of Ballashamrock House, which already has its own separate access, from the farm, which will be beneficial to both the occupants of the main house and the operator of the farm. It is understood that the applicants and the owner of the house have previously been in discussion about the vacation of the annex and the use of the annex and the main house as a single dwelling."
5.2 The application site has also been the subject of a number of historic planning applications which have been referenced by the applicants in their submission (IDO 2022 in 1939; IDO 6355 in 1949; IDO 9361 in 1953; IDO 10057 in 1954; IDO 10187 in 1954; IDO 11152 in 1955; IDO 28969 in 1970; IDO 36648 in 1973; and IDO 44614 in 1977). Whilst IDO 9361 (1953) shows a building layout that could be classed as being semi-detached, there is nothing within this application that shows that the dwelling has existed as two separate dwellings and within separate ownerships. The other historic applications also bear no relevance as they only show the site to have existed as a farm which is not currently in dispute.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that they find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking. They state that further details will be necessary at REM stage for approval, including any alterations to access, layout for car parking and turning, servicing, such as waste bins and collection; installation of bicycle storage and consideration for an electric vehicle charging point (18 November 2022).
==== PAGE 8 ====
22/01373/A Page 8 of 13
6.2 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team have made the following comments regarding the application (01 December 2022): o They confirm that the Manx Bat Group's bat survey report for Ballashamrock Farm House, dated 7th September 2022, is all in order and that a suitable level of assessment has been undertaken. o They request that the demolition should take place outside of the bat hibernation period (Late October -early March) and recommended that this is secured via condition. o They recommend that checks for bats are made prior to demolition, whatever time of year the demolition is planned for, because bats are mobile creatures and move roosts often throughout the year. o Additionally, they advise that the applicant consider installing bat bricks or boxes on the property as an enhancement for bats as the property has good habitat links - broadleaved tree cover - with Port Soderick Glen, which is known to have populations of bats and which increases the likelihood of bat boxes on the property being used. o They advise that Bat boxes should be placed high up, under the eaves, but ideally not above windows or doors. Boxes can be placed on a variety of elevations to take account of the varying needs of bats throughout the year.
Soak-away or discharge to a watercourse/drainage ditch They state that the Department has no record of a discharge license for the current building discharging into the nearby watercourse. They state that if it is discharging or the applicants wish to change/upgrade the current infrastructure with a discharge to the watercourse they will need to apply for a discharge license through the Environmental Protection Unit. Further information can be found at; https://www.gov.im/about-the-government/departments/environment-food- andagriculture/environment-directorate/environmental-protection-unit/river- waterquality/discharge-licenses
6.4 DEFA's Registered Buildings Officer has made the following comments regarding the application (8 March 2023): o The proposals will result in the loss of a part of a historic quaterland farmhouse and replacement with new dwelling. Ballashamrock is a historic quaterland farm which can be traced back to the Manorial Rolls. The farm retains a number of historic buildings including outbuilding and its farmhouse.
o All the farm buildings are clearly identifiable on Asylum plan of 1842 and the OS map of the 1860's. The Farmhouse is clearly multiphase with a seaward facing three bay house with a projecting wing at right angles (the element proposed to be demolished). The Isle of Man Antiquarian and Natural History Society (IOMANHS) have put forward the theory this projecting wing, which is the subject of the application, is a surviving part of an earlier farmhouse, this is a possible theory and the phasing of these two elements would require further investigation within the application site to determine. What is clear is that both parts have been there since at least 1842 and probably much earlier.
o This farmhouse is an example of a high status quaterland farmhouse it is, in its entirety, of architectural and historic interest and therefore Housing Policy 12 should be applied. Research has indicated that the property was crudely subdivided in 1951 and has been in split ownership since this point. The wing which is subject of this application and the principle building should be viewed as whole for the purposes of HP12 even though in separate
==== PAGE 9 ====
22/01373/A Page 9 of 13
ownership and this historic and architectural interest applies to both parts, this interest would be harmed by the loss of either part.
o The farm has been the subject of numerous applications for new dwellings based on the agricultural use of the farm and of particular relevance to this application is PA 13/921030/B at which time the application site was the principal dwelling of the applicants.
o It is my view that the building proposed to be demolished, is of architectural and historic interest, is capable of renovation and therefore does not meet the policy requirement and should be refused.
6.5 Braddan Commissioners have stated that they have no objection to the application (18 November 2022).
6.6 Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society has made the following comments regarding the application (27 January 2023): o They indicate that they have concerns with the application. o They state that the house is attached to another and that it would be incumbent on the application to demonstrate that the remaining house would be finished in a manner appropriate to the architectural design of this remaining house and maintaining it in a waterproof and safe condition. o The Society does not believe that such a proposal may be properly dealt with by way of an application in principle and should only be considered on the basis of a detailed proposal.
o On the basis of architecture and history which the applicant relies on, Isle of Man Natural History & Antiquarian Society believe that this has been wrongly interpreted in the Planning Statement. As stated by the applicant a house clearly existed on the site in the 18th century. As recorded in the newspapers, extracts attached, the existing farmhouse was advertised as "The dwelling house and out offices are convenient and could, at small Expense be put in excellent order -" and a new farmhouse was being erected on the site in the 1822. This is shown along with the earlier buildings in the tithe plan of 1842 and Woods Atlas of 1863.
