DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 20/00060/A Applicant: Middleton Securities Ltd Proposal: Approval in principle for the erection of a replacement detached dwelling addressing matters of siting, access, internal layout, external appearance and design Site Address: Ballamaddrell Cottage Grenaby Road Ballabeg Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 4HD Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken: 06.02.2020 Site Visit: 06.02.2020 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 18.03.2021 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal - R 1. The proposed development would fail to comply with Housing Policy 12 (b) given that the existing dwelling is of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation, with the scheme failing to demonstrate intention to restore, despite the structural condition of the dwelling which is suitable for restoration. - R 2. Notwithstanding the first reason for refusal, the planning application a) fails to demonstrate that the property has not lost its habitable status by abandonment; and b) does not provide sufficient information with regard to evidence of intervening use as stipulated in - Housing Policy 12 and as such is considered to fail the requirement of Housing policy 12 (a) for replacement dwellings. - R 3. The proposed development in terms of its approach to the formation of a new dwelling will fail to comply with Housing Policy 13, given that it is a rural dwelling which has lost its former residential use by abandonment as measured against the criteria set in Housing Policy 12. - R 4. There is insufficient information provided with regards to trees and bats at the site which would lead to a conclusion that there would be no adverse impact in respect of these issues. The unacceptable loss or harm to the trees having an impact on the character of the site contrary to General Policy 2 (f) and (g) and the cumulative loss of the dwelling and trees without sufficient mitigation being provided would result in an unacceptable adverse impact on protected species and their habitat contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 4. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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 6(4):

Ballamaddrell House, Grenaby Road, Ballabeg Heatherfield, 13 Victoria Road, Port St Mary/Awin Mooar, The Promenade, Port St Mary

as they are not 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

It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:

Manx Utilities Authority (Electricity)

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 6(4):

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 Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT NOTING A COMMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is the curtilage of an existing two storey traditional cottage with external walls finished in Manx stone which has been rendered and grey slate roof tiles, situated on the eastern side of Grenaby Road (B40). The house sits on a triangular plot and at the intersection between Grenaby Road and the dirt road serving the dwellings to the east of the site (Lower Ballavarkish and Thie Kella). - 1.2 The existing pedestrian entrance is located to the southern corner of the plot with access onto the Grenaby Road. The vehicular access appears to be at the rear of the property, although this is not clearly defined as the site is covered in significant amounts of wild shrubbery. The majority of the site is made up of a garden with a considerable number of mature trees sprung along its boundary; some of which has been partly felled and recently trimmed. - 1.3 Large sections of the eastern elevation and rear elevation are covered in overgrown shrubs which now screens large sections of the dwelling and reinforces the property's level of dereliction.

2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval in principle for the erection of a replacement detached dwelling addressing matters of siting, access, internal layout, external appearance and design. The matters indicated to be reserved are drainage and landscaping, although the submitted plans show significant details regarding the landscaping of the site. - 2.2 The floor area of the proposed (measured externally) will be significantly larger than the existing although it will be erected on the footprint of the existing. The existing dwelling is 75.9sqm, while the proposed single storey replacement would be 251sqm (making the proposed 230% larger than the existing). The dwelling would have a span of about 29m, an average depth of about 9m and an eaves height of 2.5m metres and a ridge height of 6.2m (consequent on the split level layout of the dwelling). The proposed dwelling would be finished in Manx stone and painted render walls, traditional slate roof with integrated solar panelling rows on a Gull winged style roof, and triple glazed windows. The existing vehicular access will be retained but with modifications to the driveway and the removal of trees at this section of the site to improve access to the site. - 2.3 The existing boundary hedge line around the site would be refreshed, clipped and improved with new planting. Three small trees would be lost to works to improve the access, although six additional trees will be planted at various sections of the site. The works would also involve extensive landscaping works to improve the entire site area. - 2.4 This contemporary split level dwelling will integrate Eco friendly elements that seek to achieve high efficiency standards of SAP 93+, with a target to achieve 97. This would be achieved through the use of air source heat pump, LED lighting, triple glazed insulated windows, the installation of a mains, rainwater, grey water and ground water pumping system, provision of electric car charging points, use of photovoltaic cells for energy generation and the installation of thermal coil panels. It is indicated that the built would seek to utilize the Manx stone and hardcore materials retrieved from the demolition of the existing two storey cottage in the new build, in addition to ensuring that all relevant build materials have high thermal mass qualities. - 2.5 The applicants have provided supporting information in the form of a Design Statement which gives a clear description of the scheme, as well as the considerations that guided the design of the scheme. - 2.6 The applicant describes the condition of the existing dwelling as dilapidated. A Structural Inspection Report (by BB Consulting Engineers) has also been provided by the applicants as supporting information to support the claims.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982 as "white land" that is, not designated for development, and lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South (APS) (2013) as not for any particular purpose. The site also lies within an area of Incised Slopes on the draft Landscape Character Appraisal where the key objectives are: "i. To protect the tranquil, rural character of the area with its open views.

