Architects Planning Response

Right Hon. Howard Quayle Chairman of the Planning Committee c/o Secretary of the Planning Committee Murray House, Mount Havelock DOUGLAS IM1 2SF

RECEIVED ON 1 FEB 2012 DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE

Dear Sir

Re: PA 11/00917/B Ballateare Farmhouse, Jurby

I would like to take this opportunity to offer a clarification of some points relating to the above application.

While I accept that the proposed development does present some challenges to planning, making the application difficult to approve on policy grounds, I feel these have been given unfair weight and its positives be more prominent in the application’s consideration.

In his New Year message the Chief Minister noted that to achieve sustainable economic growth a planning system that holds a presumption in favour of development at its core is required. The proposed needs to be considered in this light as the developments resultant economic benefit is a justification.

The proposed development at Ballateare makes best use of an area of land which in 50 years is unlikely to exist due to coastal erosion, directly in accordance with Strategic Policy 1. Further, it removes a very visible, soon to be derelict building and offers to manage a retreating cliff line rather than allow damage by previous intervention to accelerate erosion.

The new house is designed in accordance with the requirement of Housing Policy 14 for a replacement building, ‘where by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact’ was complied with, yet the solution has been condemned as setting a dangerous precedent. Given the exceptional opportunity available in this instance and the uniqueness of the situation this as a very unrealistic claim.

In respect of the Planning Department’s current recommendation I feel it should be carefully considered how this application may be approved.

I have sent a fuller response to the planning officer who prepared the report, and attach a copy for your information. Yours faithfully Ashley Pettit RIBA

PA 11/00917/8

Erection of a Replacement Dwelling with Associated Landscaping, Helicopter Pad and Associated Storage Building

Ballateare Farm House, Jurby

Planning Application Process Summary

Application Site Background

Ballateare Farm once incorporated substantial holdings on the seaward side of the A10. The farm was relocated to the opposite side of the main road in the 1960's and more recently the original farm house has been used as a holiday retreat. Over the last 150 years coastal erosion has reduced this area to a strip of land with the building now very close to the cliff edge. The nature of this inherently dynamic landscape means that in the next 50 years many of the houses along this coast will also be under threat from coastal erosion. Mr. Kelly has purchased the property accepting these circumstances and wanted to realise the benefit of the site by developing a permanent residence for a 50 year period.

As Strategic Policy 1 of the I.O.M. Strategic Plan states, development that makes the ‘best use of resources’ should be encouraged. This parcel of land at Ballateare has a limited life, but it can provide positive benefits to the local commissioners through rates, the I.O.M. government through tax and the local construction industry in the erection of the new building and the ongoing maintenance of the land during its remaining existence.

Pre-Application Consultation and Design Evolution

In the initial stages of the pre-application process Mr. Kelly approached the Planning Department for advice on extending the existing dwelling. While Housing Policy 14 of the I.O.M. Strategic Plan would permit an increase of up to 50% in the overall footprint of the dwelling, because of its close proximity to the cliff edge and its visibility along the coast it was suggested that resiting the house was a better option. The sloping topography of the site means that it is possible to establish a much larger replacement dwelling, incorporating a basement area with sea facing views; ‘where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact’ (Housing Policy 14 of the I.O.M. Strategic Plan, 2007: 70). This concept was discussed with the Planning Officer, in two further meetings with the Director of Planning and with a representative of the DED with the Planning Officer present.

The present house is likely to become risk in future years. Moreover, its proximity to the soft cliff edge means it is very visible and will become increasingly dangerous. This approach removes the potential eyesore and would restore the cliff profile (the proposal only reduces the cliff profile nearer the river). This accords with paragraph 8.11.1 of the I.O.M. Strategic Plan which states, “it is appropriate to encourage change which would result in overall environmental improvement,” and would be no cost to the Government who may otherwise need to protect the coastal footpath.

Landscaping and Coastal Management

The principle of providing basement accommodation in excess of the 50% limit set by Housing Policy 14 of the I.O.M. Strategic Plan has been generally accepted by the Planning Department. In this instance it is possible to set the building into the landscape and then remove the land seaward so that the

basement becomes a lower storey. During an earlier consultation the idea of lowering the cliff was discussed without reference to Environmental Policies 11 and 12 of the I.O.M. Strategic Plan. However, in subsequent meeting's discussions over the reshaping and management of the cliff the fact that this scheme offers an opportunity for investigation has been overlooked. By modifying the profile of the cliff, and carefully managing drainage, this section of coast can be returned to a more stable condition. This will be funded privately and can be made subject to planning conditions.

The rate of erosion has been plotted from recent records. It is that part of the cliff north of Killane Mill which is most affected. This is where the overlying sand is deepest. This is because this is the centre of the glacial outwash. In the past the DoT have done some work to reinforce the beach around the water course where the coastal footpath goes inland although the large rock outcrop on the previous slide was put there to protect the Mill building. The erosion of this section of coastline has been described in general terms by Posford Duvivier as 1.2 m per year. This is the figure used by Simon Renton in his report to the Planning Officer.