o They note that Based on examination of the plans submitted, these appear to show that that part of the application proposed to be demolished is in fact an earlier farmhouse of the 18th or possibly earlier (the rear, western rooms), albeit its northern end (denoted lounge) on the plans has been added later. The southern end of this farmhouse was probably either demolished or amalgamated into the northern wall of the new house in the 1820s. Thus what is proposed to be demolished is in part the oldest house on the site. The addition of a new farmhouse at right angles to the older farmhouse and incorporating the latter is a feature of a number of farms on the Island including Ballalona, Michael, Ballaglonney, Crosby and Raby Patrick.
o They state that there is reference to the potential alteration of boundaries between the farmhouse and the house should this application be approved.
o The Society believes these alterations should be shown on the application.
o The Society has concerns that the application could result in a new dwelling on the site without the demolition of the original farmhouse contrary to Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 General Policy 3.
o Accordingly the Society believe that notwithstanding the fact that it does not believe the application should be dealt with on an 'in principle' basis, the Registered Buildings Officer and Manx National Heritage should be given the opportunity of examining the site.
==== PAGE 10 ====
22/01373/A Page 10 of 13
o The Society objects to the application based on the information provided within the application.
6.7 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The applicants have indicated on the application documents that the proposed siting and footprint of the dwelling is indicative only, as matters of siting have been reserved. They have also stated that all other matters are to be addressed in the "Reserved Matters" application should the "approval in principle" application prove successful. Therefore, given the issues highlighted above, and the fact that the application form has clearly specified that only the principle should be assessed, only the principle of the proposed development would be assessed within the officer report.
7.2 Therefore, the key issue to be considered in the assessment of this application is the principle of the proposed development.
7.3 As ecological information has also been provided by the applicant, the assessment would also include environmental concerns, although the full extent of the environmental impacts of any new development on site would only be better assessed within a detailed application.
7.4 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT (GP3, HP 12, 13, and 18) 7.3.1 The first and main issue relating to this application is the principle of demolishing the existing dwelling (Ballashamrock Farmhouse) which exists as an annex to Ballashamrock House (See Paragraph 5.1 above) and its replacement with a new detached dwelling on site. As outlined within the planning policy section of this report, the site is situated in the countryside and on land that is not designated for development on the Area Plan for the East. Whilst the Area Plan for the East classifies the site as 'Land not designated for any particular purpose', the proposed residential use for the application site would be compatible with the existing residential uses within the broader farm site as it would be difficult to detach the site from the adjoining residential uses which are now an established part of the farm.
7.3.2 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that whilst the proposed development would fail to comply with GP3 in terms of its location, there is a case for creating a new dwelling on site, although it is noted that the existing dwelling exists as an integral part of a historic dwelling on site and there is difficulty in defining whether this annex should exist as an independent dwelling or forms a core element of Ballashamrock House which would still be retained on the broader site area, being situated within the countryside.
7.3.3 Notwithstanding the factors that have been highlighted above, the application seeks to replace the annex (Ballashamrock Farmhouse) which is now within a separate ownership from the core of Ballashamrock House where it still remains as an integral part of an existing built fabric on site, and replace it with a detached dwelling. As such, it would be vital to consider the acceptability of proposal in the light of Housing Policy 12.
7.3.4 In ascertaining whether an existing dwelling in the countryside should be replaced, Housing Policy 12 is clear that the replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside will generally be permitted and sets out the criteria that would enable such replacement.
7.3.5 Firstly, it states that it must be established that the existing dwelling has not lost its residential use by abandonment which is to be determined by the structural condition of the building, the period of non-residential use or non-use in excess of 10 years, evidence of intervening use, and evidence of intention or otherwise to abandon. In this case, the applicant states that although the dwelling is not in particularly good condition, it has been lived in for
==== PAGE 11 ====
22/01373/A Page 11 of 13
the past 10 years and could be made habitable. As such, it is considered that the first test in determining abandonment is passed as the property has been lived in for the past 10 years. Therefore, in terms of HP12 (a) it is not considered with the information before the Department that the existing farmhouse has lost its residential use by abandonment. As the existing farmhouse has lost its residential use by abandonment, Housing Policy 13 is not applicable in this case.
7.3.5 It is also important to note that no structural information has been provided to support the application. Thus, it is not considered that there is sufficient information to assess the structural capacity of the annex to support residential use or if it should be demolished and replaced. The fact that the property is currently lived in is vital for consideration. Even so, this gives no clarity on the structural suitability of the property for housing. It would be vital to note that the annex exists as an integral part of an existing dwelling in the countryside whose fabric would not be easily detached from the whole. Besides, there is evidence as noted during the site visit on 25 April 2023 that Ballashamrock House to which the application property is attached is being renovated (with new extensions being integrated to improve usability and functionality). As such, it is not considered that the annex which is an integral part of the main dwelling on site is not capable of renovation. Moreover, as has already been noted, no structural information has been provided by the applicants to indicate otherwise.
