Loading document...
920
Additional Information?
12/01/2015
BALLAMONA MAIN HOUSE Ballamona Estate, Oak Hill, Port Soderick, Braddan 17th December 2012
920/X/DS/02
Received 17.12.12 DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE BRANDING AND BUILDING CONTROL
DIVISION
Town and County Planning Act 1999 State and Officer Initials
| Decision | ||
|---|---|---|
| Deal |
2.0 Introduction 3 3.0 Ommissions 4 4.0 Landscape character 5 5.0 Cultural Heritage 9 6.0 Potential Mitigation 11 7.0 Conclusions 12 8.0 Appendices 13
2.1.1. This document has been produced in response to a letter submitted to the Planning Committee on behalf of Manx National Heritage [MNH] which expressed areas of concern in relation to our planning application, PA12/01245/B, for the erection of a replacement dwelling with garage block and landscaping at Ballamona Estate, Oak Hill, Port Soderick, Braddan (Estate). It is worth noting that, whilst this letter was written on behalf of the Trustees of MNH, a letter was submitted to the Planning Committee from Trustee Mr J Turner MLC who wished to be disassociated from the expressed views. For ease of reference copies of this correspondence has been included in the Appendix A.
2.1.2. Upon review of the letter submitted by MNH it was felt that, whilst there were some valid points raised, many of the areas of concern had been addressed in the applications accompanying Design Statement, albeit some aspects may not have been made explicit. MNH's letter served to highlight areas of the original planning submission that could be interpreted as implicit or incomplete. This document seeks to address this.
2.2.1. In order for the Planning and Building Control Division to have a clear understanding of our intentions, and to enable a comprehensive assessment of the proposal, this document has been created to provide supplementary information to the original submitted Design Statement, document reference 920/X/DS/01 [Design Statement], which is referenced through this document.
2.2.2. Whilst this document specifically deals with PA12/01245/B, the policies referenced by MNH in their letter could also be perceived as relating to concurrent applications on the site for equestrian facilities and a complementary replacement gatehouse, PA12/01285/B and PA/1201067/B, and therefore the additional information provided in this document is also relevant for those applications.
3.1.1. Richmond Square Design [RSD] prides itself of compiling and submitted comprehensive planning applications which reflect the level of detail design undertaken. Consultations with interested parties, and government bodies, are undertaken as part of RSD's standard design process for all planning applications. This consultation process was undertaken for this submission as well as the preceding applications, which form the separate elements of the overall masterplan and for which, it is worth noting, that there had been no objections to. The same consultations were executed for this application as had been performed for previous applications and therefore due diligence was thought to have been completed.
3.1.2. It is therefore regrettable, and embarrassing, that RSD failed to consult MNH prior to the application being submitted. This was an inexcusable and fundamental oversight by RSD; especially as MNH own neighbouring land to the boundary of the overall Estate.
3.1.3. When made aware of MNH's letter to the Planning Committee, following discussion with the Planning Officer it was agreed that the three concurrent applications would be suspended to until RSD met with MNH to discuss and/or potentially alleviate some of their concerns.
3.2.1. RSD has since met with the Director of MNH, Mr Edmond Southworth, and Mr Andrew Johnson, Curator of Field Archaeology. At this meeting the points raised by MNH were discussed at length and this supplementary document was the methodology agreed upon to address, or mitigate, the highlighted areas of concern.
3.2.2. RSD has also met with Mr Juan Turner MLC individually to present and discuss the scheme and his viewpoint. The outcome of this meeting was positive and Mr Turner gave the impression that he was impressed by the scheme.
4.1.1. As noted in 1.3.2 of the Design Statement with each preceding application an outline masterplan was submitted which zoned the areas of the scheme. At the time of these applications the masterplan was still in the development stage and the exact details or extent of the development had not been solidified. Whilst the zoned usage and approximate positioning of buildings was established, the masterplan was still evolving so rather than submitting a differing scheme with each element of the masterplan, the decision was made to retain the masterplan as a framework proposal to accompany each application rather than seek outline approval for the masterplan in its entirety. This decision was taken after consultation with the Planning Department.
4.1.2. The first element of the masterplan that obtained planning approval was the conversion and extension of the Farmhouse (PA 10/00493/B), 29th June 2010. As part of that application a proposed masterplan drawing was submitted which illustrated the zoning and intended use of the areas on the site. This same drawing was submitted with the subsequent approved applications for the Estate Offices, Mill conversion and stable block/field shelter, PA 10/00339/B, 10/01468/B and 11/00898/B respectively, (reference Appendix B).
4.1.3. At no time has RSD concealed the ultimate objective for the site. Each application was clearly referenced to the site address and the masterplan intention noted and, in all instances, no objections were submitted.