• ii. Sensitive location of new buildings and the use of screen planting.
• iii. Avoidance of physical or visual amalgamation of roadside housing.
• iv. Protection and enhancement of the identity of Ballabeg and Colby by the conservation of the rural character of the adjacent landscape."

3.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.

3.3 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by:

• (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and underused land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials;
• (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space(1) and amenity standards; and
• (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."

3.4 Environment Policy 1 states: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. 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 General Policy 3 states: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:

• (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work;

(Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10);

• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social

value and interest; (Housing Policy 11);

• (c) previously developed land(1) which contains a significant amount of building; where the

continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; 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);
• (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the

provision of necessary services;

• (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or

forestry;

• (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms

and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and

• (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage."

3.6 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.
• 8.11.2 It is important that replacement dwellings should relate closely to the buildings they replace in terms of siting and size, that the resulting visual impact is appropriate for the countryside, and that existing stone and slate are re-used.
• 8.11.3 It is unlikely that permission will be given for permanent replacement of dwellings which were never intended to have a permanent residential use, such as chalets and other structures built of materials for only temporary or seasonal use.

3.7 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.

3.8 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.

3.9 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.

3.9 Environment Policy 4: Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect:

• (a) species and habitats of international importance:

• (i) protected species of international importance or their habitats; or
• (ii) proposed or designated Ramsar and Emerald Sites or other internationally important sites.

• (b) species and habitats of national importance:

• (i) protected species of national importance or their habitats;
• (ii) proposed or designated National Nature Reserves, or Areas of Special Scientific Interest; or
• (iii) Marine Nature Reserves; or
• (iv) National Trust Land.

• (c) species and habitats of local importance such as Wildlife Sites, local nature reserves, priority habitats or species identified in any Manx Biodiversity Action Plan which do not already benefit from statutory protection, Areas of Special Protection and Bird Sanctuaries and landscape features of importance to wild flora and fauna by reason of their continuous nature or function as a corridor between habitats. Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward.

3.10 Considering the site is a previously developed land, General Policy 2 will also be vital in its assessment.

• 3.10.1 General Policy 2 states: "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;

• (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;
• (j) can be provided with all necessary services;
• (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;

• (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
• (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

- 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The application site has not been the subject of any previous planning application and

• as such there are no applications that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.

5.1 The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division have made the following comments in the letter dated 13 March 2020:

Given the fact that this is replacement dwelling, the principle of development is considered acceptable.

The drawings suggest an existing access but this is not entirely clear, nevertheless, the access arrangements as shown on dwg no JD1/3 suggest reasonably good sightlines along a road that is quiet in terms of vehicle movements.

Any improved access arrangements would need to be designed so that they are safe for the future residents but also for other road users passing the site.

There are no objections to this proposal subject to the following conditions; Prior to development becoming operational, the driveway leading up to the proposed dwelling shall be surfaced, sealed and drained for the first 5m of its length from Grenaby Road. Reason: in order to avoid gravel migrating out onto the public highway. Any gates shall be erected at least 5m form the edge of Grenaby Road. Reason: in the interests of highway safety.

The turfed banks shall be limited to 850mm above carriageway level for at least 5m from the access in order to maintain adequate visibility looking to the left (west). Reason: in the interests of highway safety.

Please attach a section 109a form in relation to the construction of the improved access. Recommendation: DNOC

• 5.1.2 Upon review of the initial scheme submitted and the submission of amended plans and supporting information, the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division made the following comments in the letter dated 21 December 2020:

After reviewing the revisions to this Application, Highway Services find it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network efficiency and /or parking. The revised car parking layout and hardstanding area is capable of accommodating in excess of the Strategic Plan minimum number of two car parking spaces as well as turning to allow entry and exit in a forward gear. A separate facility should be provided for the storage of bicycles and consideration given to the installation of an electric vehicle charging point. Accordingly, Highway Services do not oppose this proposal subject to conditions to cover the visibility splays

• at the site access, internal pedestrian and vehicle areas in accordance with the revised site plan uploaded on 14 December 2020 and the provision of a consolidated an bound surface within the access for a distance of 5m from the carriageway edge and details of bicycle parking.

• 5.1.3 Having reviewed further amendments by the applicant, the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division have made the following additional comments in the letter dated 15 February 2021:

Highways Services notes the amended gate position uploaded on 21 February 2021 and we remain satisfied over access arrangements depicted on Drawing no. 111 Rev B. On the grant of planning consent, further liaison will be necessary between the Applicant and Highway Services over any retaining features appertaining to the highway which may require structural approvals and inspections. Licences may be necessary to place equipment and materials in the road and for any temporary closures while building works are undertaken.

5.2 DEFA's Arboricultural Officer has made the following comments regarding the

• application in a letter dated 4 February 2020:

The trees marked on the site plan (drawing JD1/3) as 7 (Cherry) and 8 (sycamore) are good quality trees which are worthy of retention. The creation of a driveway as proposed is likely to cause significant damage to these trees. The nature of ground here would make it very difficult to protect the trees using a no-dig solution.

