**Document:** Officer Report
**Application:** 16/01283/B — Conversion of existing mill building to single dwelling with associated parking
**Decision:** Refused
**Decision Date:** 2017-01-10
**Parish:** Malew
**Document Type:** report / officer_report
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/22359-malew-ballakindry-mill-conversion-dwelling/documents/1022132

---

# Officer Report

**Application No.:** 16/01283/B
**Applicant:** Ballacreggan Farms Ltd
**Proposal:** Conversion of existing mill building to single dwelling with associated parking
**Site Address:** Ballakindry Mill Ballagawne Road Ballabeg Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 4PD Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley
**Photo Taken:** 04.01.2017
**Site Visit:** 04.01.2017
**Expected Decision Level:** Officer Delegation

## Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site comprises a parcel of land adjacent to the northeastern side of Ballagawne Road as it travels roughly northwest/southeast between Ballabeg to the south and the A27 Ronague Road to the north. - 1.2 Within the site, the predominant feature is the Ballakindry Mill, which appears to have been unused for some years. It is situated at a slight angle from the highway, with the side extension immediately abutting the highway: roughly 18m of the frontage is open and free of hedging, trees or walls, which are all features that characterise the highway. Beyond this to the rear (north) is a wooded area and, within this, lies a large pond. There is a mill race apparently flowing to the mill, and which also apparently connects the pond with the nearby stream. - 1.3 Ballkindry Mill, which is angled almost exactly such that its front elevation faces due west, is largely two storeys in height, but there is a single storey, lean-to extension to the southern side. It is formed largely of stone, much of which is horizontally laid, along with prominent stone quoins and some bricks that were apparently latterly installed. The roof on the two-storey element, which is incomplete, is finished in slate, while corrugated sheeting provides the mono-pitched roof for the single-storey extension. Both elements of the building are clearly of historic and traditional construction even if it is clear from the stone joins that they were constructed at differing times. - 1.4 There is a prominent coach house-style entrance situated centrally within the front elevation, which has an arched head, also formed of brickwork. There are no other openings at the ground floor level besides a pedestrian access into the side elevation. On the first floor of the front elevation are five openings of differing sizes. One would appear to have formed some kind of delivery access as it is - at 1.6m in height - just large enough for a person to stand within. The other four openings are more clearly windows, fitted with robust timber lights albeit that the glazing is no longer present and boards behind those openings are apparent. To the rear, there are five, similarly high-level, openings, albeit that these are (or would have been) all windows: they are identical in size.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the conversion and extension of the mill to form a single residential dwelling. The elements of the proposed conversion comprise:

- o the raising of the roof by roughly 0.6m, with an increasing of the roof pitch from 34 degrees to 38 degrees also proposed;
- o the re-roofing of the building in recycled natural slate;
- o the replacement of the existing coach house-style entrance door with softwood boards and glazing panels - the aperture size and shape would be retained;
- o the insertion of two new windows in the ground floor of the front elevation;
- o the insertion of five windows in the first floor of the front elevation, four of which are identical size to one another, but different to the existing apertures;
- o the insertion of four windows of identical size to one another in the first floor of the rear elevation, all of which are different to the existing apertures;
- o the blocking up of the fifth window aperture in the first floor on the rear elevation;
- o the insertion of two windows of identical size to one another and a door in the ground floor
- of the rear elevation;
- o render band details around each of the windows;
- o the installation of four rooflights in the front elevation roof pitch;
- o the installation of two rooflights in the rear elevation roof pitch;
- o the removal of the existing single storey lean-to element of the mill, and its replacement with a two-storey oriel window, and
- o the creation of a similarly-sized lean-to extension on the corresponding gable wall, which would be finished in smooth render and natural slate.