4.1.4. The detail design and refinement of the scheme has taken longer than originally anticipated or intended. Due to this, it is understandable that MNH believed that the scheme has gradually emerged over time, although this is evidently incorrect. The overall intention has been established from the outset.
4.1.5. In the past year the masterplan has been refined and clarified so that the final parts of the scheme could be considered in context. As part of this process a presentation was made to Braddan Parish Commissioners on 29th November 2011. At this stage the master plan and preliminary elevation sketches for the main house illustrated a property with a much larger footprint than the proposed house. An invitation was also extended to the Local MHK for Braddan Parish Commissioners but at the time he had just been awarded the position of Chairman for the Planning Committee and therefore, understandably, declined to participate in the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest.
4.1.6. The subsequent refined, and more detailed masterplan as submitted with application for the replacement dwelling as also been submitted as part of the pending planning applications for the equestrian facilities and replacement entrance lodge, PA 12/01285/B and 12/01067/B respectively (reference Appendix C).
4.2.1. The submitted Design Statement includes a Visual Impact Assessment. Within this, the landscape character of the area is discussed as well as the criteria for assessing visual impact. It has been bought to our attention that this definition was incorrectly referenced in the document. The definition extract was taken from Appendix 1 of the Consultation on Draft Planning Policy Statement – The Replacement or Extension of Dwellings in the Countryside September 2011, a copy of which is included in the appendix for clarity (reference Appendix D).
4.2.2. As described in 9.2.1 of the Design Statement the proposed site is only discernible to the public from those points illustrated along Old Castletown Road. The visual impact assessment submitted by RSD evidenced the restricted views from Old Castletown Road as it is not believed that the site is visible from elsewhere. RSD had of course considered the visual impact of the proposal for other aspects but this was not made explicit in the Design Statement.
4.2.3. Due to the natural topography of the site any potential views from the Isle of Man Railway which passes through the bottom of the site, from the accompanying Public Right of Way and the Coastal Footpath, from the land owned by MNH or from Marine Drive are all restricted as the site sits at a higher level. Appendix E illustrates the fall of the land and clearly demonstrates that due to the distance from the proposal as well as natural the fall of the land the proposal would not be discernible to the public.
4.2.4. The proposed site is high above sea level and therefore any views of the proposal from the sea would be distant and fleeting. The site was not visible to a member of our staff who travelled on the M. V. Karina boat to establish the visibility of the site from the sea.
4.2.5. The potential visual impact from the air is harder to quantify and assess, especially as any such views would be transitory. In this regard the overall masterplan may be used to give an impression of what would be viewed from the air. There will obviously be increases in building mass but likewise there will be increased levels of planting, especially trees whose canopies will assist in diffusing the building forms.
4.2.6. The overarching existing characteristic of the site when viewed from the air is the central cluster of the buildings and existing trees. As described in 2.3.2 of the Design Statement this characteristic has been taken into consideration and retained as part of the new masterplan as the new buildings are sited close to, or within, the existing grouping.
4.2.7. Another distinct characteristic of the landscape is the 'patchwork' of fields on the site and the surrounding area. The scheme has been developed to work within these existing boundaries and the existing formation of fields and hedgerows has been retained as much as feasibly possible.
4.3.1. The character of the wider context of the site, being the area of Quine's Hill, was established within 2.2 of the Design Statement in which the proposed site was identified as being within an 'Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance' [AHLV]. In addition, the area has specific Landscape Character Types as identified in the 'Role of Landscape Character in the Countryside' with specific sensitivities, namely Incised Slopes (Type D) and Rugged Coast (Type E) although it is proposed that this typology will remain unaffected by the proposal.
4.3.2. In light of the fact that the views of the site are limited, and indeed restricted where they do occur, RSD does not believe that the scheme could be deemed as being detrimental to the character of the surrounding area or the wider Manx landscape.
4.3.3. The geometric form of the existing main house and the garden both respond to the existing context. As evidenced in 3.0 of the Design Statement, specifically View B, the existing residence is of symmetrical geometric proportions. The other elevations do not follow this pattern as they have been bastardised over the years with poorly designed and executed extensions. The classical proportions of the existing principal elevation inspired RSD to work with a classic architectural aesthetic which is discussed in greater detail later in this document.
4.3.4. The formal garden proposed is as would be expected for a house of this standing and responds to the geometric and symmetrical proportions of the proposed dwelling. In addition the formality of the gardens was influenced by the existing parallel boundaries of the site, being the existing Manx hedgerows of the field, which are intended to be retained and have been traditionally laid.
4.3.5. The existing gentleman's residence is sited within gardens which evidently had a more formal appearance than the surrounding fields – there is in fact evidence of a lawn tennis court at the rear of the property, and therefore the inclusion of a more formal garden arrangement with the principal dwelling is not a new concept for the site.
4.3.6. The proposed size of the gardens, as well as the variety, would require specialist design and ultimately full time management. Until such time, as noted in 8.7 of the Design Statement, the design of the gardens are indicative of the type of landscaping and planting and are submitted to demonstrate that the property has been considered as part of a cohesive whole. These designs were not meant as definitive. RSD has not claimed that the gardens are of a particular style or that they are intended to replicate a particular period, rather the submitted indicative proposal was to illustrate gardens that read as though they may have potentially evolved over time.
4.3.7. However, the proposed reflection lake is a key element of the garden design. This was inspired by the clarity of the night sky over the site and the intention is that on a clear night this shallow, dark, pool will reflect the stars. This concept has been reinforced and given credence by Port Soderick's recent designation as a Dark Sky Discovery Site (October 2012).
4.3.8. Likewise, it had always been RSD's intention to incorporate minimal external lighting on the site, although it is acknowledged that this was not made explicit within the Design Statement. For example, lighting has not been installed on the completed external manège as it was deemed inappropriate and excessive for the landscape setting.
4.3.9. Light pollution is defined as artificial light that intrudes on the night time setting. Feature lighting may be considered to be the main source of light pollution as it could be argued that it is unnecessary. Whilst feature lighting will inevitably be included in the scheme, it will be positioned accurately and purposefully and it would be on very rare occasions that the property would be fully illuminated both internally and externally.
4.3.10. Other light installations would be for safety and security in and around the Estate, such as at the entrance gates. Motion sensors and full cut-off fixtures would be used to ensure minimal light intrusion to the night time setting.
5.1.1. As identified in the Design Statement (2.1) RSD was aware of the association of the site with prominent historical Manx individuals, namely Armitage Rigby and Paul Leece, both of whom were MHK's. Knowing that registered buildings are those which are considered to have special architectural or historical interest, prior to any design works being undertaken, and when the concept for the creation of a Estate was in its infancy, in order to gain an understanding of the significance of the existing buildings site meetings and discussion took place with the Conservation Officer for the Island, Mr Stephen Moore, September 2009.
5.1.2. The outcome of these meetings was recorded in e-mails which are included in the Appendix F for reference. This e-mail correspondence also highlights our ultimate intention to seek permission to demolish the main house. The inclusion of the existing property as part of the masterplan had not been considered as it was felt that the existing property was not of any particular architectural merit nor would it be suitable for modern day living.
5.1.3. Whilst none of the buildings on the site is currently on the Registered Building List, the site is listed as "as worthy of research and possible inclusion on" the Registered Building List.
5.1.4. The association of these two historical figures was discussed with the Conservation Officer whom stated that "unless some other party were to come forward with some evidence that (he) was not aware of, it is not likely to be Registered". RSD are unaware of any new historical evidence that would warrant the registration of the main house. However, RSD do appreciate that a historical record of the existing property prior to any potential demolition may be appropriate.
5.1.5. RSD's understanding of the historical division of land known as a 'Quaterland' was that it was equivalent in standing to that of the English Manor, as referenced in the Design Statement (2.1.2), the source of this information is included Appendix G. This rationale was referenced throughout the Design Statement in describing the creation of, as well as providing a common thread for, the design of the Estate. MNH have cited this interpretation as incorrect and therefore believe any reference to this concept to be specious.
5.1.6. Whilst RSD felt that this interpretation of the land division provided historical evidence for the land to be retained as a complete Estate, the other principal reason for following the architectural interpretation of an English Manor House was that it was felt that, to retain the site as one, this was the most appropriate precedent to refer to, especially as there are few modern parallels to a proposal of this scale and size. In retrospect this was the implied tone of the Design Statement which should have been made more explicit.
5.2.1. Within 6.6 of the Design Statement the desire to create a classical, timeless architectural aesthetic is discussed. To this end a Palladian inspired aesthetic was chosen as it was felt that this style would provide a simple, understated elegance. RSD did not claim that the proposal was trying to recreate a true Palladian Manor House, rather that this aesthetic and sensibility had informed the design as its aesthetic restraint was deemed appropriate.
5.2.2. In developing the architectural aesthetic John Kitto's book 'Historic Homes of the Isle of Man' was referred to which illustrates the many differing architectural styles, from several periods, of large detached properties throughout the Island; there is not one particular architectural style for large houses on the Island. None of these houses could be deemed to comply with the 'Guide to the Design of Residential Development in the Countryside' (Planning Circular 3/91). As noted in 6.9 of the Design Statement it is suggested that the proposal for the main house at Ballamona follows these established precedents as being an exception to policy.