The pine tree at the western end of the plot is very visible from the road and footpath but shows poor form for the species and is not really suitable for retention I the long term. The demolition of the existing property and the construction of the proposed dwelling, which includes significant grade changes within the rooting area of the tree, is likely to lead to significant dieback or even death of the tree. Regardless of the access issues referenced above, I think it is more realistic for the tree to be marked for removal as part of this development, which I wouldn't object to. This would create an opportunity to put a (reduced) hardstanding/parking area at the front of the property, removing the risk of damage to good quality trees at the eastern end of the plot.

Another option, albeit not my preference, would be to move the entrance further east along Grenaby Road away from tree 8 and plant a replacement tree in the front garden. Sketches of these alternatives are attached to aid discussion with the agent.

In its current form, I would have to object to the application due to the unlikely damage that would be caused to 3 significant trees on the site. If either of the attached options is viable, a tree protection plan would be required to confirm the protection measures that would be put in place during the construction process.

I would appreciate the opportunity to comment again if amended drawings are submitted. Some photos from my site visit are attached. If you have any question, please do not hesitate to contact me.

5.3 DEFA's Ecosystem Policy Officer has made the following comments regarding the application in a letter dated 6 February 2020:

Noting that the application is 'in principle' only, should the application go forward to the technical detailed stage, it will need to be accompanied by an ecological assessment for bats and breeding birds in order to comply with Environment Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Wildlife Act 1990 prior to determination of the application. Bat surveys should be undertaken in accordance with the Bat Conservation Trust Bat Survey for Professional Ecologist Good Practice Guidelines (3rd Edition 2016). Surveys are required to identify the species of bat utilizing the property and any trees proposed for removal; survey need to identify bat abundance and whether they are breeding and this will determine the mitigation required. Should bats be found then a mitigation plan for their protection should be submitted to the Planning Department with detailed application. The presence of bats will not prevent the property from being demolished but provision must be shown for the ongoing protection of bats. Mitigation is also required for any nesting birds.

The traditional Manx stone cottage has been unoccupied for some time and there are records of pipistrelle bats in close proximity to the building.

Bats are listed on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife Act 1990; they are protected by law and it is an offence to:

• o intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take a bat
• o intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy, or obstruct access to , any structure or place which bats use for shelter or protection
• o intentionally or recklessly disturbs any bat while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for that purpose. The maximum penalty that can be imposed is a fine up to 10,000 pounds. All birds, their nests, eggs and young are protected by law (Wildlife Act 1990) and it is an
• offence to:
• o intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take any wild bird
• o intentionally or recklessly take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird whilst it is in use or being built
• o intentionally or recklessly take or destroy the egg of any wild bird
• o intentionally or recklessly disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest building, or at a nest containing eggs or young, or disturb the dependent young of such a bird.

The maximum penalty that can be imposed - in respect of a single bird, nest or egg - is a fine up to 10,000 pounds.

The bird nesting season is usually between late February and late August or late September in the case of swifts, swallows or house martins.

Mature trees hugely benefit a wide range of biodiversity including birds, bats and invertebrates by providing food and refuges. As they are not immediately replaceable they should be retained wherever possible.

5.4 DEFA Inland Fisheries Officer has made the following comments regarding the application in a letter dated 13 January 2021:

This planning application indicates that the proposed works in are in close proximity to a watercourse.

To further assess this application and the potential impact to the nearby watercourse, you are requested to complete the attached 'Development within 9 Metres of a Watercourse' form. Once this has been returned to Fisheries, it may be necessary to arrange a site visit with you to discuss the proposed development in more detail. Please return by email or by post to the address below as soon as possible.

Fisheries will respond further to this application once the requested information has been received and considered. In the meantime please contact Inland Fisheries on 685857 with any further queries.

• 5.4.1 Having received additional information from the applicants, they have sent in the following comments in a letter dated 8 February 2021:

The completed 'Development within 9m of a Watercourse' form has been received for this application and has been checked by Fisheries Officers. I can confirm that DEFA Fisheries have no objections to this development from a fisheries perspective, provided that there is no adverse effect on the adjacent watercourse. This is due to the nature of both the watercourse and the proposed works.

5.5 Manx Utilities Authority (Electricity) has made the following comments regarding the

• application in a letter dated 5 January 2021:

Please be advised that we object to this planning application as there is a low voltage overhead line located in the area of this planning application.

For full assistance please contact our Overhead Line Engineer, Network Operations Department, Manx Utilities Authority, (t: 687687) to discuss working practices around overhead lines which may be required to be diverted before any work can be carried out on site.

Please contact the Manx Utilities for Electrical Site Safety 5 documents, (t: 687766), before any work is carried out on site. All work to be carried out with reference to Health and Safety Executive Guidance Notes HS (G) 47 & GS6. Manx Utilities will not accept liability for any costs incurred for this work.

5.6 DEFA's Principal Registered Buildings Officer has made the following comments regarding the application in a letter dated 19 February 2021:

Recommendation Refuse Scope of comments These comments relate to the impact of traditional property within the countryside. Policy context National policy: THE ISLE OF MAN STRATEGIC PLAN 2016 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

Report detail Ballamaddrell cottage is a vernacular building, which may at one time have been a pair of cottages, it is unusual in that it has a central chimney stack, its appearance, form, and massing and materials are all vernacular and although abandoned it is still pleasing in its appearance.

Having reviewed the information submitted, it is my view that the property is of architectural and historic interest and is capable of renovation and I therefore object to the proposals.

Options should be explored that retain the existing structure but these should not seek to over extend the property and respect its scale, massing and form.

5.7 The Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society object to the application on the following grounds (4 March 2020):

The existing property is or has been a pair of cottages wit central chimney stack. It is a prominent and characterful location at the junction of two roads and with one gable end built into the bank. As such, it constitutes a fairly uncommon form of vernacular building in the countryside whose presence should preferably be maintained by renovation rather than demolition. Notwithstanding the fact that vegetation has been permitted to grow over one gable end, the Society notes that no structural survey has been submitted and there are no details of how the Grenaby Road on the gable end of the cottage is to be supported should the latter be demolished. It is of concern that the application is a highly detailed application in terms of the replacement but crucially omits such information.

5.8 Arbory Commissioners have made the following representations regarding the application:

• 5.8.1 28 February 2020: The Commissioners feel that the scale of the proposed development was unnecessary and inappropriate for the site. The Commissioners also felt that the property was of sufficient architectural and historical merit to warrant a sensitive restoration rather than the destruction proposed.
• 5.8.2 21 January 2021: The Commissioners oppose the development as it represents an excessive use of the site. The Commissioners further feel that the existing building is of sufficient architectural merit to warrant a sensitive restoration rather than the proposed demolition.
• 5.8.3 20 February 2021: In relation to the following the Board was quite frankly appalled by this application as its appearance and form seemed wholly out of keeping for the location. The Board reiterated its concern about the loss of such a historically interesting property and wished again to object in the strongest terms to its demolition.

5.9 The owner/occupiers of Heatherfield, 13 Victoria Road, Port St Mary/Awin Mooar, The Promenade, Port St Mary have made the following comments in a letter dated 4 January 2020:

As agricultural tenants of land adjacent to the application site, we would like to reiterate our concerns and objection to the above amended planning application, and wish to highlight the number of planning policies that it still fails. The application is still too specific and addresses too many details to be a valid application in principle, and we are not quite sure why the applicant continues to pursue this method. Applications in principle of this nature are rarely satisfactory and this one particularly so, as the applicant seems to want to cherry pick the

details they wish to omit. It would remain very difficult for the Department to control any subsequent approval for reserved matters, which would still be limited to drainage issues (comments on this below). The submitted new elevations are confusing as there are two south elevations and no north elevation, and there is no evidence submitted that demonstrates the new entrance will not affect our access to the farm shed. The policies and our comments below are still relevant to the new design:

The existing building is a very typical Manx farmworkers cottage circa 1800's if not earlier, and includes a surrounding boundary wall and sod hedge, and sits in a prominent position on the Grenaby Road, being clearly visible from both directions.

Spatial Policy 5: New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3.

The design for the replacement dwelling (property has not been used as a dwelling for 34 years - see notes on HP14), shows a distinct lack of consideration for the existing value of the building as a one of considerable historical interest and heritage value, it originally being part of the Ballamaddrell Estate, now Grenaby Studios. The new design, a pastiche of 1970's modernism, respects neither height nor scale, nor traditional design, and does not relate or pay homage in any way to the existing. There is still a large amount of patio and hard standing area included on the plans, demonstrating a lack of understanding of the existing landscape and environment.

• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; It is obvious that the submitted design would have an adverse impact on the character of the area, being mostly traditional rural properties, surrounded by attractive farmland. The cottage occupies a prominent visible position on the highway. More tree loss to accommodate the development will have a negative impact. Tree removal will have a negative impact on the visual appearance of the area.
• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; The immediate area supports a good bat population and they are frequently observed. Bird species observed include buzzards using the Scots Pine in the front garden and kestrels are regular visitors. Both species are regular and in the immediate vicinity. Greater Spotted Woodpecker has also been observed in the immediate area 6 months ago, and has been a return visitor this winter.

• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; Tree removal has already occurred with good quality mature trees cut down some months ago. It does not appear evident that the remaining trees will be retained or protected. It does not appear evident that the existing boundaries including the stone wall and sod hedge will be preserved. Some of this has already been removed.
• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality Again, the predominant character of the area is one of traditional rural dwellings, and historical agricultural interest.

• (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding The design plan shows a large amount of patio and hard standing area. The plot is regularly flooded and run off from the highway builds up significantly in the lower south east section of the plot. There is also regular flooding through the adjacent lane in heavy rain.

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:

• (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14);

The application does not comply with any of the exceptions considered in GP3, note particular reference to HP 14.

There is no reference in the proposed designs for the restoration of the existing or the reuse of any of the materials. There is no evidence that an alternative to demolition has been considered.

The following housing policies are particularly relevant:Housing Policy 4, Housing Policy 11, and Housing Policy 13. The building has not been a dwelling for 34 years so the above would be accepted. We would support conversion if it respected the existing. The building could support modern living standards with some sympathetic extension. The policies listed are particularly relevant and present significant argument for the exploration of restoration. No consideration of restoration or conversion has been demonstrated.