2.2 The works overall would result in the mill being converted to a four-bedroomed dwelling, with two bedrooms within the roofspace. The new extension would provide for a utility room, shower and lobby: a porch roof is also shown here. - 2.3 In addition to the proposed conversion, the mill race would be moved away from the dwelling to a north-south direction. An existing stone wall would be re-built and continued to the frontage of the dwelling whereas at present it joins the existing extension that is proposed to be removed. Hardstanding for vehicle access and parking is shown to the front of the dwelling in the area that is currently open. Some hedging is shown as being cut back to provide uninterrupted vision along the roadside. The woodland is otherwise proposed to remain. The sewerage would be dealt with via the installation of a Klargester biodisc. - 2.4 Two trees are proposed for removal. - 2.5 The application has not been submitted with a structural survey.

3.0 THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 3.1 The site falls within an area of 'white land' not zoned for any particular kind of development as set out in the Area Plan for the South (APS). It also falls within the Landscape Character Area (LCA) for Ballamodha, Earystane and St Marks. - 3.2 The APS sets out the following in respect of this LCA:

"The overall strategy is to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area, with its wooded valley bottoms, its strong geometric field pattern delineated by Manx hedges, its numerous traditional buildings and its network of small roads and lanes. The strategy should also include the restoration of landscapes disturbed by former mining activities."

It continues: "Distant views prevented at times by dense woodland in river valleys and by the cumulative screening effect of hedgerow trees, which tend to create wooded horizons.

"Open and panoramic views out to sea from the higher areas on the upper western parts of the area where there are few trees to interrupt views."

3.3 Otherwise, the APS contains no specific policies relevant to the assessment of this application. - 3.4 Strategic Policies 2 and 10 and Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan presume against development on land not zoned for it. However, General Policy 3 does set out some exceptions, and one such exception is the conversion of existing built fabric, but only on the proviso that such a conversion would comply with Housing Policy 11: "Conversion of existing rural buildings into dwellings may be permitted, but only where:

- (a) redundancy for the original use can be established;
- (b) the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation;
- (c) the building is of architectural, historic, or social interest;
- (d) the building is large enough to form a satisfactory dwelling, either as it stands or with modest, subordinate extension which does not affect adversely the character or interest of the building;
- (e) residential use would not be incompatible with adjoining established uses or, where appropriate, land-use zonings on the area plan; and
- (f) the building is or can be provided with satisfactory services without unreasonable public expenditure. "Such conversion must:

- (a) where practicable and desirable, re-establish the original appearance of the building; and
- (b) use the same materials as those in the existing building.

"Permission will not be given for the rebuilding of ruins or the erection of replacement buildings of similar, or even identical, form.

"Further extension of converted rural buildings will not usually be permitted, since this would lead to loss or reduction of the original interest and character."

3.5 In view of the site's location adjacent to a number of trees, and also the Landscape Character Area applying to the site in the APS, it is also important to consider Environment Policy 3: "Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value." - 3.6.1 General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan provides for an important set of criteria against which new development proposals should be assessed; GP2 states, in part, as follows:

"Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

- (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
- (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
- (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
- (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
- (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;

- (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
- (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
- (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways."

- 3.6.2 While it is a matter of fact that the land is not zoned for development, without reference to this policy, it would become difficult to assess - for example - highway safety impacts with proposals such as that the subject of this report.
- 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY AND THE HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN

- 4.1.1 Full planning approval was granted under PA 05/01102/B for an identical scheme to that now submitted, but this was not implemented and has long since expired. It is to be noted that this application would have been assessed under a wholly different planning policy framework than that now in force - Housing Policy 11 did not exist in 2005, while the APS has also since been adopted, and proposals for conversion schemes such as this were assessed against the now-defunct Circular 3/89 - 'Renovation of buildings in the countryside'. With the adoption of the Strategic Plan in 2007 prior to its being re-adopted in 2016 - this Circular ceased to have any effect whatsoever in decision-making. It is worth noting some of the wording from that Circular:

"In general, it is considered that it would be not only appropriate but also beneficial to public amenity to renovate, and if necessary, find alternative use for redundant buildings in the countryside…"

- 4.1.2 It is therefore to be noted that while Circular 3/89 supported the view that it would be beneficial for a new use to be found for redundant buildings in the countryside, no such view is set out in Housing Policy 11, which is the key policy against which the current application should be assessed. Indeed, Housing Policy 11 is much more circumspect than was Circular 3/89, partly as a means to update the manner in which such proposals could be assessed but also partly to reflect the important sustainable development principles underpinning the Strategic Plan.
- 4.1.3 The adoption of both the Area Plan for the South and the Strategic Plan represents a fundamental change in the planning policy framework. In these circumstances, it is considered that very limited weight should be given to the decision issued to PA 05/01102/B in the assessment of the current scheme.