7.3.6 On the issue of evidence of intervening use and evidence of intention or otherwise to abandon, it has been clearly articulated that the building has been in use. As such, it is not considered that these tests would be relevant in the current case.
7.3.7 The second key test in determining if a dwelling should be replaced is hinged on whether it is of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation. From review of the comments by the DEFA Registered Buildings Officer and the Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society, it is clear that the existing annex is of architectural or historic significance. Whilst the determination of which element of the existing dwelling on site (the annex or the main house) is the older of the dwelling element on site, it is clear that the annex which is to be demolished has been on site since at least 1842 and probably much earlier. As such, it is not considered that the historic contribution of the annex to the site is debatable and this weighs against the proposal as it fails a core element of Housing Policy 12(b), considering it seeks to demolish an existing built fabric on site which is of architectural or historic interest.
7.3.8 Further guidance on the historic and architectural contributions of the property has been provided by the Registered Buildings Officer who is the key reference for advice on such matters. In this case, the Registered Building's Officer clearly articulates the architectural importance of the dwelling and notes that the dwelling should be assessed as a whole given that the historic and architectural interest applies to both parts, whilst also stating that this interest would be harmed by the loss of either part. This is particularly relevant considering the extant internal partitions do not in any way diminish the external architectural relevance and contributions of the building to the surrounding countryside.
7.3.9 Another key factor that weighs against the proposal is the fact that the scheme seeks to replace an existing housing stock and it has not been demonstrated that the existing housing is not fit for habitation or that it not could be made reasonably fit at a reasonable cost, and this conflicts with the requirements of Housing Policy 18. Therefore, as this proposal is for an approval in principle and is not accompanied by firm proposals for replacement housing, the application is considered to be in conflicts with the requirements of Housing Policy 18.
7.3.10 Additionally, there is sufficient information within the previous officer report to suggest that the annex which forms Ballashamrock Farmhouse would not continue to exist in isolation as a separate dwelling to Ballashamrock House, and this formed a rationale to allow for the demolition of an existing outbuilding and erection of a detached agricultural workers dwelling with garage under PA 13/91030/B. In fact, the Planning Officer clearly noted in Paragraph 6.5
==== PAGE 12 ====
22/01373/A Page 12 of 13
of the Officer Report that "It is understood that the applicants and the owner of the house have previously been in discussion about the vacation of the annex and the use of the annex and the main house as a single dwelling." Based on the foregoing, allowing the annex to be demolished as an independent dwelling and replacing it with another dwelling when it was not originally intended that the annex would exist as an independent dwelling unit would be in conflict with the provision of General Policy 3 (d).
7.3.11 Overall, it is considered that the proposed development would fail to comply with General Policy 3, Housing Policy 12, and Paragraph 8.11.1 which sets the criteria within which permission would be granted for the replacement of dwellings in the countryside, as well as Housing Policy 18 which sets out the criteria for replacement housing. Therefore, the principle of the proposed development is not acceptable.
7.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (EP1, EP3, EP4 & EP5) 7.4.1 With regard to environmental concerns, it is considered that the only submission made at the moment relates to impacts on bats and from review of the Bat survey and comments from DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team on the submitted survey, there are no extent issues in terms of impacts on bats from the demolition of the annex. It should, however, be noted that the bat survey was a requirement to only address possible impacts on bats considering the proposal seeks to demolish a building which holds potential to house bats.
7.4.2 Therefore, the impacts on other protected species and biodiversity within the site, particularly in/on the annex and the surrounding area which holds potential to house protected species and rare biota on site, given the prominence of overgrown shrubs on most of the site area around the existing buildings must be carefully considered in a more detailed application for the site. Besides, the impacts on ecology from new developments in the countryside stretch beyond impacts on bats, and as such other ecological elements would need to be assessed via a reserved matters application should the current application be approved.
7.4.3 It should be noted that the Isle of Man Biodiversity Strategy seeks to promote a policy of 'no net loss' for semi-natural Manx habitats and species and ensure that unavoidable loss is replaced or effectively compensated for. In this case, it has not been determined which habitats within the site would be removed in other to facilitate the demolition of the existing dwelling or the species that could be dislodged as result of any new development, given that the proposal excludes all matters to be determined at a later time. As such, it is not considered that there is sufficient information to ascertain the real impacts, extent or severity of any impacts on biodiversity resulting from the proposal within the site and area.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 Overall, it is considered that the proposed development would result in the loss of an existing traditional property which is considered to be of architectural and historic interest and which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the countryside. Moreover, the application is not supported by the required structural information to enable the Department ascertain the current structural state of the existing property. Likewise, the application is not accompanied by firm proposals for replacement housing, although it would involve the loss of existing housing. It is, therefore, recommended that the application be refused on these grounds, as the scheme would fail General Policy 3, Housing Policy 12 and Housing Policy 18.
9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
(a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
==== PAGE 13 ====
22/01373/A Page 13 of 13
(d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
9.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status
9.3 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 that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Refused
Committee Meeting Date: 24.07.2023
Signed : P VISIGAH
Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal