**Document:** Scholaby Mill Planning Justification
**Application:** 18/00219/B — Renovation and extension of former mill building to create a dwelling
**Decision:** Permitted
**Decision Date:** 2018-05-11
**Parish:** Rushen
**Document Type:** report / planning_statement
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/11362-colby-scholaby-mill-extension-dwelling/documents/1306224

---

# Scholaby Mill Planning Justification

1800219

Dear Sirs,

As the Committee will be aware, Scholaby Mill, Ballakilpheric Rd. Colby was granted planning permission for conversion to a dwelling together with attached extension in 2014. Building Control permission was then obtained and works are currently underway.

This supplementary application seeks permission to further extend the new part of the dwelling for reasons stated below.

Having held numerous discussions with both the Planning department and professional advisors, the applicants believe that they have gone to considerable lengths to minimise the impact of the proposed changes in respect of both the overall site appearance and in particular the impact on the original mill structure.

The applicants fully acknowledge that the application is not wholly compliant with the relevant policy but believe that, when all factors are taken into consideration, the new application achieves a realistic balance between preservation of the Mill, site impact, and 'fitness for purpose' in terms of the family accommodation requirements and financial viability. In short, we feel that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

**Considerations.**

1. The Mill itself suffers from the usual lack of light and ventilation in semi-industrial buildings of this age (especially as the Mill Dam itself pours water into the building through to the 5 meter height directly through the stonework). To put this into context - whilst Building Control start to get concerned with dwellings over more than 25% glazing - the ground and first floors of the Mill have less than 2% glazing! The introduction of sufficient light and ventilation into this space without unduly impacting on the existing structure has been technically challenging.

2. The above means that, if attempts are made to put the main living areas inside the mill (as opposed to within the extension) - then by necessity the Mill structure has to be 'chopped about' to provide the necessary windows, doors, drains etc. to enable Building Control compliance for bedrooms and the like. The applicants have sought to avoid this by placing only 'open plan' living

spaces and 'closed spaces' such as a home theatre / Gym (i.e. which do not require windows) inside the existing structure.
3. The new proposal incorporates a 3 meter wide 'glass wall' between the original structure and the extension - light and ventilation are therefore introduced via this 'sideways' route thereby avoiding the need to cut extra openings in the original structure.
4. Item 2. above therefore preserves the original structure to a greater degree, but the downside is that if the bedrooms are removed from the existing structure - they have to go somewhere else instead.
To accommodate this requirement, the applicants have gone to considerable lengths to take advantage of the fact that there is a 6 meter high existing 'Dam' wall adjacent to the Mill meaning that a two story extension can be kept below the eye-line of this existing wall hence considerably reducing visual impact on the site. The applicants therefore instructed their professional advisors to find ways to keep the build below this sight-line meaning that the increase in size of the extension has virtually no effect on site appearance.
In addition, following discussion with the Planning department, professional advisors were asked to emphasise the Mill's history as a 'Semi-Industrial' facility and have done so by introducing dark gray / black roofs, windows and doors in metallic finish together with natural cedar and 'chunky' oak sections to reflect the rural setting.
5. The applicants were advised that the Planning department might be concerned that that any outside buildings / garages / stable blocks etc. could, at a later date, be at risk of being converted into dwellings. Nevertheless, it is a fact that there are three family cars required for work purposes and a 2.5 acre landscaped site will require a fair amount of garden machinery and such. The applicants have acted on these concerns by placing all parking / storage requirements within / underneath the footprint of the main building which again reduces visual impact and negates the conversion to dwelling risk.
6. The bedroom / carport situation is brought about by the applicant's job as a Hospital Consultant. We provide a factual example to demonstrate why we are requesting permission to incorporate a car-port within (as opposed to detached from) the main building.

Example;

The applicant worked continuously at the hospital for the two weeks between Wednesday 29th December and Wednesday 10th January 2018. They were 7 day weeks at 12 hours per day - in addition to which she is 'on-call' for the remaining 12 hours. She was called in every night for the 14 nights at least once. On one night, she was in the hospital between 2am and 3am in the morning, was back at work at 8am, came home at 8:30 pm, after which she was again on call overnight. On the final Friday she was called in to do 15 urgent scans overnight.

The above example is not an exception - it is a factual repetition of an 'on-call' pattern that occurs for two weeks out of every five. A built-in car port would therefore at least allow the applicant to have access to a vehicle without getting soaked repeatedly on overnight calls during inclement weather conditions.

Careful examination of the plans will show that the vast majority of the requested increase in volume is accounted for by the car port and associated ground floor bedroom.

In short, the applicants accept that they are asking to stray outside usual guidelines. But by doing so, a far greater proportion of the original structure is protected, the visual impact has been minimised to almost zero, no request is made for additional garages / outbuildings so eliminating risk of further dwellings, yet the proposal makes the building financially viable and 'fit for purpose' as per the applicant's needs.

Yours sincerely,

Mr & Mrs M S McGillicuddy

---

*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/11362-colby-scholaby-mill-extension-dwelling/documents/1306224*