4.2 It is also worth noting that Approval in Principle had previously been issued for the conversion of Ballakindry Mill under PA 04/01655/A. - 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure sought a deferral of the application on 13th December 2016, commenting as follows:

"The proposal is to convert an existing Mill to a single family residential dwelling with car parking. There is an existing grassed area that is to be used as hardstanding for car parking and turning; removal of a side extension to the east of the building will improve visibility in this direction.

"Visibility splays have not been indicated. The applicant is requested to provide a drawing to an appropriate scale that indicates the visibility that can be achieved over land within their control from a point 2.4m back from the edge of carriageway to the near side carriageway edge in both directions."

5.2 The Conservation Officer was contacted for his views on the application. It is worth quoting some of his comments, which were received 28th November 2016: "I'm really quite familiar with this building. I've been around it a couple of times.

"The building is substantially intact, the building is in my opinion of architectural, and or historic interest but where I am struggling, is that 'where practicable and desirable' the proposals 'reestablish the original appearance of the building'. This is an example of how not to convert a building such as this. I also note that the proposals remove the existing roof and lift it doubtless to gain more headroom on the upper floor.

"The odd bay in the South Elevation has no contextual reason for being there. The insertion of the two windows in the front elevation makes it look too 'domestic'. I have no issue with existing openings that have been blocked re-opened, but other than that the elevation should remain as is. The render bands around the windows detrimentally change the character. The use of the softwood boarding is already dated as this is the type of detailing that was seen around the building in the 1990s.

"In my opinion, I consider that the proposals do not respect the character and instead the proposals overwrite the character of the building and make it look like a house that could be anywhere. Converting a property like this to a dwelling can be carried out in a manner which respects the building and in doing so, may well make it more marketable."

5.3 The Arboricultural Officer within the Department noted several concerns in comments received 29th November 2016, many of which raise concern with the lack of information provided within the application. In the first place, he notes that the woodland on the site is "significant in the landscape and add to the character of the local area". His concerns can be summarised as a lack of information with regards tree protection in respect of (1) an early mature sycamore tree near the existing extension and in an area potentially subject to construction activity, (2) the relocation of the mill race, (3) the insertion of a foul drain; (4) a number of trees are not properly marked on the submitted drawings, and (5) no detail of landscaping to the eastern area of the site, which will likely come under developmental pressure and this will affect trees. His other concern is that, while there is no objection to the loss of a significant mature sycamore, there is no mitigation with regards other planting. In view of these concerns, and the absence of a constraints plan, protection plan or accompanying method statement, he has lodged a formal objection to the application. He goes on to indicate various additional information that would need to be submitted in order for the application to be re-assessed, which includes (a) an accurate location plan showing all the trees on or adjacent the site that may be affected by the works, (b) a schedule of works required in respect of each of those trees as a result of the works, and (c) changes in ground levels, the position of excavation work, and appropriate tree protection measures. He refers to British Standard 5837:2012 in making his comments and request for further information. - 5.4 The Fisheries Directorate within the Department sought the submission of a 'development within 9m of a watercourse' form on 30th November 2016. - 5.5 The Senior Biodiversity Officer within the Department noted that this is a traditional stone building, and it is a number of years since it was last looked at from a wildlife perspective; he consequently recommended a bat and owl survey be carried out prior to the determination of the application. - 5.6 Arbory Parish Commissioners offered no comment on the application in comments dated 23rd December 2016. - 5.7 The owner / occupier of Glebe Cottage, Kirk Maughold, objected to the application in comments received 28th November 2016. They state that the Department is aware that he is concerned by the loss of the Island's historic mills, and no reference to its former use and what, if any, remains of the wheel or other equipment is shown. He also notes that there seems no intent to conserve its mill-like appearance, raising concern about the bay window proposed.

## - 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The application falls to be considered against Housing Policy 11. There are six key tests as set out within that policy in order for the principle of a conversion scheme to be found acceptable. Should the application meet those tests, the detail of the proposal needs to be assessed against three further tests in terms of the character of the building, its construction materials and any extension(s) proposed. The principle

6.2 The mill is evidently vacant and no longer required for its original purpose. - 6.3 No structural survey has been submitted and therefore there must be some concern about the capability of the building to withstand conversion works. It is substantially complete, however, and from the site visit the walls appear to be plumb. This is clearly not entirely satisfactory, given the expertise required to undertake a structural survey, but this part of HP11 is largely intended as a means to provide certainty and security for applicants when they submit applications such as this, by way of ensuring the building will not collapse during construction work. - 6.4 The Island does not have a large number of mill buildings such as this, and although it has been altered (via an extension) and its original waterwheel apparently removed some time ago, it still retains an attractive appearance. It is evidently a mill building, owing to the almost complete lack of openings at the ground floor, and this provides it with a highly characterful appearance. This, in addition to its historic construction and prominent position beside a highway (albeit a scarcely used highway), is such as to conclude the building is of architectural, historic, and also social interest. - 6.5 Although the proposed conversion scheme outlines the raising of the roof in order to provide for an additional floor and floorspace, even without this element of the scheme there would be sufficient space for a satisfactorily-sized two-bedroom dwelling. - 6.6 The surrounding uses are agricultural, all on land rather than buildings. There is no reason to conclude that the agricultural use is incompatible with the proposed residential use. - 6.7 Finally, there does not appear to be any reason why the dwelling cannot be connected to local power and water services without unnecessary expense. - 6.8 To conclude on the principle, then, it is considered that there is no reason to object to the conversion of this building. Indeed, given the likelihood that its original use will never again be required of it and noting its character and attractiveness, it is considered that an appropriately designed conversion scheme should be supported, even in the absence of a structural survey. The remainder of this report is given over to assessing the acceptability of the detail proposed, to include an assessment of the impact of the proposal on trees, highway safety and protected species. The detail of the design - 6.9 Housing Policy 11 is clear that conversion schemes should re-establish the original character of a building where it is practical and desirable that this be undertaken. The views of the Conservation Officer are key, and these help demonstrate the importance of the building's historic appearance. - 6.10 The scheme proposes a new roof apex height and roof pitch, several new window and door apertures, altered window and door apertures, the insertion of domestic-style render band details around each of the windows, the removal of an existing (historic) extension, the addition of a new extension, the insertion of a number of rooflights, and the installation of an oriel window. Indeed, the majority of the new windows and doors would be different in size and shape to the existing apertures, or would require the creation of new apertures.