The property was purchased over 30 years ago and the owner purchased it to prevent it becoming inhabited. The property has not been lived in since the early eighties. It has to all wants and purposes been abandoned.

Paragraph 8.11.2 and Housing Policy 14: The application and amended plan still does not comply with the above policy. A mature and good quality Cherry has already very recently been removed from the Garden, and an elm from the hedge joining the lane, as can be seen from the remaining stumps. Both trees supported significant insect populations. The area is most certainly frequented by bats. There is at least one pair of Buzzards in the immediate vicinity and they have been observed in the scots pine, noted on the application to be removed. There are also kestrels in the area and there have been very recent regular sightings of woodpecker. The proposals seek to remove both trees on the hedge adjoining the field that we lease, and use for stock. Trees on the perimeter of the field are few, more tree removal removes existing shelter for any stock, and has the potential to expose stock to risk from domestic or building waste. Besides which we would be concerned at the removal of any more trees from the site.

No consideration for the restoration or redevelopment of the existing cottage has been explored. We would suggest that a structural report be justification for the demolition and replacement. The building, like many in rural areas, does not have registered building status and is not in a conservation area. However, as a great example of the Manx heritage, every effort should be exercised to retain the property wherever possible. It is accepted that there is nothing to prevent the demolition of the property but we can certainly control the design of the replacement. The amended design remains significantly larger, does not respect the original or traditional form in any way whatsoever, and has a significant amount of urban patio and hard standing included in the design, which bearing in mind the existing nature of the area, is totally out of keeping. Sod hedges must be respected, as must the existing stone wall to the front of the property.

It would be most disappointing if this application was successful, especially considering the immense amount of restoration work at the nearby Ballamaddrell Farm and Farmhouse, and indeed to properties further up Grenaby Road, which in our view have successfully maintained the existing traditional Manx vernacular and created a very attractive and pleasing environment in the Grenaby area.

Quite often, passivhaus or eco-build terminology is used as validation for exceptions to policy, giving permission to replace existing heritage with modern development. We are of the view that all new development should be obliged to build to a certain standard of low-energy efficiency, and that the use of this terminology should not be the persuading factor that permits development that is not within policy. It is more concerning that this is an application in principle, as once the replacement building principle is established, there will be limits to the

ability to ensure that it is indeed a complete passivhaus. Our existing heritage, stone cottages, traditional farm buildings, and Victorian town architecture is rapidly depleting, yet it is buildings like these that give the Isle of Man its unique identity and character, and make it so appealing and important to residents and visitors. They must be preserved as best as possible by adhering to policy.

Our final request is that the above application could be considered by Planning Committee, where as a Member, would of course declare an interest.

• 5.9.1 Representation dated 20 February 2020:

Note: The contents of this representation are particularly similar to that made on 4 January 2020 save for the following element:

It would be most disappointing if this application was successful, especially considering the immense amount of restoration work at the nearby Ballamaddrell Farm and Farmhouse, and indeed to properties further up Grenaby Road, which in our view have successfully maintained the existing traditional Manx vernacular and created a very attractive and pleasing environment in the Grenaby area.

• 5.9.2 Representation dated 20 February 2021:

Having viewed the amended design as referenced above, we would like our objections and comments in our latter dated 4 January (corrected to 2021) to be retained and do not wish to amend them following submission of amended elevations and site plan. We continue to object on the same grounds.

5.10 The owner/occupiers of Ballamaddrell House, Grenaby Road, Ballabeg have made the following comments regarding the application:

• 5.10.1 24 February 2020: I would like to object to the proposed development. I cannot find any record of a Structural Assessment being carried out on the property to ascertain whether it can be restored as per

Housing Policy 13. A restoration would certainly delight the many people who ask about the place and the old residents, who make journeys to the Island to give thanks for their time with Mrs Looney, who fostered them, after meeting with them (our house is a few yards down the road). My husband is compiling a photobook about it and copies will be distributed to the former residents.

It is a fascinating little house, with a rather rare single, central chimney. At one point, 11 people lived there: always "Waggoner's/labourers". The proposed development does not reflect this historic reality: architect has not obviously, seen the internal layout and has tripled the size of the building proposed (housing policy 14, 15 and 16).

Paving is key here. Parking would be off-road, necessitating many meters of hard standing. It doesn't work as a large dwelling without such a treatment. In this age of flooding, that just doesn't make sense. We have had 9 water outages in 18 months, as the old pipes are giving way under the increased volume of water and heavy traffic. The road surface is in a very bad way, which I am told makes matters worse.

Unfortunately, we have already lost many trees from the site (with no licence to fell). There are buzzards, kestrels, mistle and song thrushes, plus bats, 5 pairs of blackbirds and a (now homeless wood pecker). I urge you to allow such a needless, inappropriate spoiling of an important part of the vernacular heritage of the island.

• 5.10.2 07 January 2021:

I would like to object to the latest proposal for this characterful, historic building. As a representative of the Trust which owns the adjoining land, I must point out that the further removal of the trees on the site will adversely affect the shelter and drainage in the field behind the cottage. Added to this, the inevitable spoil from the site will, if not carefully disposed of, spoil the surrounding watercourses and land.

I was quite confused about the plan, as it shows two, differing 'South elevations', neither of which present a proportional aspect as one approaches the property from the south facing, as it does directly onto the road.

The materials involved in the design are completely uncharacteristic of the local architecture and while I acknowledge the intended "passive house" aspiration, I would like to think that the latter would be a standard requirement nowadays.

I'm also concerned about the lane which runs alongside the site; it floods frequently and all the hard-standing will only add to the existing problems. Added to this, I suspect that it will be the public purse which picks up the bill for the inevitable issues which this rash application creates. We are promised new drains on the Grenaby Road, as we frequently experience water outages. This proposal will put an additional burden on the system.

Standing as the site does on a road (in recent years, both busy and fast) which has a bend close by, travelling North, with a lane close by, agricultural machinery entering and exiting right opposite and on the Southern 100/Steam Packet Races access road, I have serious concerns for safety. I can't imagine, however "Grand" the design may be, that the "residential amenity" will match the price tag.

The proposal looks impressive but it doesn't fit. It is not remotely on the same footprint, it is not satisfying a need for essential housing in the countryside, it is not in a zoning area, neither is it on the area plan. I believe strongly that if it were granted, it would set a destructive precedent. We are losing our heritage too quickly. If we wish to attract staycation guests from here and the adjacent Isle, we must preserve SOMETHING of that which makes us unique.

An old lady called …"lived in half the cottage during the '30s'40s&'50s, she fostered anything up to six children at any one time. A few of those children remain and I am in contact with them, as they drift back. I dare not tell them what is being proposed." A happy little place- we lived small, but we lived well" as one of them said when she came looking. This unusual and important piece of Manx vernacular heritage deserves a stay of execution, or if unsalvageable, a proportional, sympathetic replacement.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this application are:

• i. whether or not the principle of the development meets with GP3 (d) and the tests of HP12 by reason of its current habitable status, architectural or historic interest and whether it is capable of renovation;
• ii. whether or not the proposed replacement meets with the tests of HP14 by reason of its siting, size, design and visual impact;
• iii. whether or not the proposal complies with Environment Policies 1 and the character appraisal for the area;
• iv. whether there would be any impacts on trees or habitats- GP2 (f) and (g) and EP4;
• v. whether there would be any amenity impacts on the adjacent neighbours - GP2 (g), and
• vi. whether the proposal presents any highway safety issues - GP2 (h) and (i).

- 6.2 GENERAL POLICY 3 AND HOUSING POLICY 12

• 6.2.1 General Policy 3 provides the remit within which dwellings in the countryside can be replaced by making specific reference to Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14. This is further articulated by Paragraph 8.11.1 which highlights that there are many existing dwellings in the countryside that contribute positively to the character and appearance of our landscape and that are a reflection of the agricultural and social change across the Island's built heritage. Those that are considered of merit should sought to be retained, with any changes which would result in overall environment improvement encouraged, and any changes resulting in a negative impact discouraged; conditions which require that such schemes comply with Housing policy 12 (b).

• 6.2.2 While it is noted that the existing dwelling has been left unattended for a long time with the building currently derelict, the original dwelling, in its own right, retains the strong form, structural proportions and general appearance of a traditional cottage, although with a spectacular twist due the positioning of its chimney which is centralised; factors that contribute both architecturally and historically to the Islands built heritage, as has been established by DEFA's Principal Registered Building Officer who has made the following comments regarding the dwelling: "Ballamaddrell cottage is a vernacular building, which may at one time have been a pair of cottages, it is unusual in that it has a central chimney stack, its appearance, form, and massing and materials are all vernacular and although abandoned it is still pleasing in its appearance.

Having reviewed the information submitted, it is my view that the property is of architectural and historic interest and is capable of renovation and I therefore object to the proposals.

Options should be explored that retain the existing structure but these should not seek to over extend the property and respect its scale, massing and form". These views have also been reinforced by the Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society who are of the view the dwelling should be retained and restored. It is also noted that a Structural Survey was submitted with the application which indicates that the majority of the dwelling can be restored.

• 6.2.3 Assessment of Loss of Habitable Status

• 6.2.3.1 In the same vein, HP 12 requires that the residential use of buildings which are the subject of applications for replacement should not have been lost by abandonment. When the submitted representations and supporting documents are put together, it can be concluded that the dwelling has lost its habitable status by abandonment due to the period of nonresidential use which is in excess of ten years (with no document to suggest otherwise). As has been suggested by one of the neighbours, the dwelling has been left unoccupied for a period in excess of 30 years; with the applicants providing no disproof to challenge the assertion. It is also considered that request was made via the agent to the applicants to provide evidence of rates payments or other documents that indicate that the building has not been abandoned, without success. The trees and shrubs that have grown into the building, dislodging some of the walls also serve as evidence of non-use for a long period.
• 6.2.3.2 From the site visit, there was no evidence of electricity supply to the building. As well, it was noted that water supply was non-existent as the current state of the building suggests that the piping works would not be in the state to be connected to the water supply network. Evidence from the structural report such as the decay of the floors and roofing members also suggests serious decay which could only result from long periods of non-occupation and use. The seventh paragraph of the structural report which states "The property is in a poor state of repair and it is clear that it has not been lived in for many years" also points to the long period of non-occupation which could be construed to be abandonment.