5.2.3. Points 6.4.5 and 6.4.9 inclusive of the Design Statement reference the scale of the proposal in relation to the overall acreage of the site. Whilst RSD acknowledges that there is no current planning policy pertaining to the size of dwelling to size of landholding (nor have RSD claimed there to be), it was anticipated that the proposal of Ballamona would be considered in comparison to other large dwellings and/or private estates on the Island, especially as the suggestion is that it is these precedents that the proposal wishes to emulate.
5.2.4. The comparison of the landholding to house ratios was provided to illustrate that the site of Ballamona could comfortably accommodate a larger private residence without, it was felt, over compromising the feel and appearance of the site. As stated in the 6.4.9 of the Design Statement, "Ballamona Estate provides the acreage, location and setting to create a true estate...(it) is a rare, and unique opportunity to create a true estate".
5.2.5. Likewise, references to 'Low Density Housing in Parkland' (Planning Circular 8/89) was referred to in lieu of any specific policy regarding the creation of private estates. This policy references existing low density housing in parkland, marked "PE" – Private Estates – on the Development Plan, which are the existing properties that this proposal wishes to emulate and therefore this policy was used as reference only as RSD is fully aware that the site is not currently categorised as low density housing in parkland.
5.3.1. The primary omission from the submitted Design Statement was the lack of acknowledgment for the potential archaeological significance of the site which was further exacerbated by the lack of correspondence with MNH.
5.3.2. As identified by MNH, the slight ridge running from Quine's Hill to Ballamona is understood to be the topographic focus for several prehistoric burial sites.
5.3.3. RSD are aware of a white burial stone that site within the overall ownership of the site but as this was not within the propose site and therefore RSD regrettably failed to research the significance, or importance, of such a stone.
5.3.4. Any archaeological assessment needs to be carried out by a specialist third part, in close collaboration with the MNH.
6.1.1. As described in 4.2 of this document, the visual impact assessment as submitted within the original Design Statement did not explicitly detail the extent of the assessment, rather it was implied that RSD had carried out due diligence in assessing the proposal from all viewpoints. It is hoped that the additional information provided in this document clearly demonstrates that the scheme is only discernible from those viewpoints as originally listed on the Old Castletown Road.
6.1.2. Due to this fact RSD believes that the proposal will therefore have little impact on the surrounding landscape.
6.1.3. Any external lighting would be the subject of detail design and possible require the input from a specialist designer. As already discussed RSD is aware of, and respectful of, the current night time scene of the area and any external lighting would be considered with this in mind.
6.1.4. RSD would be willing for any external lighting scheme to be approved before installation to ensure that all parties are satisfied with the proposal.
6.1.5. As the proposed gardens are to be private residential gardens, which may, as discussed, require specialist design, a plant species list was not submitted with the original Design Statement as it was not believed to be a requirement of the planning application.
6.1.6. The proposed additional tree planting in and around the site will be undertaken with guidance from DEFA; the planting shown is indicative of location and quantity only.
6.1.7. Those trees that have been introduced to date to replenish damaged trees have been done so with guidance from DEFA as to the species to be used. The reintroduction of Manx banking that had been lost over time, and the laying of existing hedgerows has been undertaken to re-establish the look and feel of the countryside setting and is a sympathetic approach that is intended to be used throughout the scheme.
6.1.8. Whilst the creation of the basement will inevitable require major earthworks on the site the spoil, where suitable, may be used to slightly amend the contours of the land where the lake and gardens are proposed. These would only be minor alterations to the existing levels as the scheme has been specifically and carefully designed to use the existing levels of the land. Any surplus would be utilised in the creation of areas such as the equestrian facilities. Any earth that is to be moved is intended to remain on site as much as feasibly possible.
6.2.1. As stated the omission from the original Design Statement of any assessment of the archaeological potential for the area was a grave oversight by RSD. In order to rectify this mistake RSD has since met with MNH to discuss the best approach to establish the archaeological significance of the site.
6.2.2. Following this meeting, MNH kindly provided a 'Brief for Archaeological Evaluation' to enable RSD to obtain quotations from both local and UK based companies, a copy of which is included in the Appendix H for information.
6.2.3. Based on this brief, which includes potential mitigation to be established in the final report, RSD has requested tenders from a selection of companies and is currently waiting for these to be returned.
7.1.1. Due to the scale and complexity of the proposal RSD had anticipated that, should the schemes be granted approval, they would be subject to a number of conditions.
7.1.2. It is the opinion of RSD that those items described which may require further detail than currently submitted, particularly establishing the archaeological significance and any proposed lighting schemes mitigation of light pollution, would be the subject of any such conditions.
7.1.3. RSD trust that the enclosed, when read in conjunction with the previously submitted Design Statement, serves to alleviate the concerns of MNH and/or clarify any aspects of the submission that may have been unclear.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