6.11 There can therefore be no argument that the application would re-establish the character of the building. The huge number of changes proposed would irretrievably remove the building's mill character, would alter historic fabric for no demonstrable good reason, and would result in a building that would have very much the appearance of a new-build residential dwelling. The proposed conversion would wholly fail to respect what is an attractive and characterful building. - 6.12 It is understandable that such a conclusion may well be frustrating to the applicant, given that an identical conversion scheme was approved in 2005. However, paragraph 3.4 and section 4 of this report highlight clearly the importance of reviewing the current proposals afresh in light of the (and it is worth stressing this point) entirely different policy framework that exists today relative to that of 2005. Indeed, the time limit applied to planning approval notices is, in part, applied to ensure that a planning approval does not remain forever and to enable development proposals to be assessed against emerging and new policies and best practice procedures - as is the case here. This application should be refused on the ground that it fails to comply with Housing Policy 11's requirement that conversion schemes should "re-establish the original appearance of the building" . Impact on trees - 6.13 In normal circumstances, the concerns raised by the Arboricultural Officer might be addressed by way of either condition or via the provision of additional information prior to the application's determination. The concerns raised are noted, and moreover it is noted that the trees here are, in the words of the Arboricultural Officer, "significant in the landscape and add to the character of the local area". This opinion is accepted. The Ballagawne Road is rural in nature and characterised by the presence of groups of trees along its length and also by the trees and hedging that line the highway itself. - 6.14 The Area Plan for the South notes that "distant views [are] prevented at times by dense woodland in river valleys and by the cumulative screening effect of hedgerow trees, which tend to create wooded horizons". The application site sits within an area that would clearly reflect that wording. - 6.15 Any impact on these trees is clearly to be avoided in such a rural and sensitive location. It is unusual for a conversion scheme such as this to raise such significant concern with respect to tree loss, as generally the works are contained to the building itself. In this case, however, the views of the Arboricultural Officer carry significant weight. Owing to the application's failure to quantify the proposed development's impact on trees that form such an integral part of the natural character of the area, it is recommended that the application be refused on the basis that it fails to comply with Environment Policy 3. Highway safety - 6.16 It is noted that Highway Services have sought a deferral on a decision being taken, seeking further information with regards visibility splays. They note that the removal of the lean-to extension element of the building will improve visibility. Were the application acceptable on all grounds, it would be appropriate for the Department to seek further information in respect of Highway Services' queries so as to enable a balancing of the otherwise acceptability of the application and the possibly less-than-ideal visibility that could be achieved from the site. - 6.17 However, for the reasons outlined above, the application is far from being judged acceptable, and it is concluded that to prolong the processing of the application would unreasonably add to the applicant's costs and would therefore not be in their interest. It is also to be remembered that an application should be submitted with sufficient details on which to reach an assessment on its acceptability, and it is the applicant's agent's responsibility to ensure this. - 6.18 It is therefore concluded that the application fails to provide sufficient detail on which to conclude it complies with parts (h) and (i) of General Policy 2.

- Protected species
- 6.19 The comments received from the Senior Biodiversity Officer are understood. While it is possible to require such surveys as requested via a planning condition, and he does sometimes request this, on this occasion his request requires both a bat and owl survey being undertaken prior to the determination of the application. For similar reasons to those outlined in respect of highway safety matters above, it is concluded inappropriate to seek those surveys.
- 6.20 It is also concluded that the application fails to demonstrate that it will have an acceptable impact on species protected under the Wildlife Act 1990 and, accordingly, it is recommended that the application be refused on this ground as well, with reference to Environment Policy 4.

## - 7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 It is recommended that the application be refused on grounds that it would fail to comply with Housing Policy 11, Environment Policy 3, Environment Policy 4, and parts (h) and (i) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

- o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
- o 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;
- o Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure, and
- o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

- 8.2.1 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
- 8.2.2 In this instance, it is considered that the following persons do not have sufficient interest and should therefore not be awarded the status of an Interested Person:

- o The Conservation Officer of the Department;
- o The Arboricultural Officer of the Department;
- o The Senior Biodiversity Officer of the Department;
- o The Fisheries Directorate of the Department, and
- o The owner / occupier of Glebe Cottage, Kirk Maughold.

The first four representors sit within the same Department as the Planning & Building Control Directorate, while anyone residing in Kirk Maughold is too far away from the application site to be materially affected by the development proposed.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 05.01.2017

- R 1. The building the subject of the application is of architectural and historic interest. The manner of its proposed conversion would fail to re-establish the original appearance of the building where it is clearly desirable so to do. The application is therefore contrary to Housing Policy 11 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
- R 2. The application fails to quantify the proposed development's impact on trees that form such an integral part of the natural character of the area. Accordingly, the application is contrary to Environment Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
- R 3. The application fails to provide sufficient information on which to conclude that it would be acceptable from a highway safety point of view, contrary to parts (h) and (i) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
- R 4. The application fails to provide sufficient information on which to conclude that it would be acceptable in terms of its impacts on protected species, contrary to Environment Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Refused Date: 05.01.2017 Determining officer

Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer

## 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.

---

*Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).*
*Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/22359-malew-ballakindry-mill-conversion-dwelling/documents/1022132*