We have provided actual measurements based on aerial photography. This was done independently by Dalrymple Associates who have accurate records. This shows the rate of erosion near the farmhouse as 0.56m and 1.37m nearer the Killane River. It is clear the coastal defence approved in 1991 has had a significant effect on the higher rate.

The proposal provides a method of managing the retreat protecting the houses immediately adjacent. If successful it could provide a method of managing other areas of coastline at risk. Our visual study shows that most of the present coastline is stable, (as opposed to the date provided by Posford Duvivier).

Planning Application and Supporting Statement

Sufficient agreement ensured a planning application based on these principles was made. After the 21 day period there was a letter of objection from Manx National Heritage followed by a request for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) from the Planning Department required to include information on how the development might impact upon:

• Traffic and Transportation
• Landscape and Visual Aspects
• Ecology (flora/fauna etc.)
• Soil and Ground Water Contamination
• Hydrology and Geology
• Surface Water Drainage and Flood Risk
• Noise and Vibration

After a further meeting with the Planning Officer and Senior Planning Officer a 'Supporting Statement' (equivalent of an EIA) was produced addressing the issues discussed. Following its circulation the Planning Officer began to prepare his report to the Planning Committee. During that period additional clarification was requested regarding the visual impact of the site and DWG. 142 was prepared and submitted. Further points were clarified by email. At that time no indication was given that the application would be recommended for refusal. We were informed of this decision when the Planning Officer's report was circulated ahead of the Planning Committee Meeting on 22nd December giving us no

opportunity to supply additional information. The six reasons for refusal from this report have been summarised and are presented below.

Committee Report Summary and Architect’s Response

1. Reason for Refusal no. 1 is centred on the fact that, due to the extent to which the visual amenity of the area is detrimentally affected the proposal fails to comply with the provisions of Housing Policy 14 and Environment Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. While the planning officer expresses some concern over the visual prominence of the proposed dwelling (e.g. ‘Location D’ is considered to present a ‘greater visual impact, albeit from a private driveway (Planning Officer’s Report, 2011: 10)) for the most part it is considered that the landscaping measures to be taken to reduce the building’s visibility are generally successful. However, the overall conclusion is that; ‘[t]his ... method could always be used to circumvent policies designed to protect the countryside from intrusion of new development ... [and a] ... damaging precedent could be set in the countryside if it was accepted that hiding a large house by substantial earthworks and or tree planting was acceptable practice, [where this is true] it is not considered this novel approach complies with the purpose behind the Strategic Plan policies for replacement dwellings in the countryside’ (Planning Officer’s Report, 2011: 11).

The principle of moving the building and the issue of its size have been addressed in a series of meetings. We understand that the proposal can be considered to work within the framework of Housing Policy 14 and consider that the idea of setting a precedent in such a unique situation should not be considered significant. Opening up the basement seawards was discussed at an early stage and the additional land works will shield the building and create shelter for landscaping. The dwelling is no more substantial than most farm complexes or the various nurseries along this part of coast.

1. Reason for Refusal no. 2 relates to Environment Policy 12 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. It is stated that contrary to this policy the proposed works would introduce an ‘alien feature’ in terms of height, gradient, landscape feature and its projection out from the existing cliff face. The issue is that although the type of gentle grass slope outlined in the proposed landscaping measures can be found in other areas of coastline near to the site, this work will substantially alter the gradient and characteristics of a section coastline currently typified by steep exposed cliff faces with little/sparse vegetation. This is compounded by the fact that the proposal involves bringing the coastline back to its 1997 extension (i.e. 6 to 10 meters past the existing line), seeing a projection towards the sea at this point. As such this would mean the area is not in conformity with the characteristics of the landscape typology identified for the area (i.e. ‘Type G: Smooth Coastal Strip’). From evidence of the nearby Killane Mill site, it would seem the proposed work would establish an ‘obtrusive feature,’ likely to become increasingly apparent as time goes on.

Permission was granted for the coastal defences at Killane Mill in 1991. At that time Marram grass was recorded along this part of the coast suggesting the cliff at Ballateare was more similar to that at the Cronk (see page 5 of the Phase 1 Habitat Survey). The proposed work is to repair the subsequent damage. The process of soft engineering is by definition a continuous managed protection and not a permanent sea defence. This is an opportunity to preserve the coastline and stop unnecessary damage. We are looking to introduce measures to return the present cliff to a more stable state with the sea ensuring the removal material to create a natural landform. The evidence for this is supplied in the Supporting Statement but has been overlooked when the Planning Officers report to the Committee was being prepared.