• 6.2.3.3 During the course of the assessing the application, the applicants were offered the opportunity to provide documents that show interventions taken to keep the property habitable and this has also not been provided. The application was also discussed extensively with the agents (four meetings; two involving the Head of Building Control), after it was suggested to the agents that the initial two-storey scheme would not be supported. Through the course of these meetings, various approaches to a replacement dwelling were considered with emphasis placed on the need to provide evidence to show that the dwelling had not been abandoned, with evidence provided through a structural report to show that the building was not fit for renovation. Two options were discussed at this time:

• i. Restoration of the dwelling with possible erection of a contemporary extension to increase living available spaces and make the dwelling fit for a modern family.
• ii. Demolition of existing building and erection of a new dwelling with emphasis placed on a contemporary dwelling with strong eco-friendly credentials.

These meetings ended on a note that a structural report, evidence of non-abandonment and a record of approaches taken to restore the dwelling, would be the basis for any approach taken. The applicants chose the latter option (ii) - to build a contemporary replacement dwelling, but with no supporting information to justify the approach taken, save the structural report. Since the structural report was received, no additional information or supporting documents have been provided to address the concerns with abandonment or intentions to restore and as such the application has been determined on the basis of the documents available.

• 6.2.3.4 The fact that there is no evidence of intervening use to suggest that steps have been taken to restore the building but failed to yield the required results; or any evidence of intention, or otherwise to abandon, it is considered that the application dwelling has lost its habitable status as a result of abandonment and the only approach suitable would be to restore the building with possible extensions to improve its functionality.
• 6.2.3.5 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the proposed development would fail to comply with 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.

- 6.3 COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSING POLICY 13

6.3.1 Housing Policy 13 sets the criteria for buildings which have lost their former habitable use by abandonment such as the application site by requiring that a new dwelling in this case can be formed by the use of the remaining fabric and the addition of a new fabric to replace that which was lost. Since the site is not located within a National Heritage Area, the application would have been acceptable if the scheme had proposed to form a new dwelling by integrating the existing building framework into a new dwelling given that the circumstances within the site complies with parts a, b and c of Housing Policy 13 since the building is still substantially intact, linked to a main highway and positioned such that it can benefit from available supply of electricity and potable water. Albeit, the scheme as proposed seeks to erect a completely new building which would be substantially different from the existing and as such would fail to comply with Housing Policy 13.

- 6.4 HOUSING POLICY 14 (SITING, SIZE, DESIGN AND VISUAL IMPACT)

• 6.4.1 HP14 generally states that any replacement must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, be not more than 50% greater than that of the original building and generally designed in accordance with Policies 2- 7 of Planning Circular 3/91. 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 or where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character and which would result in less visual impact.

• 6.4.2 In the case of the current application the proposal is to replace the existing building with an innovative contemporary build and on a floor area that is substantially larger than the existing, but on a single floor. This scheme, whilst not compliant with Policies 2 - 7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91, would be an acceptable build in terms of compliance with Housing policy 14 (in terms of siting and design) given that it would be innovative (integrating eco-friendly design elements with the scheme intended to achieve high efficiency standards of SAP 93+, with a target to achieve 97. As well, its finished design seeks to incorporate the reuse of the stones that are on site within the existing building, with the new fabric finished to match the materials of the original building on most parts of the new elevations. Additionally, even though the buildings floor area would be larger than the existing, its siting would be on the existing footprint and the works would result in overall environmental improvement of the site area due to the scale of landscaping and replanting works proposed for this site which has been poorly managed and considered derelict.
• 6.4.3 The issue of visual impacts on the area is somewhat debatable. Whilst it is considered that the area is characterised by traditional dwellings, the strategic plan is not completely against modern developments in the countryside as it provides for the incorporation of modern designs that promote sustainability and energy efficiency (See Paragraphs 4.3.8, 4.3.9, 4.3.10 and 4.3.11 of the Strategic Plan). As such, it is considered that the visual impact is variable, depending on the perspective of the beholder, especially when assessed in the light of the extent elements of the Strategic Plan relating to contemporary designs.
• 6.4.4 Overall, whilst is noted that the new scheme neglects the traditional form and proportions of a traditional cottage and Planning Circular 3/91, it is considered that the proposed scheme broadly conforms with majority of the guidelines stipulated in Housing Policy

14 and as such the development can be deemed to be acceptable in this regard.

- 6.5 ENVIRONMENT POLICY 1 & 4 AND CHARACTER APPRAISAL

6.5.1 In terms of compliance with Environment Policy 1, it is considered that no ecological assessment has been provided to give a clear indication of possible impacts on the ecology within the site even though it has been noted that the site holds potential to be inhabited by a range of plant and animal species given its current abandoned state. Moreover, the site has been suggested to hold potential for bats, however, no information has been provided in this respect. As such, it is considered that there is insufficient information to effectively ascertain the possible impacts on biota and as such its compliance with EP 1 and EP4 cannot be effectively weighed.