1. Reason for Refusal no. 3 notes that the proposal runs contrary to Environment Policy 11 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. No evidence was provided to adequately prove the proposed ‘Cliff Trimming’ works would not increase and/or transfer the risk of coastal erosion to the other parts of the coastline through its impact on natural coastal process. While it is true the property has a lifetime of 60 years the planning officer draws attention to the fact that as a result of the scheme to enable this, the cliffs either side are likely to erode more quickly, eventually outflanking the property. The probability and nature of this process means that effectual planned management is required. Where there is no scientific evidence provided within the submission for the Planning Department to be able to assess whether the proposal would have no significant effects on neighbouring land it appears the development cannot be permitted.

The proposals look to remove the unstable sand layer, install effective drainage, re-profile the cliff in order to protect it from wind damage and provide a stable soil angle where Marram grass can become established. At present the cliff is being eroded by field drains and the loose soil is collecting on the shore where it is taken away by wave action.

1. Reason for Refusal no. 4 refers to the adverse affect the noise generated by the use of a helicopter would have on the amenity of local residents and the character of the locality; the issue being the lack of information in the application regarding flight paths. It is stated that it is likely that the use of the helicopter to and from the site will change the character of the area, affecting local residents within, and possibly outside, a 1km radius. Where “[a]ctivities which generate noise generally become more of a nuisance in areas of the countryside which do not have an existing substantial background of noise” (Planning Officer’s Report, 2011: 21), the 69db of noise created by flyover, takeoff and approach of the helicopter is considered as an unacceptable impact upon residential amenity.

The helicopter will approach from the sea using the coastline to identify the landing site. This will keep noise to a minimum. The applicant accepts that this may be a planning condition and that flights may be restricted to daylight hours and the frequency restricted to so many flights a week, (say 4).

1. Reason for Refusal no. 5 is to do with Environment Policy 9 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. It is noted that there is a lack of evidence to prove how, during the lifetime of the building, the proposed ‘Cliff Trimming’ and coastal protection works would provide the proposed dwelling adequate defence from coastal erosion. While it is accepted that the development does meet the requirements of Sustainable Development as set out in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, the fact that this section of coast is very much in a dynamic state (i.e. through being subject to both wind and wave erosion) means an adequate explanation of how the affects of this process are to be mitigated is required. Bringing the cliff face back to 1997 extension is likely to extend the time it will take for the erosion processes to begin to start affecting the proposed dwelling. However, there is no submitted evidence to indicate that this will be the case, or where the cliff face would be over number of years in the future if the proposed works were undertaken and maintained.

There are drawings submitted showing the present rate of erosion along the length of Jurby coastline with visual evidence. It is apparent that the Postford Duvivier report did not offer such detail. The proposal looks to reconfigure the land drains which have caused localised pockets of erosion leading to accelerated decay. Loose sand subject to wind erosion would be removed and the clay base reinforced with the same material. By altering the cliff angle the design seeks to stabilise the cliff but only as part of a natural balance with the shoreline. Material removed by the sea will be the same as before. The

evidence prepared also records the condition of the cliffs to each side of the site and can be used to monitor the effect of this proposal.

1. Reason for Refusal no. 6 refers to the fact that the application does not contain the required information to permit a full assessment of the impact on traffic and highway safety and so fails to satisfy the requirements of Mineral Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. Due to the significant amount of vehicular movements during the extraction process and the likelihood that the timescale of this work will be need to be extended (the 6-8 weeks currently projected for extraction would require 1 full HGV leaving the site every 10 minutes) there is strong potential the road network in this area will see a substantial amount of significant disturbance. It is noted that, due to the finite time period of the process, the disturbance caused during construction work is generally not considered a reason to refuse an application, however, where levels of noise and dust are considered acceptable, the level of HGV use effecting highway safety in this instance warrants a need for further strategic management for the application to be considered acceptable.

In an early meeting with the Senior Planning Officer and Neil Wilson both the principle of mineral extraction and the idea of controlling the removal of the sand under the terms of a mineral license were discussed; it was then the 6-8 week period was agreed upon. While we feel this has been somewhat lost in later considerations of the application we have no issue with extending that period or indeed reducing the amount of material removed to reduce the level of activity to avoid inconvenience to road users and neighbours. Further, the idea of using the sand on the site as a mineral is incidental to the main application. We have been informed that similar materials will shortly be required at Wrights Pit North to cover land fill which we consider to be a positive recycling of the bi-product. A condition of approval be agreed to ensure the disruption is reduced to acceptable limits. We are not dependent on this 8-week period and another method can be discussed as agreed.

We propose that the sand is stored on site and removed at the rate of 20 lorries/week by a preferred route agreed with the traffic division.

Conclusion

1. The possibility of this application setting a precedent is outweighed by the economic benefit. The land has a limited life and this application makes, ‘best use of resources’ in accordance with Strategic Policy 1.
2. The concerns over Coastal Erosion, Environmental Policies 11, 12, can be managed by a condition that the applicant provides additional proof that the coastline will not be damaged by this application.
3. The use of the helicopter can be controlled by restricting the flight path to a seaward approach and by number of flights, daytime only.
4. The removal of the sand can be controlled by a condition regarding the amount removed weekly and by a specified route.