• 6.5.2 In respect of the impacts in terms of compliance with the character appraisal for the area, it is noted that the development will protect the tranquil, rural character of the area with its open views as the height and scale would ensure it is not an obtrusive development in the area; as well, the restoration of the hedging around the site boundaries and the replacement planting and new tree additions would ensure it complies with part (ii) of the character appraisal. Also, its position in relation to neighbouring dwellings would ensure it avoids physical or visual amalgamation of roadside housing, while the new dwelling whilst modern would conserve the rural character of the adjacent landscape, although its ability to protect and enhance the identity of Ballabeg and Colby is debatable given the varied mix of dwellings (both modern and traditional) in both settlements.

6.6 IMPACT ON TREES AND HABITAT

• 6.6.1 The DEFA Arboricultural Officer highlighted concerns with regards to the proposal and the impact on good quality trees within the site. He also highlights the fact that the implementation of a CEZ plan would fail to protect the trees on site. The applicants have however not provided a response or a tree management plan to address the concerns raised

by the Arboricultural officer. In this respect and minded of those comments provided by DEFA it is considered that insufficient information is provided to ensure the safeguarding of these trees and that the proposal would cause undue harm in their longevity and contribution to the wider visual amenity of the area. In this respect the application fails GP2 parts (f) and (g).

- 6.7 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURS

• 6.7.1 The proposal would result in a dwelling and arrangement of the site which would be apparent from the abutting highway, although this would be less apparent from the neighbouring dwellings given the distances between the application site and the neighbouring dwellings and the thick tree lines and shrubbery that define the boundaries of the properties in the locality. Therefore, it is not considered that there would be any impact in terms of privacy and overlooking. Also, the reduced height would ensure there are no overbearing impacts.

6.8 IMPACT ON HIGHWAYS

• 6.8.1 Highway Services have indicated support for the application, reinforced by the request for the imposition of conditions to cover the positioning of gates, turfed banks along highway, surfacing of driveway, the visibility splays at the site access, internal pedestrian and vehicle areas in accordance with the revised site plan and a note regarding a section 109a agreement for any works on the abutting highway. In this respect the application is considered to be acceptable.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 Granting some elements of the scheme for the replacement dwelling by reason of its siting and design would comply with Housing Policy 14, the proposed replacement dwelling would result in a 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 dwelling has lost its habitable status as a result of abandonment; a condition that would impede any scheme for replacement dwelling given its current structural state and the requirement of Housing Policy 13. The proposal also fails to sufficiently address the trees on the site, harm to and loss of which would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the ecology of the site and which in addition to the loss of the existing house could also detriment a habitat for the protected bat species recorded in the area. It is therefore recommended that the application be refused on these grounds. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 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;
• (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.

8.2 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

8.3 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:…12.04.2021

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 officerreport).

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 onlineservices/customers and archive records.

Planning Committee Decision 12.04.2021

Application No. : 20/00060/A Applicant : Middleton Securities Ltd Proposal : Approval in principle for the erection of a replacement detached

dwelling addressing matters of siting, access, internal layout, external appearance and design Site Address : Ballamaddrell Cottage Grenaby Road Ballabeg Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 4HD Planning Officer : Mr Paul Visigah Presenting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer’s Report

Interested Person Status: Whilst it was recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status: Heatherfield, 13 Victoria Road, Port St Mary,

The Planning Committee recommended that they should be granted Interested Persons Status on the grounds that although they do not live in the vicinity, they rent land within close proximity to the application site (accessed via the rear lane situated south of the application site), in addition to the fact that they have raised salient planning issues which should be considered.

Reason for Refusal/Conditions of Approval Delete as appropriate

• R 1. The proposed development would fail to comply with Housing Policy 12 (b) given that the existing dwelling is of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation, with the scheme failing to demonstrate intention to restore, despite the structural condition of the dwelling which is suitable for restoration.
• R 2. Notwithstanding the first reason for refusal, the planning application a) fails to demonstrate that the property has not lost its habitable status by abandonment; and b) does not provide

• sufficient information with regard to evidence of intervening use as stipulated in Housing Policy 12 and as such is considered to fail the requirement of Housing policy 12 (a) for replacement dwellings.
• R 3. The proposed development in terms of its approach to the formation of a new dwelling will fail to comply with Housing Policy 13, given that it is a rural dwelling which has lost its former residential use by abandonment as measured against the criteria set in Housing Policy 12.
• R 4. There is insufficient information provided with regards to trees and bats at the site which would lead to a conclusion that there would be no adverse impact in respect of these issues. The unacceptable loss or harm to the trees having an impact on the character of the site contrary to General Policy 2 (f) and (g) and the cumulative loss of the dwelling and trees without sufficient mitigation being provided would result in an unacceptable adverse impact on protected species and their habitat contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 4.

Plans/Drawings/Information